Physician says mRNA ‘vaccines’ were designed to fail

[My commentary: Dr Sucharit Bhakdi in the video below says that these mRNA ‘vaccines’ are doomed to failure because they don’t stimulate the production of antibodies. In other words, they don’t work to provide immunity, which is the basic function of a vaccine. They are not real vaccines, and they are a failure, as I have posted previously in these articles (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6).

There are simply too many ‘breakthrough’ cases in too many countries for the jab to be called a success. But instead of blaming the jab, and abolishing it, the unvaccinated are unjustly scapegoated. This is in addition to the problem of the negative side-effects.

Were they designed to fail, on purpose, or did they fail as a result of poor design and lack of sufficient testing? I would tend to go with the former theory: they were designed to fail because (1) their failure can be blamed on the unvaccinated (scapegoating is politically useful if you’re trying to impose Communism) and (2) it makes a lot of people much sicker over time, which is good for business for pharma corporations.

The first reason is was the real driver, though. I believe the CCP’s role in planning and executing this cannot be underestimated, since it is helping them achieve world domination by weakening the rest of the world. Medically speaking, the ‘vaccines’ don’t work, but they work quite well for the political purpose for which they’re intended. The jab was imposed on us recklessly after first imposing lockdowns, which didn’t work and harmed billions of people needlessly, and failed a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

It could be that efforts to impose the Great Reset were opportunistic, taking advantage of an accidental leak, but I tend to believe (based on the evidence) that it was not accidental, but deliberately and painstakingly planned to achieve the very effect it’s now having.

Bhakdi says what we’re witnessing now (acknowledgement of their failure to provide immunity in study after study) is what was predicted a year ago by dissident physicians and scientists like Bhakdi, Byram Bridle, Robert Malone, Simone Gold, and numerous others.

Bhakdi says there is no vaccine that can protect us against infections of the respiratory tract and anyone who says differently is being dishonest. I found that a provocative and interesting statement and have posted an article below this one, from last year, that discusses this problem. In it, a scientist admits that creating a vaccine for respiratory tract illnesses is very difficult, if not impossible.

Much of what Bhakdi says is above my head, medically speaking, but I will say, in support of his argument here, that even the proponents of the mRNA ‘vaccines’ are admitting that it’s a failure.

The mainstream medical response is that they need to refine the drug, not abolish its use. Like Bill Gates, they are technological optimists — people who have an unjustified and often irrational faith in technology and continue to experiment, even if it violates ethical boundaries and even if the cost is far too high (it already is).

They are like Dr Frankenstein or Dr Jekyl: in giving themselves the power over life and death, they become demonic. This whole thing feels like the plot of a dystopian science fiction film.

The danger of this approach is that if they continue to experiment on humanity in this way, in violation of all medical ethics, it could well spell our doom. More people need to be aware that it is reckless and move to put an end to it, utilizing the precautionary principle.

It should be added that Dr Bahkdi is a target for the so-called ‘fact-checkers’ who are paid by Big Pharma, Facebook, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, etc to dissimulate and mislead us. Their strategy seems to be to cast doubt on critics of the jab, then social media and comment section editors do the rest by censoring any mention of their criticisms. This way, most of the public never hear the criticism of the mRNA shots and mistakenly believe there is scientific consensus in support of them.

To my mind that only give Bahkdi more credibility. If they are censoring him it’s because they’re threatened by whatever he’s telling us, so I want to hear it. I know from experience that the mainstream media and now the healthcare industries have been corrupted and are totally untrustworthy. They’re putting their careers ahead of public health. The fact-checkers have been wrong so many times (e.g., Wuhan lab, isolation camps) they should have zero credibility with anyone who has the capacity for reason and the willingness to use it.]

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-124.png
Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde

The COVID vaccines were designed to fail

posted by Doctors for Ethics, Nov. 25, 2021

In this 10-minute video, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi discusses the fundamental reason for the current wave of “breakthrough infections:” the failure of the COVID vaccines had to be expected because fundamental principles of immunology were ignored in their design.

[NB – “Breakthrough” infections or cases is the medical jargon for the fact that vaccinated people catch the disease anyway. The failure of the mRNA shots is that the percentage of breakthrough cases is too high for it to be called a success. In the case of Gibraltar, 100% of the cases were vaccinated. In the state of Massachusetts, it was 74%. The same is happening worldwide.]

The first mistake was to focus on antibodies rather than cellular immunity (cytotoxic T-lymphocytes) in assessing vaccine efficacy, even though cellular immunity is far more important to antiviral immunity than are antibodies.

The second mistake was to neglect the functional distinction between the two major categories of antibodies, which the body produces in order to protect itself from pathogenic microbes:

  • The first category (secretory IgA) is produced by immune cells (lymphocytes) that are located directly underneath the mucous membranes that line the respiratory and intestinal tract. The antibodies produced by these lymphocytes are ejected through and to the surface of the linings. These antibodies are thus on site to meet air-borne viruses and they may be able to prevent viral binding and infection of the cells.
  • The second category of antibodies (IgG and circulating IgA) occur in the bloodstream. These antibodies protect the internal organs of the body from infectious agents that try to spread via the bloodstream.

