Toxicologist warns against Covid jabs “We could make an entire generation infertile”
During this time, the miscarriage rate is a whopping 82% – a recipe for disaster. Yet they continue to fraudulently fool you. Don’t fall for the manipulation and propaganda.
Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., is a molecular biologist and toxicologist and director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services LLC. On April 23, 2021, she submitted a three-minute public statement to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), Dr. Mercola writes.
Her expertise is in the analysis of pharmacological dose responses, mechanistic biology, and complex toxicity dynamics. In her ACIP commentary (see video here), Lindsay describes how, in the 1990s, she participated in the development of a contraceptive vaccine that ultimately caused unintended autoimmune destruction and sterility in animals, which had not been predicted despite careful preliminary analyses. She explains:
“We were developing a temporary contraceptive vaccine, which was very attractive because it stopped fertilization rather than preventing implantation – or it should have; that was the idea.
Unfortunately, even though a lot of research was done in different animal models to make sure that it didn’t have an autoimmune effect, in the end it did have an autoimmune effect and caused complete destruction of the ovaries.
Now it’s used that way [for permanent sterilization] in dogs, cats and other animals. So that’s a cautionary tale about how animal testing can help us avoid mistakes in humans, when used properly and when the right animal tests are done.”
We could, in fact, render an entire generation infertile
At the time, she called for an immediate discontinuation of the COVID-19 mRNA and DNA vaccines due to safety concerns on multiple levels. In particular, she noted that there is a plausible concern that they will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, eggs and placenta in ways that “may impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.”
No studies have refuted this hypothesis, she noted. Another theory about how these injections might harm fertility can be found in a 2006 study,1 which showed that sperm can take up foreign mRNA, convert it to DNA, and release it as small pellets (plasmids) into the medium surrounding the fertilized egg.
The embryo then takes up these plasmids and carries them with it throughout its life (supports and clones them into many of the daughter cells) and even passes them on to subsequent generations. It is possible that the pseudo-exosomes that form the mRNA content would be perfect for providing the sperm with mRNA for the spiking protein.
It is therefore possible that a vaccinated woman who becomes pregnant with an embryo that can synthesize (via the plasmids of the sperm) the spike protein according to the instructions in the vaccine, would have an immune capacity to attack that embryo because of the “foreign” protein it displays on its cells. This would then cause a miscarriage.
“We could in effect sterilize an entire generation,” Lindsey warned. The fact that there have been live births after COVID-19 vaccination is not proof that these injections have no reproductive effect, she said.
Lindsey also pointed out that reports of irregular menstruation and vaginal bleeding in women who have received the injections run into the thousands,2,3,4 and this too points to reproductive effects. In this interview we will explore these mechanisms in more detail.
Something went terribly wrong
When asked how she ended up getting so passionately involved in this controversial topic, Lindsay replied:
“I became interested in the subject because the science no longer made sense. For example, herd immunity was being redefined. Herd immunity has always been defined by a combination of the natural infection with vaccination practices that work.
Suddenly herd immunity was changed to immunity that can only be achieved by vaccination, and I knew that was terribly wrong, yet it was being touted everywhere. It was especially touted by [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and others who know better.
Other things were happening in the scientific community. Two of our top journals, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, published fraudulent hydroxychloroquine studies.
Ostensibly, these studies had undergone peer review, and it should have been easy to spot the errors in these studies – as well as many other studies that allow for emergency use authorization of these gene therapies – and they went unnoticed.
Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are very safe. They have been used safely in pregnant women and children for decades, and suddenly they were maligned as if they were not safe. As a toxicologist, I know they are safe.
So this kind of really caught my attention, along with everything that’s going on in the background regarding the New World Order and the agenda set by the World Economic Forum, and our participation in it, along with so many other countries, despite their intent, their materials, claiming that life will be changed as we know it.
We will “own nothing and be happy [with it]” in just a few years. All these things converged for me into a sense that something had gone terribly wrong, that our regulatory institutions had been hijacked, and that our scientific journals were no longer honest….
There is a paper that came out in 2006 called “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza. “5 This paper is wonderful. It goes through the World Health Organization and CDC guidelines on how to respond during a pandemic, what works and what doesn’t, and it clearly points out that masks don’t work.
They knew at the time that they didn’t work. Travel restrictions don’t work. It’s a wonderful document to go through everything we’ve done in response to this pandemic, and say this is an inappropriate way to respond, and we have scientific data that proves it. So I encourage everyone to go back to that document … to really see how crazy we’ve become with these mandates that make no scientific sense whatsoever.”
