Late Review

An opportunity missed, perhaps.

Just a few days ago a long time friend and fellow freedom fighter asked me if I had seen a very recent paper detailing the contents, some undisclosed, of so-called vaccines for covid. He was interested in my opinion of the paper. Yesterday I noticed an article on the same paper in CHD’s the Defender.

I was intrigued by the title of the paper but my intrigue soon turned to disappointment upon reading it. I do not think that the paper received sufficiently critical peer review and herein I will briefly point out why I have this opinion.

I have reviewed thousands of manuscripts destined for publication in academic journals. I always begin by reading the Materials and Methods in order that I can be confident that any data presented as results are sound.

The M&M presented in this paper are not sufficient for me to understand if the research was carried out with a high level of competence. For example, something as fundamental as the nature of the vials that contained each vaccine is not described. I have carried out many analyses on the content of human vaccines. Usually such products are supplied as ready-made preparations with a sample volume of 0.5 or sometimes 1.0 mL. What is the volume of these vaccines? We are then told that samples were extracted from each vial using a 5 μL Hamilton syringe and that the weights of samples extracted were in the range 0.22 - 0.33g. It may be a few years since I was active at the bench but in my day a 5 μL Hamilton syringe was used to dispense a liquid volume of 5 μL. This volume of liquid, for example if dispensing pure water, would weigh 0.005g not 0.22 - 0.33g. Let us assume that this is a typographical error not picked up in peer review. However, why did the authors not use the whole vaccine preparation, presumably 0.5mL, and chose to subsample from it instead. Sub-sampling from an heterogeneous solution such as a vaccine preparation is fraught with myriad problems.

Digestion of vaccine samples was carried out in concentrated nitric acid only at room temperature. In my experience nitric acid at room temperature is unlikely to produce an homogenous digest for subsequent analysis.

Scant details are given concerning the method used to measure each chemical element and while mention is made of such things as limits of detection and blanks no data are presented for these important criteria.

Now take a look in the tables as to how the contents of each vaccine are presented. They are given as concentrations, μg/L, and not as expected as amounts, for example μg/vaccine. The latter would tell us how much of any specific element was present in a single injection of a vaccine. Data presented as μg/L may have a tendency to over inflate the data. For example, in Table 3 it is recorded that one of the vaccines contained 810μg/L aluminium. However, since the volume of the vaccine is 0.5mL, not 1.0L, then the actual amount of aluminium in this vaccine is 0.405μg. What this informs us generally is that of those elements listed in Table 3 only sodium, magnesium and potassium were in excess of 1.0μg/vaccine. Indeed the amount of many of the elements listed in Table 3 are so miniscule that it is beyond my understanding as to how the authors were able to measure them, but that is another story for those with an analytical background.

If you apply this logic to the data in all the tables you will very quickly notice that there are very few elements where their content exceeds 1.0μg/vaccine. So, did they really measure ‘55 undeclared chemical elements’ in these covid vaccines?

Just perhaps, my reading of these data is in error and the authors will be able to correct me by replying to this post. However, I can only use the information and data as presented in this paper and using such I cannot fault my logic.

Actually the most revealing data in this paper are those presented in Table 2. Who knew how many different substances are added in constituting a single vaccine. Myriad ingredients apparently. What should be taken into account when considering these myriad ingredients is that vaccine manufacturers will not be using ultra-pure versions of the ingredients. This would make the vaccine much too expensive to make. So, all of the ingredients are themselves contaminated with other chemical elements and it is likely these contaminants that constitute any true undeclared chemical elements in the vaccine. Of course, vaccine manufacturers should carry out full chemical analyses of all their products before they are released to the market. They do not do this nor are they compelled to this by any regulatory body charged with protecting the public from dangerous products. Perhaps this is where the emphasis of this particular paper should be centred since nothing presented at present convinces me of the 55 undeclared chemical elements in covid vaccines.