Health 101

Amazing Facts Not Being
Reported by the Media
From Frank Shallenberger, MD, HMD

Dear Patients and Friends,

Last week I must have been asked 20 times about the new COVID-19 vaccines. Here are my thoughts. Please pass this information onto as many people as you can. People need to have fully informed consent when it comes to injecting foreign genetic material into their bodies.

1. The COVID-19 vaccines are mRNA vaccines. mRNA vaccines are a completely new type of vaccine. No mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed for human use before. In essence, we have absolutely no idea what to expect from this vaccine. We have no idea if it will be effective or safe.

2. Traditional vaccines simply introduce pieces of a virus into the body to stimulate an immune reaction. The new mRNA vaccine is completely different. It actually injects (transfects) molecules of synthetic genetic material from non-human sources into our cells. Once in the cells, the genetic material interacts with our transfer RNA (tRNA) to make a foreign protein that supposedly teaches the body to destroy the virus being coded for. Note that these newly created proteins are not regulated by our own DNA, and are thus completely foreign to our cells. What they are fully capable of doing is unknown.

3. The mRNA molecule is vulnerable to destruction. So, in order to protect the fragile mRNA strands while they are being inserted into our DNA they are coated with PEGylated lipid nanoparticles. This coating hides the mRNA from our immune system which ordinarily would kill any foreign material injected into the body. PEGylated lipid nanoparticles have been used in several different drugs for years. Because of their effect on immune system balance, several studies have shown them to induce allergies and autoimmune diseases. Additionally, PEGylated lipid nanoparticles have been shown to trigger their own immune reactions, and to cause damage to the liver.

4. These new vaccines are additionally contaminated with aluminum, mercury, and possibly formaldehyde. The manufacturers have not yet disclosed what other toxins they contain.

5. Since viruses mutate frequently, the chance of any vaccine working for more than a year is unlikely. That is why the flu vaccine changes every year. Last year’s vaccine is no more valuable than last year’s newspaper.

6. Absolutely no long term safety studies will have been done to ensure that any of these vaccines don’t cause the cancer, seizures, heart disease, allergies, and autoimmune diseases seen with other vaccines. If you ever wanted to be guinea pig for Big Pharma, now is your golden opportunity.

7. Many experts question whether the mRNA technology is ready for prime time. In November 2020, Dr. Peter Jay Hotez said of the new mRNA vaccines, "I worry about innovation at the expense of practicality because they [the mRNA vaccines] are weighted toward technology platforms that have never made it to licensure before.” Dr. Hotez is Professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology & Microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, where he is also Director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

8. Michal Linial, PhD is a Professor of Biochemistry. Because of her research and forecasts on COVID-19, Dr. Linial has been widely quoted in the media. She recently stated, "I won't be taking it [the mRNA vaccine] immediately – probably not for at least the coming year. We have to wait and see whether it really works. We will have a safety profile for only a certain number of months, so if there is a long-term effect after two years, we cannot know."

9. In November 2020, The Washington Post reported on hesitancy among healthcare professionals in the United States to the mRNA vaccines, citing surveys which reported that: "some did not want to be in the first round, so they could wait and see if there are potential side effects", and that "doctors and nurses want more data before championing vaccines to end the pandemic".

10. Since the death rate from COVID-19 resumed to the normal flu death rate way back in early September, the pandemic has actually been over since then. Therefore, at this point in time no vaccine is needed. The current scare tactics regarding “escalating cases” is based on a PCR test that, because it exceeds 34 amplifications, has a 100% false positive rate unless it is performed between the 3rd and 5th day after the first day of symptoms. It is therefor 100% inaccurate in people with no symptoms. This is well established in the scientific literature. See the attachment below, "False Positive Rate for PCR Testing" for more information on this.

11. The other reason you don’t need a vaccine for COVID-19 is that substantial herd immunity has already taken place in the United States. This is the primary reason for the end of the pandemic. But you won't hear about this from the media, because...

12. Unfortunately, you cannot trust what you hear from the media. They have consistently got it wrong for the past year. Since they are all supported by Big Pharma and the other entities selling the COVID-19 vaccines, they are not going to be fully forthcoming when it comes to mRNA vaccines. Every statement I have made here is fully backed by published scientific references.

13. I would be very interested to see verification that Bill and Melinda Gates with their entire family including grandchildren, Joe Biden and President Trump and their entire families, and Anthony Fauci and his entire family all get the vaccine.

