Search
  • jdaneway

The Time for Pharmacogenomics is NOW

There can be no better time or need for pharmacogenomics and vaccine adversomics, to implement a strategy for defining the differences between people in order to help all people have a safer experience with medicines and vaccines. We can no longer afford to accept "rare" adverse events, because people are beginning to understand that they might be rare, you might be rare, I am rare - and WE are not acceptable casualties.


From a previous post, you know that my philosophy (Kantian Deontology) rejects the idea of acceptable casualties, rejects accepting that a few may be harmed for the benefit of many. Accepting "rare" adverse events as a matter of course means accepting a means to an end. The very idea is prone to abuse.


Mistrust of government agencies, corporate pharmaceutical interests, scientists, and academia (each with their own interests, conflicts, and egos) can be partially attributed to this idea of acceptable casualties or acceptable adverse events for the few who were unlucky enough to be born with differences that don't conform to the agendas of these interested/conflicted parties. To restore the public trust, we need to restore integrity, and stop treating the few, the rare, the different, as an expendable means to an end. We need to identify our differences and celebrate them, cherish them, and preserve them. We need to acknowledge that drugs and biologics are not one-size-fits-all and that treating them as such harms the public trust and, potentially, harms human evolution.


Mass vaccination campaigns take the authority of natural selection away from nature and place it in the hands of interested and conflicted people. If we are all expected to subscribe to usurping the authority of nature, the least we can do is level the odds, so that natural selection can continue to have a hand under other natural challenges. In other words, if we use mass vaccination campaigns to save most people, but the vaccines themselves eliminate a few "rare" individuals, we are not allowing the few "rare" a chance to prove their evolutionary worth. They may be here for a reason we cannot yet understand. After all, nature produced these rarities. By eliminating the different, we create sameness, but without differences, humanity cannot evolve and will not survive. Nature wins in the end - we will have done it to ourselves.


Therefore, I challenge our government, pharmaceutical interests, scientists, and academics to save the different and stop accepting a few rare casualties.


On May 4, 2021, I informed Pfizer that I believed many vaccine adverse events can be attributable to genetic differences between people in how mast cells activate. In fact, I have found that Kawasaki Disease, vaccine induced auto-immunity, CVST, ITP, ESUS, and lots of other ischemic and thrombotic events, anaphylaxis and other severe adverse reactions, all have one very important thing in common - overly excited mast cell activation can cause all of these events. I believe that anyone with multiple drug, food, and other allergies should probably be given a mast cell inhibitor(s) before vaccination to prevent these serious outcomes.


This is not a secret. NIH is currently conducting a study into mast cell activation disorders and vaccine adverse events. I can tell you the study is flawed, and it hasn't even started. They require a diagnosis of mast cell activation disorders. This is the same method they have used in the past to discredit and deny. So, wait for it . . . . The numbers are small, they will say; it's rare and only affects 2 in a million (ahem - almost nobody with this issue will ever be diagnosed with mast cell disorder because doctors don't even know what it is). Then they will say there is not enough evidence (doesn't mean it doesn't exist, they just can't find it with those stringent diagnostic exclusion criteria). Then when the medical community becomes aware of mast cell differences between people and starts diagnosing it, the NIH and CDC will say the increase is due to better diagnosis. They do the same thing autism. Autism rates are going up, they say, because diagnosis is getting better. I call BS! The way to scientifically answer this question once and for all, is through pharmacogenomics. They need to identify the culprit genes (many are already identified) and their prevalence generation to generation to calculate whether the actual rates are going up. And, they need to accept and cherish those differences, because they might be essential for human evolution.


Another trick used to deceive, is to exclude similar diagnoses to keep the numbers low (that is a fact - I've seen it done first hand). For instance, (this is opinion) I would guess that when they calculated the terribly rare CVST and ITP (Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis and Immune Thrombocytopenia aka blood clots), that they failed to include other similar ischemic events such as ESUS (embolic stroke of undetermined source) and cryptogenic stroke.


Yet another trick used to deceive is - denial. Fauci, himself, has claimed that the mRNA vaccines did not cause any (as in zero) blood clotting issues. That is not true. There are numerous reputable articles and journal sources stating the exact opposite.

Quickly, here is one from the American Society of Hematology: https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/online-exclusives/rare-cases-immune-thrombocytopenia-linked-covid-vaccine/ .

You can also easily find the Oxford study citing ITP in the mRNA studies (although Oxford is obviously conflicted having worked on AstraZeneca's vaccine). There are also numerous studies available citing ITP in each COVID vaccine type on the British Medical Journal website.


Why would he lie - why do any of them lie? Usually, the answer is money. Sometimes, the answer is control (as in, control the narrative - control the outcome). Which is it? I'd put my money on money. Wait - that's throwing good money after bad.


At one time, FDA tried to require pharmaceutical companies to provide genetic tests to identify patients who would respond favorably or have adverse events to their drugs. The drug companies refused - didn't want to spend the money. Now, FDA is and has been, for some time really, actively trying to stop pharmacogenomics. Who do they work for and why are they trying to stop improved safety? If you knew you had a gene that was associated with serious adverse events, would that impact your decision to receive that treatment? What if the gene were common? Would that impact sales? What if broad swathes of people had genes that meant they were less likely to respond to lots of different drugs?

https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/1/law-firm-challenges-fdas-crackdown-on-pharmacogen


Pfizer is currently seeking approval for their COVID vaccine. I guarantee you they will not lift a finger to add risk of anaphylaxis and many other issues for those with mast cell activation disorder to their label, even though FDA, NIH, CDC, and now Pfizer all know about this risk. They will not lift a finger to identify the genes relating to those differences, or inform the public of the risk. Despite record profits, they will not spend the money. The few people this affects are acceptable casualties, in their eyes. What they don't realize, is that mast cell differences affect a lot more people than they know, more people than will ever be diagnosed. Running the usual scam - denying, discrediting, devaluing, dividing, and dismissing will only lead to more public distrust. They have been informed. Denial is negligence.



3 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

What does a SARS-COV-2 cytokine storm have to do with helminths (worms)? Funny, you should ask. . . . I recently started looking into why Ivermectin and/or disease modifying drugs (like rheumatoid art

Healthcare is the next natural topic in civil movements. The way women, African Americans, and the economically disadvantaged (a.k.a. poor) are treated in the workplace, by the media, and by some law