Created on: 8th December 2020

The nation is in jubilation because of the newly approved Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine, that will now be available to people in the UK. But what should be our response? Should we be hesitant to take it, or should we embrace it as the saviour it is being hailed?



Within this article, I will briefly examine the history of mRNA vaccines. Then I will look at the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine being distributed using the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidance document for healthcare professionals, along with medical journals, and health professionals statements. I hope that from reading this article, people will have sufficient information to make an informed decision about taking or not taking the vaccine. 



Historically scientists have found it extremely difficult to develop a coronavirus vaccine due to the complexity of the virus itself. Koirala (2020) astutely acknowledges, as does Roper & Rehm (2009) that while coronavirus vaccines in animal trials mimic human disease, they have not effectively prevented the acquisition of the virus.    Moreover, Edridge et al. (2020) insightfully highlight the concerns that vaccination, as with natural coronavirus infection, may not elicit/impart long-lived immunity, thus raising the high probability of re-infection.    However, more concerning is that mRNA vaccinations can increase the severity of the disease,  something Koirola et al. (2020) highlights stating: 

More concerning has been vaccine associated disease enhancement. Previous use of coronavirus vaccines (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV) in some animal models raised safety concerns regarding Th2 mediated immunopathology. 

Furthermore, Graham, Donaldson and Baric (2013) found that mice vaccinated with a recombinant DNA spike protein vaccine, or a virus-like particle vaccine developed irregularities within the lungs. Similar effects were observed by Deming et al. (2006) in older mice,   and Agrawal et al. (2016) found that mice inoculated with a SARS-CoV N protein vaccine developed severe pneumonia and lung complications when they came in contact with the live virus.    Moreover, Tatlow, (2020) insightfully highlights concerns with coronavirus vaccines stating: 

Another major concern with coronavirus vaccine development is the harmful inflammatory response known as antibody-dependent enhancement in which non-neutralizing antibodies bind to coronavirus and enhance entry into cells. 

Yet, while historically there have been difficulties in developing a coronavirus vaccine, no mRNA vaccine had previously been successful in any animal trial phase, and therefore had never been licensed.   However, this changed with the recent licensing of the Pfizer/BioNTech SARS CoV-2 (covid-19) vaccination, by the MHRA in the UK. A vaccine that took only months to produce. Personally, this raises significant red flags, especially as no mRNA vaccine had historically completed the standard and accepted longitude trial process that takes 10-15 years to complete. And that no previous coronavirus vaccine had been effective, rather the opposite, they had caused complications and therefore did not pass the animal trial phase. 



The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is an mRNA vaccine. Reg 174 information for UK healthcare professionals states: 

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is highly purified single-stranded, 5’-capped messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2. 

We can see from the above information that the vaccine is an mRNA vaccine that was produced in vitro (outside of a living host) synthesised from corresponding DNA templates, that rewrites the viral spike S protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. 

Messenger RNA is a specific structure, which has the same language as DNA. Messenger RNA structure is made up of something called a five-prime cap, information and a none scribed region at the end with a poly-A tail. It is the coded information within the mRNA that allows you to make proteins; ribosomes translate the code into protein. It is this protein that can be turned into any protein you want, dependent upon the instructions in the mRNA code. 

However, while the process of making proteins takes place in the cell, it is possible, because of reverse transcriptase enzymes inside our bodies, for the mRNA vaccine code to be taken up into the nucleus of the cell and integrated into the DNA; once transcribed this can become part of a person’s genome.  But, while manufacturers of the covid-19 vaccine believe this will not happen, there is precedence for this taking place. Certain viruses, such as HIV and hepatitis B, are taken up by the reverse transcriptase into the cell’s DNA, into the nucleus, to replicate the virus’ genomes through retrotransposon mobile genetic elements, that multiplies within the person’s body.  So, to say that this cannot transpire is incorrect. 



