Press "Enter" to skip to content

Guest post: The Hunt for COVID-19 “Vaccine” Ingredients

The following is a guest post by Mac the Knife. The word “vaccine” is initially in quotes not because of some conspiracy theory but because the COVID shots apparently neither convey immunity nor prevent inoculated people from spreading the disease. More accurate (and non-political) terms for them might be treatments or inoculations.

—–

By Mac the Knife

It all started when my newly found niece (a long story involving Ancestry.com), who works at a CVS pharmacy, sent me the Janssen COVID-19 “vaccine” Insert that I had requested.

It was a very thick document. After I unrolled it turned out to be both the size of an armchair and absolutely blank except for a small square of information directing the curious to a web site, www.vaxcheck.jnj.

Even when you go the their specified website, to find the information that would normally be printed on the package insert you have to click on “Continue,” then click on the two dialog boxes on the right for Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers and Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine.” (Both are available in multiple languages)

I never did learn why none of this was printed on that colossal, outsized blank sheet. Maybe because it still isn’t colossal and outsized enough, or perhaps because its contents keep changing faster than print can handle?

You may also wonder why Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine is called the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. Janssen Pharmaceuticals is headquartered in Beerse, Belgium, and owned by Johnson & Johnson, which acquired the company in 1961.

I decided to keep investigating, focusing on what ingredients the three inoculations given Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. contain and what placebos were used in the trials.

The ingredients for the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine are:

recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus type 26 expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, citric acid monohydrate, trisodium citrate dihydrate, ethanol, 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HBCD), polysorbate-80, sodium chloride.

The ingredients for the Pfizer-BioNTechCOVID-19 Vaccine are:

mRNA, lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2
[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-
phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium
phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers

The ingredients for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine are:

messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), lipids (SM-102, polyethylene glycol [PEG] 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol [DMG], cholesterol, and 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine [DSPC]), tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, acetic acid, sodium acetate trihydrate, and sucrose.

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers

You can use the following two web sites to find out more about the properties of the ingredients in the vaccines.

PubChem gives you a great deal of information about the chemicals and also provides a link to PubMed on some of the chemicals if they were used in medical studies. PubMed has a log-in Button, but I have found that you can search without creating an account.

—–

The next roadblock I ran into was trying to find what placebos were used in the vaccine trials. Here are two very interesting articles about those placebos. “Placebos Used in Vaccine Trials Do Not Please Everyone” and “TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls.”

From the first article:

So now we arrive at a particularly tricky example: a trial where, by all indications, a saline placebo should be used but is not. A team in the United Kingdom is conducting a trial of a new COVID-19 vaccine (charmingly called ChAdOx1 nCOV-19) and they are comparing it not to a saline injection but to a vaccine against meningitis. It has been reported as the only frontrunner for a COVID-19 vaccine that is not using a true placebo as a control.

The World Health Organization’s expert panel on placebos used in vaccine trials does underscore the validity of using a different vaccine as a control (one whose safety is well characterized), but notes that it “may also be less acceptable to regulators or public health authorities and potentially delay approval or adoption of a new vaccine.” I reached out to the team conducting the UK trial and was told the reason they changed their mind from using a saline injection to using the meningitis vaccine was that saline injections don’t cause a sore arm, which might unwittingly reveal to the volunteers what group they are in. No soreness after the injection? You may have received a placebo, which could alter your behavior and thus add a nasty variable to explain away the results of the trial. Emphasis added by me.

According to the trial results for the three vaccines it looks like they do not use a saline placebo. They all report redness, pain, and swelling at the injection site for their placebo group, which indicates they did not use a saline placebo. I could not find anywhere what the placebo consisted of. If you want to see the trial results for each vaccine you have to scroll down to near the bottom of the second document listed for each vaccine.

Has the COVID-19 virus been completely isolated? The answer as far as I can tell is no. A letter (scroll down) to The BMJ (wholly owned by the British Medical Association) on 12 October 2020 asks:

Dear Editor:

We are told that the virus is everywhere – in the air, in our breath, on fomites, trapped in masks — yet public health authorities seem not to be in possession of any cultivable clinical samples of the offending pathogen.

In March 2020, the World Health Organization instructed authorities not to look for a virus but to rely instead on a genome test, the RT-PCR, which is not specific for SARS-CoV-2.

A Freedom of Information request to Public Health England about cultivable clinical samples or direct evidence of viral isolation has no information and refers to the proxy RT-PCR test, quoting Eurosurveillance.

Eurosurveillance states: “Virus detection by reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) from respiratory samples is widely used to diagnose and monitor SARS-CoV-2 infection and, increasingly, to infer infectivity of an individual. However, RT-PCR does not distinguish between infectious and non-infectious virus. Propagating virus from clinical samples confirms the presence of infectious virus but is not widely available (and) requires biosafety level 3 facilities.”

The CDC admits that, “no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available”, and used a genetically modified human lung alveolar adenocarcinoma cell culture to, “mimic clinical specimen.”