Huge dangerous signal is ignored
As Lindsay notes, in the case of the COVID pricks, important animal studies that help determine toxic and systemic effects have not been done. But we still see dangerous signals that should be heeded.
Preliminary safety results of mRNA COVID injections in pregnant women, based on data from the V-Safe Registry, were published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April 2021.6
According to this paper, the miscarriage rate in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy was 12.5%, which is only slightly above the normal average of 10%. (Looking at the statistical data, the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to only 5% between 6 and 7 weeks, all the way down to 1% between 14 and 20 weeks.7)
However, there is an obvious problem with this calculation, as highlighted by Drs. Ira Bernstein and Sanja Jovanovic, and Deann McLeod, HBSc, of Toronto. In a letter to the editor dated May 28, 2021, they pointed out the following:8
“In Table 4, the authors report a rate of spontaneous abortions <20 weeks (SA) of 12.5% (104 abortions/827 completed pregnancies). However, this rate should be based on the number of women who were at risk of SA as a result of vaccination and should exclude the 700 women who were vaccinated in the third trimester (104/127 = 82%).”
In other words, when you exclude the women who received the shot in their third trimester (since the third trimester falls AFTER week 20 and therefore should not be counted in determining the miscarriage rate among those who were injected BEFORE week 20), the miscarriage rate is a whopping 82%.
Of these 104 miscarriages, 96 occurred before 13 weeks of pregnancy, strongly suggesting that getting a COVID shot during the first trimester is an absolute recipe for disaster.
“They concluded, very fraudulently in my opinion, that it was safe to vaccinate in the third trimester, and said nothing about the clear safety signal in the first trimester,” says Lindsay. “It’s just so dishonest, so purposefully manipulative.”
As for the women who get the shot in their third trimester, it’s not yet possible to say what the long-term effects may be.
“We just don’t know, and that’s the problem,” says Lindsay. “There are all kinds of things that can go wrong with these kinds of therapies, and have gone wrong in animal models as well. We don’t know what will happen to these women or their children in the future. This can be passed on.
We see now that there is a lot of talk about constitutive expression, whether that is because the mRNA is not degraded or because of integration into the genome. That’s still being investigated.”
Children die of COVID puncture-induced myocarditis
Lindsay goes on to cite a CDC report showing that more than 300 children between the ages of 12 and 18 have died from myocarditis, a now-recognized side effect of the COVID shot.
We also know, based in part on whistleblower testimony, that more than 50,000 Americans have died within three days of these injections,9,10 and that’s just from one database (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS). There are 10 other databases that feed the CDC that the public does not have access to.
“So many deaths, it’s staggering and alarming,” says Lindsay. “Dr. Peter McCullough says the safety signal for typical vaccines, other than this gene therapy, would have been about 186 total. We’re now at 17,128 reported deaths in VAERS, as of October 15, 202111 , but they haven’t paused this in children.
They haven’t paused this while they’re investigating myocarditis. Instead, they’re pushing it even more. Has this ever happened before? I mean, is this happening in a scenario where the population is essentially not at risk for the disease? …
Just the cardiac deaths in perfectly healthy children, and the pulmonary embolism deaths in children, should stop this. They are not at risk [by COVID-19]. There is no reason to vaccinate them, absolutely no reason to give them these gene therapies because they are not at risk [from the infection] …
You know that [the shot] causes heart failure, pulmonary embolism and cardiac arrest in healthy teenagers, and you don’t pause to examine the risk versus reward scenario? Something is terribly wrong.
Unfortunately, our regulators will not stop this. They’ve clearly been hijacked. It is something we will have to do ourselves. Vaccinees and unvaccinated people need to join forces and say, “No, you are not going to experiment on my children” …
With the RSV vaccines and the dengue vaccines, we had deaths in children that were much less numerous, which also stopped these campaigns. It’s very, very clear – if you get nothing else from this interview with me, please understand that our regulatory and safety agencies have been hijacked.
They are not doing their job to protect you or your children. You should not trust them, because they are not doing anything according to the practices that were followed in the past. Clearly, they have been hijacked and compromised, and I hate to say that. I really hate to say that, but that’s the only logical answer …
We also have all these breakthrough cases. If you look at Michigan, and I have access to some other databases of actual mortality rates in different states, I can tell you that the media is lying about the fact that the unvaccinated cause 99% of the hospitalizations. They are absolutely lying.”