The vaccine went into trial phase one in July 2020, during which time Pfizer/BioNTech trialled four potential vaccines  amongst a total of 60 participants over the age of 16 years old.  They took the leading vaccine from study one into study two.  Study two was a multicentre, placebo-controlled efficacy study. Participants were drawn from a cross-section of society over the age of 12 years old; however, 40% were older than 56 years old.  

The population for the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint included, 36,621 participants 12 years of age and older (18,242 in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine group and 18,379 in the placebo group) who did not have evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 through 7 days after the second dose. 

Note in the above the results include children between the ages of 12 – 16 years of age. However, the MHRA’s summary of safety profile excludes those under 16 years of age in their analyses or study two.  During this phase, approximately 44,000 people participated, of which 21,720 received the COVID19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b and 21,728 received a placebo. At the time of analysis, only 19,067 remained, (9,531 who received the COVID19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b and 9636 the placebo) were evaluated for safety two months of receiving the second dose of the vaccine. This is a difference of 8711 participants in the CVOID-19 vaccine group and 8743 in the placebo. Thus less than half of the initial participants. Thus, when they state that the vaccination was 90% effective, this is 90% of the 9,531 people tested. Therefore, if the vaccine is 90% effective, this means that 953, out of the 9,531 people who received the vaccine, after two months did not produce immunity. So, how effective is this, especially as only a low percentage of people actually get sick from the virus. 

Furthermore, what happened to those under the age of 16 years of age who participated in the trial, which could be as many as 8,711 candidates? Why does the MHRA state ‘The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in children under 16 years of age have not yet been established.’  So, why has the vaccine not been established as safe for under 16-year-olds when the second study included children between 12-16 years of age? Furthermore, why does the MHRA information on the efficacy of the vaccine not show the results for under 16 years of age, but rather discuss the data for those over 16 years of age? Is it because the children who participated in the study, showed adverse effects? Is this why the vaccine is only licenced for use in persons over sixteen?   Now, you might say we would hear about that, but would we? If you think companies cannot cover up what they do, watch the film ‘Black Water’ on Amazon Prime. The film outlines how a chemical company covered up the poisoning of tens of thousands of people, something the government and regulators were complicit.  What about the tobacco industry who stated it was safe? We now know different, but have you ever thought why they do not just ban smoking?

The answer, it is the money. It is always about the money! Why when 8.2 million  people die every year from smoking-related deaths is it not banned, that is more than COVID-19?



So, what about those who can have the vaccine, how safe is it? What about pregnant women? What if someone has the vaccine but does not know they are pregnant, or conceives during the four-week period of having the vaccine and the booster – what effects could this have on the child? 

The MRHA guidelines state: 

4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation Pregnancy

There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy. For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose. 


It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding. 


It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility 

We can see from the medical information provided by the MHRA that the vaccine has the potential to cause harm to pregnant women. This may be because no tests have been conducted on pregnant women. However, one would have expected this to be undertaken during the animal phase of testing. In reality, what this does show is that the vaccine has not been adequately tested under acceptable timeframes and conditions, but has been rushed through due to the alleged threat posed by the virus. 

So, what would happen if a woman takes the vaccine and a year later becomes pregnant, what effect would this have on the development of the foetus? The sad reality is we do not know! However, Dr Madej astutely states that it could affect the unborn child, as the mother could pass on any mutation in her genome that has transpired. Something we should be concerned about. 

The MHRA go on to state further: 

The administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should be postponed in individuals suffering from acute severe febrile illness. Individuals receiving anticoagulant therapy or those with a bleeding disorder that would contraindicate intramuscular injection, should not be given the vaccine unless the potential benefit clearly outweighs the risk of administration.  Immunocompromised persons, including individuals receiving immunosuppressant therapy, may have a diminished immune response to the vaccine. No data are available about concomitant use of immunosuppressants.  