14. Anyone who after reading all this still wants to get injected with the mRNA vaccine, should at the very least have their blood checked for SARS-COV-2 antibodies. There is no need for a vaccine in persons already naturally immunized. [Note from Don: The absence of antibodies to the SARS-COV-2 virus does not mean the person has no immunity to the virus. Memory T-Cells is what actually provides a person with "immunity" to a virus. When these cells detect the presence of the virus to which they are encoded for, in this case, the SARS-COV-2 virus, they make the antibodies that then attack the virus. So after the body first deals with the SARS-COV-2 virus, there will be antibodies to the SARS-COV-2 virus around for a while, but not forever; but they don't need to be... that's what Memory T-Cells are for.]

Here's my bottom line: I would much rather get a Ccoronavirus infection than get a COVID-19 vaccine. That would be safer and more effective. I have had a number of COVID-19 cases this year. Some were old and had health concerns. Every single one has done really well with natural therapies including ozone therapy and IV vitamin C. Just because modern medicine has no effective treatment for viral infections, doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.

Yours Always,

Frank Shallenberger, MD, HMD

Garade, Damien (10 November 2020). "The story of mRNA: How a once-dismissed idea became a leading technology in the Covid vaccine race". Stat. Retrieved 16 November 2020.

Cooney, Elizabeth (1 December 2020). "How nanotechnology helps mRNA Covid-19 vaccines work". Stat. Retrieved 3 December 2020.

Verbeke, Rein; Lentacker, Ine; De Smedt, Stefaan C.; Dewitte, Heleen (October 2019). "Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development". Nano Today. 28: 100766. doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2019.100766.

Roberts, Joanna (1 June 2020). "Five things you need to know about: mRNA vaccines". Horizon. Retrieved 16 November 2020.

PHG Foundation (2019). "RNA vaccines: an introduction". University of Cambridge. Retrieved 18 November 2020.

Pardi, Norbert; Hogan, Michael J.; Porter, Frederick W.; Weissman, Drew (April 2018). "mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology". Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 17 (4): 261–279. doi:10.1038/nrd.2017.243. PMC 5906799. PMID 29326426.

Kramps, Thomas; Elders, Knut (2017). "Introduction to RNA Vaccines". RNA Vaccines: Methods and Protocols. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-6481-9_1. ISBN 978-1-4939-6479-6. Retrieved 18 November 2020.

Dogan, Ellie (25 November 2020). "COVID-19 vaccines poised for launch, but impact on pandemic unclear". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41587-020-00022-y. Retrieved 30 November 2020.

"Seven vital questions about the RNA Covid-19 vaccines emerging from clinical trials". Wellcome Trust. 19 November 2020. Retrieved 26 November 2020.

Jaffe-Hoffman, Maayan (17 November 2020). "Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long-term?". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 17 November 2020.

Eugene Gu (21 May 2020). "This is the hard-to-swallow truth about a future coronavirus vaccine (and yes, I'm a doctor)". The Independent. Retrieved 23 November 2020.

Rowland, Christopher (21 November 2020). "Doctors and nurses want more data before championing vaccines to end the pandemic". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 November 2020.

Thomas, Katie (22 October 2020). "Experts Tell F.D.A. It Should Gather More Safety Data on Covid-19 Vaccines". New York Times. Retrieved 21 November 2020.

Kuchler, Hannah (30 September 2020). "Pfizer boss warns on risk of fast-tracking vaccines". Financial Times. Retrieved 21 November 2020.

Guarascio, Francesco (2 December 2020). "EU criticizes 'hasty' UK approval of COVID-19 vaccine". Reuters. Retrieved 2 December 2020.

Berglund, Peter; Smerdou, Cristian; Fleeton, Marina N.; Tubulekas, Loannis; Liljeström, Peter (June 1998). "Enhancing immune responses using suicidal DNA vaccines". Nature Biotechnology. 16 (6): 562–565. doi:10.1038/nbt0698-562. ISSN 1546-1696.

Garde, Damien (10 January 2017). "Lavishly funded Moderna hits safety problems in bold bid to revolutionize medicine". Stat. Archived from the original on 16 November 2020. Retrieved 19 May 2020.

Jaffe-Hoffman, Maayan (1 December 2020). "Hadassah research head raises questions about mRNA vaccine safety". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 1 December 2020.