Vaccines that are injected into the muscle – i.e., the interior of the body – will only induce IgG and circulating IgA, not secretory IgA. Such antibodies cannot and will not effectively protect the mucous membranes from infection by SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the observed “breakthrough infections” merely confirm the fundamental design flaws of the vaccines. Measurements of antibodies in the blood can never yield any information on the true status of immunity against infection of the respiratory tract.

Further on, Dr. Bhakdi explains the dire dangers inherent in the design of gene-based vaccines. Whereas a natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) will in most individuals remain localized to the respiratory tract, the vaccines cause cells deep inside our body to express the viral spike protein, which they were never meant to do by nature. Any cell which expresses this foreign antigen on its surface will come under attack by the immune system, which will involve both IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. This may occur in any organ, but the damage will be most severe in vital organs. We are seeing now that the heart is affected in many young people, leading to myocarditis or even sudden cardiac arrest and death.

Dr. Bhakdi reiterates the deleterious effects of vaccine-induced immune attacks on the blood vessels. While this damage, too, may occur anywhere within the body and give rise to e.g. stroke and heart attack, it can be observed in the most direct and facile manner by ophthalmologists, who may notice blood clots and/or bleeding when examining their patients’ retinas. Dr. Bhakdi calls on all ophthalmologists to collect, document, and share such evidence.


We’ve never made a successful vaccine for a coronavirus before. This is why it’s so difficult

by Jo Khan, ABC Health Report, April 16, 2020

For those pinning their hopes on a COVID-19 vaccine to return life to normal, an Australian expert in vaccine development has a reality check — it probably won’t happen soon.

The reality is that this particular coronavirus is posing challenges that scientists haven’t dealt with before, according to Ian Frazer from the University of Queensland.

Professor Frazer was involved in the successful development of the vaccine for the human papilloma virus which causes cervical cancer — a vaccine that took years of work to develop.

He said the challenge is that coronaviruses have historically been hard to make safe vaccines for, partly because the virus infects the upper respiratory tract, which our immune system isn’t great at protecting. [bold added]

And while we have vaccines for seasonal influenza, HPV and other diseases, creating a new vaccine isn’t as simple as taking an existing one and swapping the viruses, said Larisa Labzin, an immunologist from the University of Queensland.

“For each virus or different bacterium that causes a disease, we need a different vaccine because the immune response that’s mounted is different,” Dr Labzin told ABC Science.

“Just because we’ve got a really good vaccine against polio doesn’t mean the same thing will work with coronavirus, because it’s so different.”

The challenge of respiratory infections

There are several reasons why our upper respiratory tract is a hard area to target a vaccine.

“It’s a separate immune system, if you like, which isn’t easily accessible by vaccine technology,” Professor Frazer told the Health Report.

Despite your upper respiratory tract feeling very much like it’s inside your body, it’s effectively considered an external surface for the purposes of immunisation.

“It’s a bit like trying to get a vaccine to kill a virus on the surface of your skin.”

Your skin, and the outer layer of cells in your upper respiratory tract act as a barrier to viruses, stopping them from getting into the body.

And finding a way to neutralise the virus “outside” of the body is very difficult.

This is partly because only the outer layer of cells (the epithelial cells) get infected, which, compared to a severe infection of internal organs doesn’t produce the same immune response, so its harder to target.

It’s hard to produce a successful vaccine if the virus isn’t activating a strong immune response.

And if a vaccine elicits an immune response that misses the target cells, the result could potentially be worse than if no vaccine was given.

“One of the problems with corona vaccines in the past has been that when the immune response does cross over to where the virus-infected cells are it actually increases the pathology rather than reducing it,” Professor Frazer said.

“So that immunisation with SARS corona vaccine caused, in animals, inflammation in the lungs which wouldn’t otherwise have been there if the vaccine hadn’t been given.”

We’ve so far found with coronavirus that those infected have had different antibody responses, some weak, some strong.

The ABC has received many questions around how long immunity lasts and whether someone can be reinfected. So is antibody response critical to whether or not a vaccine is going to work?

To answer this we have to go back to what we know about coronaviruses that cause the common cold, according to Professor Frazer.

[NB – we now know that people who take the jab can be infected anyway]

“Yes, you get antibodies after a [cold] infection, and yes it lasts for a while, but it’s not lifelong… sort of months rather than years,” he said.

“I think it would be fair to say that the natural immunity that you get after infection from this coronavirus is probably going to turn out like the coronaviruses we’ve seen in the past.

“There will be some natural protection over a period of months, maybe even years, but it won’t be lifelong.

“The good news is that if you get reinfected with the virus a second time some months down the track, there will probably be enough immunity there to stop you becoming seriously ill.”

[NB – Turns out its just six months before a booster is needed]

What are the vaccine options?

At the moment, teams around the world are deploying different technologies in vaccine development, from killing the virus and using it in the vaccine like we do with influenza, to using messenger RNA to prompt the infected cells to produce antibodies.

But the reality of vaccine development is that many fail before a successful one is developed.

[NB – Apparently, they’re still working on it, even though it’s been released to billions of people, which as noted above, violates basic medical ethics]

Published by


"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity ... the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This immaturity is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the [European] Enlightenment. "Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet [or vaccine], and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind ... should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts. "Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas [e.g., Leftist ideology, identity politics] these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting immaturity. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from immaturity by cultivating their own minds." - Kant, "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment"

2 thoughts on “Physician says mRNA ‘vaccines’ were designed to fail”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s