Why are those suffering from bleeding disorders, and persons receiving immunosuppressant therapy excluded from receiving the vaccine? It is because there is an increased risk of thrombosis and clotting that would present complications in people who have bleeding disorders. But why does it state there is no available date for people who are receiving immunosuppressant therapy, especially when there were people in study two with HIV and in receipt of immunosuppressant therapy? The MHRA document did not record any adverse effects in this group. Was this information suppressed/omitted similarly to those under 16 years of age was?  The absence of clear information continues to raise not only ethical concerns but also ones regarding transparency and accountability. 

Cardozo & Veazey (2020) insightfully highlights the paucity in the real dangers presented to those who participated in the Pfizer/BioNTech covid-19 vaccination trials, and the lack of transparency and ethical accountability. That candidates were presented with a generic statement about risks, but specific risks pertaining to the trial were either omitted or sugar-coated within an ambiguous terms; especially around the risk of lasting morbidity or death.    The risks to participants are evident within the medical literature, highlighting that the vaccine places vaccinees at a greater risk of developing more severe COVID-19 disease when presented with a live circulating virus. Furthermore, the risk around pregnancy and birth control is unknown, and therefore could have adverse effects or even cause infertility as previously found in more traditional vaccines.  Thus, Cardozo and Veazey (2020) forthrightly state that information should be provided to participants outlining the specific risks, and a separate statement about the risk of death and the lack of efficacy of the vaccine. 



Okay, Ozcan and Karahan, (2020) stated that ‘mRNA vaccines are relatively safe,’  but what do they mean ‘relatively safe’? Who would want to take a vaccine which is relatively safe? Is the term ‘relatively safe’ the reason why covid-19 vaccine manufacturers demanded and obtained an indemnity from litigation by governments prior to any orders being placed? 

Hodgson et al. (2020), further highlights how the limited trials conducted for the covid-19 vaccines will lead to a decrease in vaccine effectiveness. Especially as vaccine efficacy is different amongst age groups, ethnicity and social-economic standing.  For instance, the effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines in children was greater in higher-income countries compared with low to middle-income countries.  Similarly, age affects the effectiveness of a vaccine within the elderly, requiring the vaccine to have adjuvants to assist with absorption within the body.  Therefore, following deployment of the vaccination, a coordinated pharmacovigilance study must be established to ensure continuous vaccine evaluation. Thus, maintaining scientific critical appraisal and scrutiny



Madej (2020) insightfully highlights the difficulties in fully comprehending the risk and dangers of receiving the vaccine due to the limited information about what is in the vaccine.  However, from the limited data provided we can deduce some of the risks. One of the ingredients of the vaccine is “ALC-0159 = 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide;”  this is a nano lipid, best known by its generic name ‘hydrogel’. The polyethylene glycol – hydrogel – is a multipurpose adjuvant and nano biosensor that allows genetic material to enter cells within the host. It is the key for the mRNA vaccine to enter the body. However, hydrogel has the ability to go into different organelles within the hosts body. Thus, increasing the risk of the already mentioned reverse transcriptase process being achieved. Furthermore, hydrogels are highly allergenic in 70% of the world’s population. Therefore, posing the risk of an anti-inflammatory reaction,   something Tatlow, (2020) also highlights as being problematic with mRNA vaccines.  Additionally, hydrogels have an infinity with the nerves and brain tissue. Once the hydrogel has entered the cell, it will naturally gravitate to search out the nervous system. Therefore, one would envisage an increase in nervous system type side effects, such as seizures, migraines, fibre myalgia etc.  Furthermore, hydrogels once inside the body augment with and become inseparable from a person’s biology. Thus, preventing any reversal or removal of the hydrogel from the person’s body. Once injected, it in effect takes over the body, sitting dormant until needed. 

Hydrogels can be programmed to fulfil a plethora of tasks, from angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels,  loaded with fibrin nanoparticles and magnesium-doped bioglass, for regenerating irregular bone defects,  transmitting medicines and therapeutic applications through utilising its nano biosensor abilities.