It appears, therefore, that we have public health bodies without clinical samples, a test which is non-specific and does not distinguish between infectivity and non-infectivity, a requirement for biosafety level 3 facilities to even look for a virus, yet we are led to believe that it is up all our noses.

So, where is the virus?

(ED. NOTE: The original of the letter contains footnotes not reproduced here. See link above to read them.)

The CDC also admits that they have not isolated the COVID-19 virus. And I have not found anything to the contrary. Go to the section on “Performance Characteristics of the Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Test” on page 43 to read the following:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

I realize this is a lot of information to digest and people have to make their own decisions. For myself, I am 76 years old, healthy, and I will not accept any of these experimental vaccines. If they try to force me it will not turn out well for them.

—–

That’s the end of Mac the Knife’s observations. I’m sure I speak for us both when I say your input is welcome. I have many friends who’ve accepted the vaccines, usually because they have older relatives or friends at high risk for COVID complications. My own choice is to avoid the shots until long-term testing has been conducted and/or we see the long-term consequences of their use in real life. If forced to accept any of the available choices (for instance, if everyday life became impossible without it), I’d go for the Johnson & Johnson. That’s just me. OTOH, the mRNA vaccines are not only inadequately tested, but mRNA technology itself has a history of hopeful efforts followed by bad-to-disastrous results.

Anyone who wants to know more should check out The Living Freedom Forums (membership required), particularly the posts on this subject by Nuclear Druid.

17 Comments

  1. Fred M
    Fred M April 27, 2021 5:23 am

    So it’s what I’ve found out earlier. There has been no isolation of the Chinese virus. It does not exist. And we were fed a bunch of lies by people who want to reduce the world’s population and exert control through a one world government.
    May God help us!

  2. Bill T
    Bill T April 27, 2021 5:43 am

    I can see why there’s a rush to push everyone into taking the “vaccine”. The more I read the more I am in-inclined to take this. FYI, last October the wife got a serious case of the Wuhan. Went from running 5 miles a day to bed ridden for 5 days. I was locked up with her for 14 days and never got it much to the surprise of the doctors. Both of us will be avoiding this shot for as long as possible as we both feel that it’s not necessary given our history.

  3. Jeff2
    Jeff2 April 27, 2021 5:54 am

    I suspect that the Wuflu is a normal conrona virus cold. In the statistics, deaths for Covid-19 appear to have replaced regular flu deaths and many of the deaths from cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other comorbitities. Almost none of the information being provided by the media is verifiable. The flu vaccine has a average mortality rate of 1 in one million. So far, based on reports to VAERS (which are voluntary) the mortality rate for the Covid-19 vaccines is 40-50 times the flu vaccine rate. It may be a lot more since even the CDC admits that VAERS may only represent ~10% of the actual numbers.

    One thing that is verifiable is that there have been no succesful case studies of mRNA treatments in animals. In most of the studies, the test animals died either of the treatment itself or of re-infections of what the treatment was designed to prevent.

    I suspect that by the end of the next cold/flu season, we will have a much better idea of the dangers of this experimental treament (if that’s what it is).

    Jeff2

  4. Granny
    Granny April 27, 2021 6:39 am

    Thank you for that write up. I will refuse the vaccine under all circumstances. I’ve been very sick with the flu at least twice in the past year, both from very close (huggy, kissy face) exposure to my adorable grandchildren. Each time it took a couple of weeks to recover. I use medicinal teas and vitamins (vitamin C, D3, and Zinc tablets) to help with recovery, along with homemade chicken broth and rest. I have a compromised immune system from an incurable cancer. I am not going to stop living, nor am I going to take an experimental vaccine to hasten my death because I have a very important role in life: gramma. I have avoided in person “medical care” for over a year because of the asinine procedures in place to get treatment of any kind, while I pay exorbitant health insurance costs. In my opinion, the majority of our “healthcare” personnel have lost their collective minds, even in the face of copious education, they insist that “masks work” to stop the virus. I call B.S. It would be like pouring sand through a sieve.

    It is my opinion that the virus, and this is well documented should one care to research, is being used as a control mechanism. There are some people getting awfully rich on vaccine patents!! So many mom and pop businesses destroyed due to the lockdowns, so many children who have lost a year of education, the purchase of goods and services funneled to big corporations such as Amazon due to the lockdowns. The whole thing is a sham in my opinion. That’s where I’m at. LOL.

  5. Cube64
    Cube64 April 27, 2021 7:42 am

    Thanks for your report. The amount of obfuscation, de-platforming and suppression of open debate about everything having to do with CV-19 vaccine and the push for passports is chilling.

  6. Comrade X
    Comrade X April 27, 2021 7:48 am

    No jab for me;

    https://nojabforme.info/

    but there are some who can find something about all this to smile about;

  7. Thomas L. Knapp
    Thomas L. Knapp April 27, 2021 10:51 am

    If the mRNA products were my only choice, I’m not sure I’d go for it. Fortunately, I’m a clinical trial volunteer for Novavax’s product, which is a more traditional “protein subunit” vaccine. I just had my third shot in a “crossover” that ensures all participants actually get vaccinated. If the first two shots were the vaccine, the second two will be placebo and vice versa.

