Credentials for me but not for thee!
There are only Experts™ on the side of the narrative so this expert's opinion is hard to swallow if you don't think there's a problem with that.
It’s one of those funny (peculiar) things that have emerged during the COVID scam that those who appeal most to credentialism to support the narrative are also the ones who completely disregard the expert opinion of those who do not.
I often used to list the credentials of experts whose opinions I read, not as an appeal to credentialism, but just to make the point.
I haven’t done it for a while, so here are the credentials of Robert Clancy:
Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle Medical School.
Member of the Australian Academy of Science’s COVID-19 Expert Database.
Co-founder of the Society for Mucosal Immunology, an international body for the study of immunity at mucosal surfaces, including viral infection of the respiratory tract.
Erstwhile Senior Fellow of the College of Pathology, a foundation Professor of Pathology, and past-Chairman of the College committee for undergraduate pathology education.
I think that qualifies Professor Clancy as an expert even though he’s not an Expert™?
And his opinion? My précis:
Together with a political structure desperately needing a narrative, the world was powered by the belief that genetic vaccines would save the day.
Denial and ignorance fall in line with a narrative, with those who ask questions excluded from participation in the discussion by methods which have ranged from accusations that the offenders are “anti-vaxxers” to the de-registration of health professionals.
Anyone compromising vaccine roll-out had to be “cancelled” and demonised as well, just for good measure, irrespective of the quality of the person, their expertise or the logic of their argument.
“False news” was a term used to ensure compliance with the vaccine narrative, supported by government, regulatory organisations, professional bodies, journals and individual health professionals.
The world press fell into line to “combat the spread of harmful disinformation”. None could demonstrate their “belief” to be to fact, nor would they debate those who questioned the narrative.
[…]
Two basic truths were ignored or not understood.
The first was that the natural history of COVID-19 as an infection of the respiratory tract was determined by the outcome of a host-parasite relationship (the interaction between the infecting virus and the immune response) involving the mucosal immune response.
The second was that introduction of an experimental genetic vaccine to prevent an infection of a mucosal space was unnecessary, limited by the biology of the infection, and fraught with potential for unpredictable adverse events.
[…]
Repeated antigen dosing from vaccination, often in combination with intercurrent COVID infection, leads to more infections and more severe disease reported in multi-vaccinated subjects, so that COVID has now become a pandemic of the vaccinated.
Vaccination has no significant effect on virus spread as it doesn’t stimulate mucosal immunity. Indeed the multi-vaccinated excrete virus for longer periods, due to the suppression effect discussed above.
None of this should surprise, as “desensitisation” (multiple antigen shots for allergy subjects) effectively suppresses allergic reactions for about five years, via the same mode of action.
Natural immunity from COVID infection is broader and more durable than that following vaccination, while immunisation post-infection adds to the risk of impaired immunity due to specific immune suppression.
Genetic vaccines are liable to dysregulation and unpredictable outcomes, as synthesis of spike protein (the antigen) is not localised, but present throughout the body, with spike protein manufacture lasting weeks to months. The amount of antigen and the dynamic of its production is uncontrolled, creating critical dose-response parameters that influence the net immune response, underpinned by reports of poor vaccine quality control with variations between lots. These factors promote net immune suppression.
Both mRNA and DNA vector vaccines have been ineffective in earlier limited human studies, with no evidence of advantage over antigen-based vaccines.
But… they had great patents creating a huge commercial opportunity which converted into historic and extraordinary windfall profits.
It’s as simple as that.
Short-term adverse events following genetic vaccines show significantly more deaths following genetic vaccines than lives saved from COVID by vaccination. These ratios are higher in children who rarely develop severe disease.
Longer-term disease possibilities that must be investigated further include integration of spike protein genetic coding into DNA, and prion sequences within spike protein that may cause amyloid deposition in neural tissue.
Numerous legal challenges current across the Western world may be the only way to bring clarity and sense to the table, with reversion to a tested pattern of safe, science-based medical practise, based on the relationship between doctor and patient.
Full article:
He’s an inconvenient expert. I think even “the experts” would agree that Prof. Clancy is an expert. They just don’t give him any airtime. He is too hard to debunk so they just pretend he doesn’t exist.
Considering all big pharma is under control of US DOD and DARPA I’m not holding out hope for transparency or change 😞