Once in the body, nanobots have the potential to be reprogrammed and self-replicate or reconfigure whenever programmed by those with the link.  However, while they are hailed as a medical breakthrough in biosensors, they have drawbacks other than them being highly allergenic.  Certain hydrogels need to be stored at low temperatures. 

The inclusion of the hydrogels provides a reason to why the vaccine needs to be stored at excessively low levels, in cryofreezing temperatures? However, many people postulate that the cold storage temperature is due to the vaccine being an mRNA vaccine; but if this is the case, then why is the Maderna mRNA vaccine not stored at similar temperatures? While it is correct that mRNA vaccines do breakdown and require storing in lower temperatures, Ding et al. (2020) demonstrates that certain hydrogels require storing at very low temperatures.    Furthermore, Madej (2020) insightfully concurs and expounds further asserting that the bio-nanobots within the vaccine needs to be stored in stasis; thus why the vaccines are stored in cryofreezing temperatures, to ensure it remains healthy. However, storing the vaccine at these temperatures increases the risk of side effects;   this could be why sucrose has been added to the vaccine, as this is used to maintain the integrity of the bio-Nanos while in stasis.  – thus offering a reason to why the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine needs to be stored at excessively low temperatures too. 

The MHRA guidelines for health professionals further states that: 

As with any vaccine, vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 may not protect all vaccine recipients. No data are available on the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in persons that have previously received a full or partial vaccine series with another COVID-19 vaccine. 



Regardless of all the highlighted risks, the product information states clearly that it may not protect all participants, so if that is the case, why take it? Furthermore, the vaccine may only last for six months,  confirming what Edridge (2020) highlighted.  Out of the trial group, we know that 10% were not protected. But, while advocates for the vaccine focus on the 90% who are protected, 10% is a high number, especially given the potential risks. Furthermore, section 4.5 of the product information states that the medical product has not been tested with other vaccines, and therefore no data exists regarding risks of interaction with other vaccines or medication. This pertains to not only another covid-19 vaccine but also flu, or other vaccines the person may take. 



So, in light of the information presented, is the vaccine safe? Well, as Cardozo and Veazey (2020) insightfully stated there is an overwhelming amount of medical literature that highlights the risks in having a coronavirus vaccination.  So, is it safe to take? It is up to each person to weigh the risks and make an informed choice regarding either not taking the vaccine or having a nova vaccine that has not been adequately tested. Especially since the data from Pfizer itself regarding those participants has not been made available and the vaccine is not licenced for children under 16 years of age.  Furthermore, the lack of ethical transparency within the Pfizer tests questions not only the efficacy of the vaccine but also the risks. Yet, as Hodgson et al. have stated, continuous monitoring must be conducted, but is that not trying to bolt the stable door once the horse has got out?

Especially considering the risks associated with having an mRNA vaccine or hydrogel biosensor injected into one’s body, that has the potential to bond with the bodies nervous system and assists with the reverse transcriptase into the DNA of the nucleus, changing the host’s genome.  

Personally, I have not been convinced the vaccine is safe, nor am I convinced the vaccine has been thoroughly tested. Especially when the manufacturers are free from any litigation from persons who may suffer adverse effects from the vaccine, due to governments granting indemnity from any litigation. This is highly concerning and raises significant questions, especially when the government has not made this fact public. 



There is also a wealth of information I have not included in this article that is just as alarming as what I have highlighted. However, while there are clearly significant risks to taking the vaccine, there are more pressing matters that also require consideration. Have you not wondered why there is a global push for the vaccine when there are acceptable and effective alternative treatments? Protocols that are being neglected, and academics and health professionals who speak out about alternative treatments are vilified.    Moreover have you not contemplated what the coming Great Reset will mean to your life? Furthermore, why is the government referring to anyone who speaks out, who questions the governments narrative, the status quo as conspiratorial?  

The reality is we are in the midst of a global restructuring, a redistribution of not only power but global focus.  A restructuring that will usher in a global dictatorship unparalleled in world history. A dystopic Orwellian global system that will appear utopic but in reality, is inherently evil. A governance the Bible outlines as the antichrist Kingdom that will seek to subjugate not only the lives of everyone on the planet but also incarcerate their very souls. 

