By Mary Goetsch
Aurora, Ill.
In response to Vince Smith’s commentary in the September 30 Reader’s Commentary, with the headline, “Nonsense commentaries must cease,” I wish to give my credentials for rejecting COVID vaccination. I am an all-but-dissertation in biological sciences-nutrition from the University of Texas (UT-Austin).
I was studying cell membranes receptors, and glucose tolerance and lipid metabolism related to cell health. I dropped out in 1984 because there was no laboratory grant work going on. The (Ronald) Reagan administration cut much science and medicine budget in 1983. In 1973 I worked in the UT-Austin immunology lab under an NSF grant.
Bill Suhayda wrote in the September 16 Reader’s Commentary about the 97.5% scientist concordance with whom ever provides the funds. My experience was the same. The government works hand to hand with academics as well as public health doctors and CDC, FDA, and Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci was there all during the 1980s’ work on the HIV virus and the fact there can be no effective vaccine. The SAR-CoV-2 is an m-RNA retrovirus which works a different life cycle than what a traditional vaccine can capture. The argument that COVID vaccines are the answer just as vaccines wiped out polio, smallpox, and measles, is not comparable because COVID is an entirely different type of virus.
I use common sense to evaluate claims. One thing to look for is the completeness of studying important variables. For example, the “Science News” September 25 edition, reported another mask experiment. The study was only for the direction of air flow going out from one’s mask. There was no consideration for going the other direction. I wanted to know the percent effectiveness going from outside to inside the person’s body.
The average 48% reduction of virus-laden aerosols did not mean nearly as much as what it would be in keeping out those virus-laden aerosols. Common sense engineering tells me the force of air flow is much greater going outward from exhalation than what the force is from air breathed in once it reaches the nose.
Here are some other rhetorical questions. I never have been given answer from Pfizer, or, all the journalists I have queried about the exact type of immunoglobulins which are generated from those COVID inoculations. Cellular immunity is a catch-all term to include immunoglobulins. A true vaccine generates IgG. They fit lock and key and the cellular memory lasts a lifetime. The body can generate new ones.
If the COVID vaccines work, there should not be a need for boosters. If those natural antibodies weren’t good enough, exactly what makes the new vaccines better? Let’s suppose it really has been the same mutant Sars-COV2 all along. Then there would be no need to reformulate, which is what the boosters, the same shot as previously.
Finally, one can ask the question in my choice of preference for death rather than suffer the future consequences of repeated m-RNA shots of lipid-coated nanoparticles which can remain in the lymph nodes, and there is no way to guarantee safety, but there have been historical similarities during terrorist, or tyrant, situations where the victims have chosen a quick death.
The 9-11 attacks 20 years ago were filmed and we saw in horror the many individuals who leaped to their deaths rather than being burned and trapped in the buildings. We don’t know what we would do when pressed with two horrifying choices.
This COVID-19 pandemic has become no less complicated in the various means of mitigation. Masks, vaccines, testing, quarantine, and taking of temperatures. I believe in common sense, being extremely careful of exposure, and keeping down both cost and profits to big Pharma, medicine, and hospitals. Taking temperatures now seems out of the equation. Why? No profit in it?
The good news I do see is those annoying pop-up ads on Facebook for getting vaccinated finally have ended. I posted a video from Plandemic theorist M.D. Vladimir Zelenko. It was posted without censorship.
We need independent newspapers such as The Voice. It is for all of us to discern the value of a particular article. I think platforms are a good thing.