How the prick can sabotage fertility
Returning to the fertility issue, Lindsay cites a Singaporean study that examined whether the COVID shot can disrupt fertility by triggering anti-syncytin-1. The study involved 15 women, two of whom were pregnant. She explains:
“They did something I had asked for a long time ago, which was to measure anti-syncytin antibodies in an ELISA test. The syncytins are conformationally and genetically similar to the [SARS-CoV-2] spike protein, this fusogenic spike protein.
The thought of several experts was that you could get an autoimmune reaction to the syncytins by developing an immune reaction to the spike protein, and that would then prevent a successful pregnancy.
But the syncytins are also important in a number of psychological diseases, such as bipolar depression. They are important in autoimmune diseases, lupus and multiple sclerosis. They are present in skeletal muscle. There is an association with breast cancer. They are really important ancient retroviral elements.
What this study found was extremely interesting. It turned out that each of these vaccinated women developed autoantibodies to syncytin-1. The authors dismissed this and said, “Oh, but we don’t think those antibodies were high enough to mean anything.
But there was a clear difference between the pre-gentotherapy sera [blood sample] and the post-therapy sera … What it shows is that there is an antibody response, and the significance of it, we don’t really know. But each of the women developed an antibody response that was different from baseline … and I think that’s probably what caused some of these pregnancy losses.”
Are the COVID shots an Immunocontraception for the entire population?
When asked what she thinks the motive behind this mass injection campaign might be, given the obvious danger signals, she replied:
“I certainly think it would be naive not to think that it is a form of contraception for the whole population. There is an article that was published in 2005. It’s called ‘Evaluation of Fusogenic Trophoblast Surface Epitopes as Targets for Immune Contraception.’12
This article attempted to find contraceptive peptides in individuals who already had infertility problems and were isolated from placentation. So it was a reverse approach, collecting the sera of people with fertility problems and trying to see what they had antibodies to that caused the fertility problems …
This work was sponsored by the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation [and the National Institutes of Health]. That’s no surprise. It was then picked up by a company called AplaGen that patented it in 2007.
These are 12-mer peptides, and there’s a series of eight of them that can be used to induce sterility. When they patented it, they also said that it could be used to improve sterility. Interestingly enough, it was also associated with all the things that we know syncytin is associated with, – lupus, skeletal muscle disorders, bipolar depression [and] a number of other things.
Although they didn’t name the syncytin proteins as the proteins that were targeted, they worked backwards from these peptides, and then said it was a series of other proteins. Sometimes we know that proteins can be called the same thing in different discovery areas. So, that will take more research, but it was certainly interesting to me.
What it really highlights is that there have been attempts to use peptides or immunocontraceptives at the interface of the placental trophoblast to cause sterilization… So, it would be naive to think that this was not on the plate for future use.”
How long will the effects last?
An obvious question is, how long will these effects last? Are they lifelong? Of course, any answer we give here will only be hypothetical, because the studies just haven’t been done yet. But with her background in molecular biology, Lindsay is at least qualified to theorize.
The mRNA is extremely fragile, which is why a nanolipid with a polyethylene glycol delivery system is used. In addition, about 30% of the mRNA is genetically modified to reduce degradation. As a result, the injected mRNA is many times more robust than natural mRNA.
In addition, the nanoliposomes provide superior penetration into tissues, and we now know that it spreads throughout your body. It doesn’t stay in your deltoid muscle. However, how long this modified and stabilized mRNA remains viable is still unknown. A corollary is the question of whether this mRNA can be integrated into your genome and have a permanent place.
“The answer is that we don’t know for sure,” says Lindsay. “Of course, the adenoviral vector vaccines [Janssen and AstraZeneca] are more amenable to integration into the genome. We know that from animal studies and previous experiments.
With the mRNA technology, we have never stabilized something like this before. What we do know is that recent studies – Bruce Patterson’s group and another group – have both found that the spike protein is expressed, is present on monocytes, and has been from the time people received the gene therapy.
So that gives us an indication that it is resistant, certainly, to degradation. The longer it stays around and is resistant to degradation, the more likely it is that genomic integration can occur. But I don’t know if it will become a permanent trait or not.”