Presently there is a cosmic battle taking place for your very soul, between God and the devil and his demonic cohorts. This battle, while being fought in the heavens, will spill over into all realms of creation. Soon we will witness unprecedented global events, ones that will make the evils of the holocaust, and of the dark ages pale into insignificance, something I do not say lightly. Plagues, famine, pestilence and war is coming; the question is, are you ready, both practically and spiritually? 

The Bible speaks of the times we are now living and facing. God has warned His people beforehand; the question is are you listening to God or to the secular prophets – the media who say all is well, things will get better, we have a vaccine. The sad reality is the world, and in part, the church mocks God in its debauchery and pervasive rejection of His word, His instructions and commandments. 

Therefore, because we have sown lawlessness, we will reap an abundance of chaos and evil of unprecedented levels, as God gives humanity over to its evil desires. 

However, God continues to call out to those who would listen, seeking for them to draw close to Him, to listen to His voice, so He can protect them in these days. The question is, do you know God, have you heard His voice calling out to you? I am not speaking of other gods, rather I am speaking about the Living God of the Bible, who sent His son Jesus the Messiah to die for you and for me. There is ONLY one God, and there is only one way to gain salvation; that is through Jesus the Messiah. I urge you while you are contemplating the risks around taking or not taking the vaccine to spend a moment and think about the eternal consequences of rejecting GOD. The choice is yours; it has always been yours, what will you choose, life or death!


Freelance Researcher & News Compiler | *Nathan Barnard | Published | 2020 | December 08  | 08:00


The views expressed in this Opinion Editorial are entirely the view of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views held by the Editorial Board of ‘The Way, or the Trustees/Directors of 66Books.’


*Nathan Barnard - Co-Founder of Arrows of Ephrayim Ministries



[1] Koirala A., Joo Y.J., Khatami A., Chiu C., & Britton P.N. (2020). ‘Vaccines for COVID-19: The current state of play.’ Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, pp. 1-7.

[1] Roper R.L., Rehm K.E. (2009). ‘SARS vaccines: where are we?’ Expert Rev Vaccines, 8(7), pp.887–98.

[1] Edridge A., Kaczorowska J., Hoste A.C.R., Bakker M., Klein M., Jebbink M.F., Matser A., Kinsella C.M., Rueda P., Prins M., Sastre P., Deijs M., & Hoek L. (2020). ‘Human coronavirus reinfection dynamics: lessons for SARSCoV-2.’

[1] Koirala et al. 

[1] Graham R.L., Donaldson E.F., Baric R.S. (2013). ‘A decade after SARS: strategies for controlling emerging coronaviruses.’ Nat Rev Microbiol, 11(12), pp.836–48.

[1] Koirala et al. p2

[1] Deming D et al. (2006). ‘Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.’ PLoS Med, 3(12). p. e525-e525.

[1] Agrawal AS et al. (2016). ‘Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus.’ Human Vaccines Immunother, 12(9), pp. 2351–6.

[1] Koirala et al.

[1] Tatlow D. (2020). ‘A novel concept for treatment and vaccination against Covid-19 with an inhaled chitosan-coated DNA vaccine encoding a secreted spike protein portion.’ Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, online. DOI: 10.1111/1440-1681.13393

[1] Koirala et al.

[1] Roper & Rehm.

[1] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, (3rd December 2020). ‘Information for the healthcare professionals on Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.’ UK Government, online, accessed 3rd December 2020, available from

[1] Barnard N. (26th November 2020). ‘The coming vaccine – part one.’ The Portent Times, online accessed 27th November 2020, available from

[1] Breaking Israeli News Live. (4th December 2020). ‘NEW DR. CARRIE MADEJ — THE COVID TRAP — 'EVERY PERSON WILL BE RUSSIAN ROULETTE' — INL.’ Bitchute, online, accessed 4th December 2020, available from

[1] Morier D. (23rd November 2018). ‘Reverse transcriptase enzyme.’ Encyclopaedia Britannica, online, accessed 6th December 2020, available from

[1] Carl Zimmer & Katie Thomas, (1st December 2020). ‘Pfizer’s Covid Vaccine: 11 Things You Need to Know.’ The New York Times, online, accessed 1st December 2020, available from

[1] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

[1] Zimmer & Thomas.