Doshi, Peter (26 November 2020). "Pfizer and Moderna's "95% effective" vaccines—let's be cautious and first see the full data". British Medical Journal. Retrieved 3 December 2020.

Reichmuth, Andreas M; Oberli, Matthias A; Jaklenec, Ana; Langer, Robert; Blankschtein, Daniel (May 2016). "mRNA vaccine delivery using lipid nanoparticles". Therapeutic Delivery. 7 (5): 319–334. doi:10.4155/tde-2016-0006. ISSN 2041-5990. PMC 5439223. PMID 27075952.

Wadman, Meridith (27 November 2020). "Public needs to prep for vaccine side effects". Science. 370 (6520): 1022. doi:10.1126/science.370.6520.1022. Retrieved 27 November 2020.

The Covid-19 epidemic has now been replaced with a "testademic". Ever since the early part of September the death rate in the US has been the same as it always is – no increase in the death rate. Of course, at first glance this seems to contradict the fact that the positive test rates for Covid-19 have been going through the roof. We have to ask the question, if the number of "cases" is going up so dramatically, why is the death rate the same?

If Covid-19 is such a deadly virus, then as more and more people are infected with it we should see an increasing death rate. But, that is not the case. The fact is that as the supposed infection rate has gone up, the death rate has remained the same. So, what are the possible explanations for the apparent contradiction? There are only three.

The first is that the virus has mutated and is no longer deadly. A second explanation is that we now have therapies that can routinely cure Covid-19 infections that were not being used before. The third possibility is that the Covid-19 tests we use are full of false positives, and the increasing number of positive "cases" being reported are not positive cases at all. So, let's examine each possibility.

Viruses virtually always mutate. The evidence is that Covid-19 is constantly mutating. So, it is very possible that it has mutated into a harmless virus. That would mean the end of the epidemic. However, that possibility does not appear to be the case because even though the death rate is now no higher than with the standard flu, people can still die from Covid-19. So, a viral mutation is not likely to solve the contradiction.

Okay, so what about new therapies that are now successfully treating the infection that were not being used before? This is also not a likely explanation. That's because it's not happening. There are no new therapies being used in the US. No doubt our doctors are getting better at what they are doing, but doctors are still treating Covid-19 with the same therapies that were being used at the height of the epidemic. Also, if this were the case, we would have no need to fear a new surge of deaths.

So, that leaves us with the third possibility – the test is inaccurate and full of false positives. And that's where a newly published study in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology Infectious Diseases can shed some light. But, hold onto your seats ladies and gentlemen. Because of what you are being told, you are probably not going to like what I am about to show you. In my newsletter, Second Opinion, I reported back in April that in some studies the Covid-19 test produced up to an 80% false positive rate. Now it looks like I was underestimating how bad it really is.

There are three ways to test for Covid-19 infections. One is by direct viral culture. The good news with culture testing is that it is 100% accurate. The bad news is that it is expensive, labor intensive, and takes a long time to perform.

The second way is with antigen testing. Antigen testing is very reliable, but is also very prone to miss the diagnosis. According to Harvard University, "The reported rate of false negative results is as high as 50%, which is why antigen tests are not favored by the FDA as a single test for active infection."

The third test method is PCR testing. This is the test that the majority of the reports are using. The good news here is that PCR testing is inexpensive and relatively fast. The bad news as you will see, is that when it is improperly performed, it is useless. It all has to do with amplification.

The PCR test works by detecting fragments of genetic material common to Covid-19. But, because the genetic material is so minute, in order to find these fragments the specimen has to be amplified many times. The more times you amplify it, the more likely you will find the fragments that can indicate a Covid-19 infection. The study I am going to be telling you about shows how the number of amplifications used in the testing process determines how accurate it is. The shocking findings are that the number of amplifications currently being used renders the test completely useless.

What the researchers did was to examine 183 specimens of patients who were positive on the PCR Coivid-19 test. They were looking to see if the number of PCR amplifications used on the specimens had an effect on the accuracy of the test. To determine that, they compared the results of the test when it was performed with various amplifications to whether or not the patient also had a positive culture. As I explained above, a positive culture is the only way to be 100% sure if a patient is infected.

What they learned was that when the number of PCR amplifications was between 13-17, 100% of the PCR positive patients had a positive culture. In other words, a positive PCR test was 100% accurate when the number of amplifications was between 13-17. However, as the number of amplifications increased, the number of false positives also increased. How much did they increase?