  8. Toirdhealbheach Beucail
    Toirdhealbheach Beucail April 27, 2021 8:17 pm

    For the most part, the non-specific vaccine excipients are typical for what you will find in many drugs. If you have taken any drugs at all, likely you have taken some of these ingredients, most likely without any issue.

    I understand that many people consider it to be a version of the flu. To date I have lost two relatives to this – in both cases, the ultimate cause was deprivation of oxygen due to the inability to breathe, not typical of the flu. What is also not mentioned in the article is the fact that a certain percentage of survivors exhibit long term health conditions, which is not typical of the flu.

    More information on the vaccines would be helpful, and it would be useful if the Health Authorities would push the companies to clear define timelines for the additional safety and efficacy studies that are needed.

    That said, for me, if taking the vaccine means my elderly parents and in-laws are safe and I am able to see them, that is a risk that I am willing to take.

  9. larryarnold
    larryarnold April 27, 2021 8:23 pm

    Since I already successfully wrasseled the bug, I believe I’ll get by on natural immunity.

    The insane part is there are boatloads of people who went through the same 2020 I did, but are saying, “Let’s give more power to government.”

  10. Ron Johnson
    Ron Johnson May 1, 2021 6:03 pm

    What bothers me in all of this is that none of the stats are reliable. None. We have no idea what made people sick in 2020 because no virus was isolated. We don’t know how many had the live virus because the PCR test was not specific to SARS COV 2, and because the PCR test was incapable of distinguishing between live viruses versus harmless genetic particles. We have no idea how many people became ill because the ‘cases’ included people who had merely been exposed to the disease but were not sick themselves. We have no idea how many people died ‘of’ Covid instead of ‘with’ Covid, though some estimates claim that only 6% of deaths would have been counted as Covid deaths if we used the definitions in common use prior to March 2020. We don’t know how many people have been injured or killed by the vaccines because self reporting is subject to significant bias that could result in a significant under or over count.

    I confess to ignorance, despite having read innumerable reports and listened to umpteen doctors and researchers, and I dare say I’m a lot better informed that any elected public official I have heard speak (with the possible exception of DeSantis). Still, the elected officials speak with absolute certainty about Covid, vaccines, safety, XYZ…. Through sheer chutzpa they have become authorities about an unknowable disease and an untested cure. In other words, they are first class liars.

    I don’t listen to liars. I’m 63. I had all the symptoms of Covid. Pretty damned sick for two days, got better in seven. Fully recovered in thirty. That’s all I know. Oh yeah, I also know I’m not taking their vaccine.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp
    Thomas L. Knapp May 1, 2021 6:15 pm

    “We have no idea what made people sick in 2020 because no virus was isolated.”

    Wrong.

  12. Jim
    Jim May 1, 2021 6:31 pm

    Please don’t add to public hysteria and conspiracy theory. The virus was isolated despite the articles claim above. It’s genetic code was published by more than one independent source and that’s pretty darned hard to do without an isolated organism. People, lack of your science training does not mean the science is bad. It means you are a Dunning-Kruger subject

  13. Ron Johnson
    Ron Johnson May 2, 2021 5:29 am

    Jim, my understanding is that the genetic code was derived from a small amount of genetic material and a large amount of computer generated assumptions, but that the actual virus was not isolated. That seems to be confirmed by the CDC document that stated they did not have a sample of the actual virus as of summer 2020.

    If my information is wrong, please correct me. I’ve been wrong about many things in my life and I’ve made corrections to long-held beliefs based on new evidence. To label my beliefs a ‘conspiracy theory’ doesn’t help move the conversation forward.

    I’m at a loss of where to look for confirmation of your statement. Can you point me in a direction?

  14. Thomas L. Knapp
    Thomas L. Knapp May 2, 2021 5:44 am

    “That seems to be confirmed by the CDC document that stated they did not have a sample of the actual virus as of summer 2020.”

    The CDC document says no such thing.

    What it says is that no quantified virus isolates were available at the time of the development of the PCR test for purposes of determining that test’s limit of detection. The virus had been isolated and sequenced, but there weren’t large stocks of standardized quantities lying around yet. So they used transcribed RNA (synthetically produced genetic material identical to that of the virus) as the control for figuring out how much virus had to be present for the test to detect it.

  15. Ron Johnson
    Ron Johnson May 2, 2021 8:31 am

    Thomas, mea culpa. I had read a critique by a doctor of the technique used by the CDC and he concluded that the lack of controls and possibility of contamination would give a false result. In reading the original document from the CDC, it appears that the critic did not include some important information that negates his thesis.

    Thanks for taking the time. and effort to straighten me out.

  16. Thomas L. Knapp
    Thomas L. Knapp May 2, 2021 9:11 am

    Ron,

    No problem. The information landscape on COVID-19 is a mess. The government certainly hasn’t been truthful (in fact, every time Fauci changes direction, he brags that he was lying to us before because we’re too stupid to understand), and it’s hard to figure out what the hell’s going on at the best of times.

Leave a Reply