[1] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. P. 7.

[1] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. P. 8.

[1] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. P. 6.

[1] Ibid.

[1] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

[1] World Health Organisation. (27th May 2020). ‘Tabacco.’ World Health Organisation, online, accessed 4th December 2020, available from

[1] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. P. 5.

[1] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. P. 6.

[1] Ibid.

[1] Breaking Israeli News Live.

[1] Ibid.

[1] Cardozo T., & Veazey R. (2020). ‘Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease.’ The International Journal of Clinical Practice, pp. 1-3.

[1] Wendler D. (2013). ‘What should be disclosed to research participants?’ Am J Bioeth. 13(12), pp.3-8.

[1] Barnard N. (2020). ‘The coming Vaccine – Part one.’ The Portent Times, online, accessed 26th November 2020, available from

[1] Cardozo & Veazey.

[1] Okay S., Ozcan O.O., & Karahan M. (2020). ‘Nanoparticle-based delivery platforms for mRNA vaccine development.’ AIMS Biophysics, 7(4), pp.323-338.

[1] Hodgson S., Mansatta K., Mallett G., Harris V., Emary K.R.W., & Pollard A.J. (2020), ‘What defines an efficacious COVID-19 vaccine? A review of the challenges assessing the clinical efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.’ Lancet Infect Dis. Pp. 1-10.

[1] Hodson et al. p.1.

[1] Hodson et al. p.2.

[1] Breaking Israeli News Live.

[1] Ibid. p. 8.

[1] Breaking Israeli News Live.

[1] Tatlow.

[1] Breaking Israeli News Live.

[1] Zhu W., Lui Y., & Weng X. (2020). ‘Strategy of injectable hydrogel and its application in tissue

Engineering.’ Chinese Medical Journal. doi:10.1097/CM9.0000000000001055  

[1] Vo T.N., Shah S.R., Lu S., Tatara A.M., Lee E.J., & Roh T.T. (2016). ‘Injectable dual-gelling cell-laden composite hydrogels for bone tissue engineering.’ Biomaterials, 83, pp. 1–11.

7. Huang Y, Zhang X

[1] Ibid.

[1] Ajinkya Bhat, 20014, ‘Nanobots: The future of medicine'. International Journal of Engineering and Management Sciences, 5(1), pp.44-49

[1] Tashnuva Rifat, Mohammed Shahadat Hossain, Mohammed Mahbubul Alam, & Abu Shara Shamsur Rouf, January 2019, ‘A Review on Applications of Nanobots in Combating Complex Diseases’. Bangladesh pharmaceutical journal, 22(1), pp. 99-108.

[1] Barnard N. (2020). ‘Testing is going down the sewers.’ The Portent Times, online, accessed 3rd December, available from

[1] Ding M., Jing L., Yang H., Machnicki C.E., Fu X., Li K., Wong I.Y., & Chen P.Y.  (2020). ‘Multifunctional soft machines based on stimuli-responsive hydrogels: from freestanding hydrogels to smart integrated systems.’ Materials Today Advances, 8., pp. 1-19.

[1] He L., Liang X., Gong S., Li X., Zhang M., Zhu S., Xiao H., Wu Q., & Gong C. (2020). ‘A spontaneously formed and self-adjuvanted hydrogel vaccine triggers strong immune responses.’ Materials and Design. Online,

[1] He et al.

[1] Breaking Israeli News Live.

[1] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. P. 8.

