The Tale of the Worthless Vaccine

Italian scientists protest funding for vaccine safety investigation was the title ran by the international journal of science Nature. Upon contacting representatives from the longtime Italian advocacy group the Corvelva association for the article, Nature’s questions weren’t about how Corvelva is helping Italian citizens understand their rights and procedures after a vaccine injury. Nor was Nature interested in the scientific arm of the organization, founded in 1993, that has been doing essential research to contribute to the biological and chemical analyses on vaccines. Nature, along with other select Italian scientists, focused on a minor €10,000 donation Corvelva received from the Italian National Order of Biologists. Nature’s headline could have simply taken the oxymoronic title Scientists protest science. 

Corvelva stated that they were going to use the donation, along with the other €40,000 they have collected, to study whether the components of widely used vaccines are the same as those indicated on the label, and to look for contaminants. Three days after Nature’s nothing burger article, Corvelva released its first vaccine analysis focusing on GlaxoSmithKline’s Infanrix Hexa – a six-in-one vaccine that’s supposed to contain the antigens for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis toxoids, inactivated poliomyelitis viral strains 1-2-3, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b. Instead Corvelva’s analysis found none of the antigens the shot was created to vaccinate its recipients against.

A vaccine without any antigens present, for which the body would creates antibodies against, appears to be included in the routine immunization schedules of many countries currently. Put simply, this vaccine, as it has been found through analysis, is absolutely worthless using the lens of conventional vaccination theory and provides zero, scientifically verified, protection. Are all Infanrix Hexa vaccines missing the proper antigens? 

Why didn’t Nature mention Corvelva’s findings in their ‘Science protest science’ article? Why aren’t they doing a follow-up article? Why hasn’t GlaxoSmithKline given a public statement? If the Infanrix Hexa shot can’t protect against anything, why is it still being given publicly? Why isn’t the herd immunity crowd demanding this shot be investigated? What is the purpose of this vaccine and why is it still on the market and being recommended [to the tune of three doses] to infants by government health bodies?

The other bombshell part of the story revolves around what Corvelva did find in the vaccine from their scientific analysis? Not only were the stated vaccine antigens not detected, there was found to be 65 signs of chemical contaminants of which only 35 percent is known. Various processing residues and cross-contaminations from other manufacturing lines or the manufacturing process are the likely culprits according to Corvelva. Also found were various bacterial peptide toxins. Corvela writes in their analysis:

“Literature reports bacterial peptides as potential allergens 5 and also as capable of inducing autoimmune reactions 6 and these too put a safety issue that needs to be further clarified with the regulatory bodies.”

Curiously, the researchers also found in GSK’s Infanrix Hexa vaccine an insoluble, indigestible macromolecule that couldn’t be recognized by any protein databases. Corvelva writes, “This macromolecule could not be recognized in any way by the protein databases, and in fact it turned out to be a solid compound of an unknown chemical structure.”

After reviewing Corvelva’s report, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny said of GSK’s vaccine, “it is all risk and no benefit.”

As with most inconvenient findings that run counter to the ‘safe and effective,’ ‘settled science’ vaccine narrative, Corvelva’s scientifically irrefutable findings as well as the shot’s potentially catastrophic health risks to those still receiving it on a daily basis are being ignored by mainstream media, the medical community and regulatory agencies. Are Corvelva’s findings a one-off situation?

In 2013 Sanofi’s Haemophilus b conjugate vaccine, or ActHIB, was found to have glass shards contained within it. The glass contaminants are created by delamination which occurs when vaccine vials shed flakes of glass called lamellae. Rather than recalling the shots or issuing warnings, Sanofi allowed doctors and nurses throughout the country to continue injecting babies with the potentially problematic ActHIB for another year and a half. According to an investigation by The Morning Call, the FDA did not push back either. After the regulatory agency found out about the issue, it accepted the company’s assurances that the vaccine was safe.

Perhaps the most thorough and expansive scientific findings about the true contamination contained in vaccines once again came out of Italy in 2017. Researchers Gatti and Montanari published their findings from the analyses of 44 samples of 30 different vaccines. Their investigation showed all samples contain non-biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies of metal nanoparticles which are not declared by the producers. It has been over a year and regulatory agencies have made no indication they plan to investigate the metal debris contamination. In addition, there has been no pause in recommending the contaminated vaccines or plans to further investigate how widespread the contamination is from health oversight and regulator bodies.

Who can you trust? Seeing the continued science showing vaccine contamination adds yet another layer of issues being ignored by regulatory health bodies with respect to vaccines and their safety. With each new finding of vaccine contamination, the public is walking away from recommended vaccine schedules in droves. Those with agendas and their uneducated followers purposely being kept in the dark will be quick to blame the growing refusal to vaccinate on anti-vaxers, Russians, fake news or Andrew Wakefield. Yet at this point, the vaccine risk deniers only have themselves to blame for an imploding public vaccination scheme due to their refusal to openly debate findings like Corvelva’s as well as a mountain of other unsettled science continually being presented.