Make a rational choice
As Lindsay explained, despite 20 years of effort, no successful vaccine against the coronavirus has ever been brought to market. They have all failed due to antibody-dependent amplification, where the vaccination facilitates rather than protects against infection.
“If all these gene therapies do is reduce the diseases, then they are not a vaccine, they are a treatment. You have to use common sense to say, why shouldn’t I use a treatment that has been known to be safe for 70 years, as opposed to a brand new, experimental treatment?” ~ Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D.
Now we are to believe that in just a few months a safe and effective coronavirus “vaccine” has been developed. She also makes another important point. Because the COVID gene therapies do not prevent the infection, but only reduce the symptoms, they are actually a treatment, not a prevention.
And there are much safer and more effective treatments available, including nebulized peroxide, ozone therapy, and Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin cures.
“If all these gene therapies do is reduce the diseases, then they are not a vaccine, they are a treatment,” she says. “It’s a treatment whose medium- or long-term effects you don’t know, which have already caused some side effects. You have to use common sense to say, why shouldn’t I use a treatment that has been known to be safe for 70 years, rather than a treatment that is brand new, that is experimental?”
Other safety signals
In addition to fertility problems, heart inflammation and blood clots, another side effect observed in the fully “vaccinated” was de novo type 1 diabetes in adults. This makes sense given Pfizer’s biodistribution study that showed that the spike protein accumulates in the pancreas. The natural SARS-CoV infection may also have this effect.
Type 1 diabetes is a serious problem because it leaves you with metabolic handicaps for the rest of your life and dependent on extremely expensive insulin injections. Doctors also report an increase in pancreatic cancer and acute myeloid leukemia.
How do we move forward?
“Many scientists and doctors are thinking the same way I am and trying to figure out how to move forward,” says Lindsay, “because our usual safety and regulatory agencies have been compromised.”
She believes we must continue to share the data and facts that the mainstream media refuse to discuss, and continue to urge those who have received the shot to at least protect their children.
“We need to stand together as one people and say we are not going to accept this, especially for our children, and try to get to the bottom of this and see what is really behind all these efforts. Is it really about a virus, or is it more about other political motivations and campaigns, as it seems to be?”
I am less optimistic about the idea of breaking through the brainwashing to get people to not sacrifice their children. Many have cemented their minds with misinformation. They let their brother, sister, mother or father give them the shot and die with the needle still on their arm, still getting a booster the next day.
I’ve seen it so many times. My friends, their parents, their siblings and loved ones – there is a barrier that prevents any openness to new information. They have made their decision. Mark Twain said, “It is much easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled.” And it’s true.
So, while I agree that we should keep trying, and have faith that the truth will prevail, I also think it’s important to have realistic expectations. We are dealing with the most effective propaganda campaign in modern history. It is psychological warfare at its best.
From my point of view, as a pragmatic realist, I think the best strategy is to strengthen and support those who didn’t buy into the propaganda narrative to begin with, because they don’t struggle with that cognitive dissonance. If we stick together and support each other, so that none of us get sucked into the madness, then we can at least maintain the control group.
Eventually the truth will come out, as long as we can maintain the control group. In a year or two, or three, we will be able to say clearly how devastating this intervention was simply by comparing the two groups. I suspect that those who received the jab will be severely paralyzed in various ways, and those who did not receive the jab will have much better health by comparison.
“I absolutely agree that we need to keep a control group. We also need to think of ways we can help those who have been injured. I brought this up in a letter I wrote recently, advocating for Dr. McCullough.
People who have received this vaccination, if they have medium- to long-term side effects, if you deny that there really are side effects, then the efforts that go into those treatments for people who have side effects will not be there. We have to accept that these [side effects] are real to help people who have already received the vaccinations, and I think we should try to do that.”
Sources and references:
- 1 Molecular Reproduction and Development 73(10):1239-46
- 2 MSN April 10, 2021
- 3 UK Gov Yellow Card Report Unspecified Brand March 28, 2021 (PDF)
- 4 Life Site News April 19, 2021
- 5 Biosecurity Bioterror 2006; 4(4): 366-375
- 6 NEJM 2021; 384: 2273-2282
- 7 Medical News Today January 12, 2020
- 8 Wayback NEJM Letter to the Editor June 27, 2021
- 9 US District Court of Alabama Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00702-CLM (PDF)
- 10 The Defender July 20, 2021
- 11 OpenVAERS Data as of October 15, 2021
- 12 Contraception April 2005; 71(4): 282-293