When they got to 33 amplifications, they found that 88% of the patients positive on the PCR test were negative on the culture test. That means that when 33 amplifications were used, only 12% of the patients who were positive on the test were infectious with Covid-19 – a false positive rate of 88%. But, that's not all.

According to the researchers, "No culture was obtained from samples with a Ct >34 [an amplification count greater than 34]." In other words, when the specimen was amplified beyond 34, patients with a positive PCR test had absolutely no evidence for an infection. 100% were false positive!

I know it's is hard for many to believe given the fear being promoted in the media, so let me just quote the authors of the study. "In the present work, we observe a strong correlation between Ct value [amplification number] and sample infectivity in a cell culture model. On the basis of this data, we can deduce that with our system, patients with Ct values [amplification values] equal or above 34 do not excrete infectious viral particles." In other words, at that level of amplification all the PCR test is finding are fragments of genetic material that are meaningless. Or in the words of Dr. Fauci, specimens that are positive at greater than 34 amplifications represent "dead nucleotides" and nothing more. Now, here's the punch line.

According to the New York Times, 100% of the labs offering PCR testing are amplifying the specimen more than 36 times. In other words, every single one of those "positive cases" you are being bombarded with are false negatives! Elon Musk, the genius who created the Tesla automobile, just learned all about this the hard way. He had four Covid-19 tests. Two were positive, two were negative. He might as well have flipped a coin.

Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health underlined the extent of the problem when he was quoted in the Times saying, "In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold [amplification] of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles." In other words, at 30 cycles of amplification, the false positive rate was between 85-90%.

But, this study is not the only evidence pointing to the incredibly high false positive rate with PCR testing. The other evidence is in the remarkable difference from state to state in death rates attributed to Covid-19 compared to the number of positive PCR tests.

For example, how it is possible for New Jersey with less than 30,000 positive tests to have a death rate higher than North Dakota with over 60,000 positive tests. I doubt it is because the medical care in New Jersey is so bad compared to North Dakota. And, it makes no sense at all to explain the difference by assuming that the Covid-19 virus in North Dakota happens to be more deadly than the version in New Jersey. Similarly, although Kansas has 40,000 positive "cases" the death rate is the same as West Virginia with 15,000 "cases" (www.worldometers.info). The only reasonable explanation for the differences is the false positive rates of the PCR test.

The false positive rate of the PCR test also poses yet another concern. If people with positive Covid-19 PCR tests are not dying from Covid-19, what are they dying from? This question did not escape the attention of Michael Yeadon, the former Chief Science Officer for Pfizer who said, "I think the PCR test at present is coming up with so many false positives that in fact we are misdiagnosing the causes of deaths that are being reported."

Along with Dr. Yeadon, many other medical professionals are starting to ask the same question. By forcing shutdowns, social isolation, masks, and decreased access to medical care are we killing off more people than the virus from the resulting increases in deaths from heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, hypercapnia, depression, suicides, and drug and alcohol abuse that these measures can lead to? The numbers definitely suggest that possibility.

This study, all the state-by-state statistics, the faulty PCR test, and common sense leads me to conclude that the fear being foisted on the American people with never ending reports of the ever increasing positive "cases" is an outrageous lie. Are we being willfully deceived? I can't believe that our leaders are that stupid. It certainly makes me question motives and me wonder if it is simply a maneuver to sell the upcoming vaccine. Here's my advice.

If you have the flu, and want to know if it is caused by Covid-19 or not, ask your doctor to do a PCR test with between 13-17 amplifications. If it is positive at that level of amplification, then you really do have the virus. A PCR test with greater than 34 amplifications is a complete waste of time unless it is done between the 3rd to 5th day after the first day of symptoms. In that case, the false positive rate falls to 40%. And, if you have been "exposed" to a person who tested positive with a PCR test greater than 34 amplifications, don't worry – you are not likely to have been exposed.

[And if you haven't already, read Dr. Shallenberger's letter at the top of this page.]

Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Tom Jefferson, Elizabeth Spencer, Jon Brassey, Carl Heneghan medRxiv 2020.08.04.20167932

The coronavirus is mutating - does it matter? By Ewen Callaway
Nature, September 8, 2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6

La Scola B, Le Bideau M, et al. Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020; 39(6): 1059-1061. Published online 2020 Apr 27. D