<span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri',sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN

Your Comments

posted by Tim Poland on 20-12-20

This article is outstanding and shows extreem and well defined logic and research. A standing ovation to the last paragraphs - a wonderful summation. God Bless you in!

posted by Christine Dumonceau on 09-03-21

hello from Edinburgh, Your article is very good. You have done your research and looked at the little pieces of the jigsaw and the bigger issues: the great reset, the press propaganda, the political agenda, the human aspect, the moral ethical side and looked at the way of life and added a religious/spiritual side which is very important aspect of life and humanity. Thank you so much for your article. I am researching both vaccines Astra Zeneca and Pfizer. I really don't like what I see. Around me people are taking "a " vaccines without doing research and friends and colleague are falling ill. I disconnected from religion aged 17, when I discovered the sex scandals within the church and came to terms with the Church attitude towards human life and poverty: how can you let it happen was the painful question from the age of 9. With everything going on in the world I look again at all facets of human life. Everybody whatever creed, gender and age, race and nationality are looking for answers and wisdom, understanding. Your articles shows once again that the brains are working, there are good people out there.

posted by Richard Helder on 02-05-21

I'm curious if you could comment on the possibility of the biosensors in the hydrogel penetrating the blood brain barrier in order to create a monitoring system of our brains via the internet.

posted by Patricia on 15-06-21

I'm in the US and have been very frustrated looking at US government agencies' websites (those ending in ".gov"). trying to get information about the ingredients in the COVID-19 vaccines and the effects of the different elements. Then, I cam across your information. I was very impressed with the level of competence and honesty in the article. After a few minutes I noticed the ".uk" and that this is a Christian website. Happy to see both. However, I'm very upset that I have to go outside my own country to get accurate information about something as important as this. I greatly appreciate your work and am sure I'll be back.

posted by Nancy Pelletier on 15-08-21

This is one of the best articles that have read. The Genetic therapy shot is evil within itself.When the genetic therapy shot was first being talked about there was plenty of info so that you could investigate it. Everything in it is bad for the human body. Then there is the fact that people started to question it and miraculously the info disappeared from the web and you really had to really to dig to find out what was going on but it took leaker to inform us about the graphene which does not show up on FDA or big pharm. company Ingredient list.. Lets see then you find out that they will not be held responsible for injuries caused by the Genetic therapy shot .The Veirs web site gave pretty good info if you could make your way through the highly embedded maze.By know everyone in the world should know that something is really wrong. I believe that this is the first time in the history of USA that a shot that caused so many deaths wasn't pulled off the market .So latest find for me CDC web site has a plan for internment camps for unvaccinated.

posted by Dennis Fox on 15-11-21

After this article's examination of the vaccines, a statement suggests that a person who chooses the vaccine rejects God. Is this because they have listened to the modern-day false prophets (media, et. all), or because they didn't trust God to protect them from the virus? There are other reasons to reject the vaccine, and also many reasons to get the vaccine. The matter is not resolved by this article because no Biblical reasoning is given. Some will say, 'if its good enough for the Pope, then...'. Of course that is bad reasoning. Leading people to avoid the vaccine without Biblical support is incomplete at best. - Some Christians will get the vaccine because they "want to do their part" for a "better world". There might be Biblical support for this idea Matthew 7:12. - Some Christians will get the vaccine even though they don't believe in it, because they are obedient. There are similar themes for this, like the Rev 13:16 (though this vaccine is certainly not the mark of the beast). - Some Christians will not get the vaccine because of unfounded beliefs or conspiracy theories, for example by use of cell tissue from the eyes of unborn humans. That is disgusting, and I don't know if it is true. Its a conspiracy theory. Isa 8:12. - Some Christians will not get the vaccine because they also don't eat anything unclean and see this as no different. Leviticus 11 The rest are understandably confused. This article is long and difficult to read, ending with a message of don't-do-it-for-God, which is a bit confusing too. I'm glad this article touches on the vaccine ingredients topic. But it needs spiritual help.

You can add your comment here