Chinese and Indian Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Standing on Feet of Clay

Turns out we are all in the same leaky boat when it comes to Covid jabs. By accident or by conscious design?

Feet of clay is an idiom used to refer to a weakness or character flaw, especially in people of prominence and power. It can also be used to refer to larger groups, such as societies, businesses, and empires. The phrase originates from the Book of Daniel in the Bible. In it, Daniel interprets a dream of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. In that dream, a magnificent statue is seen with a head of gold, but weaker and less valuable metals beneath, until finally having feet of clay mixed with iron. Daniel predicts that the glorious statue shall be smashed by a stone into pieces, like chaff on the threshing floor, and blown to the winds.

Clay mineral

Clay minerals are hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates (e.g. kaolin, Al2Si2O5(OH)4), sometimes with variable amounts of iron, magnesium, alkali metals, alkaline earths, and other cations found on or near some planetary surfaces.

Most of the Western World has been happily “vaccinated” with the bioweapon mRNA genetic treatments, with ensuing carnage in the form of outright deaths and severe adverse events shortly after the jabbing, and in the form of delayed-yet-sustained non-Covid/yet-Medical excess mortality of often “categorized-as-unknown” etiology:

Wouldn’t we be lucky to get, instead, a healthy dose of the old-school, complete inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine backed up by the tried-and-true (since 1926!) alum adjuvants? The CDC vouches for them, yet only mainly the Chinese and the Indians were lucky enough to have the foresight and go for these kinds of safe-bet jabs. Or weren’t they?

On Jan. 3, 2024 Children’s Health Defense published this article, “Aluminum Adjuvants Used in Some COVID Vaccines May Increase Risk of Serious Respiratory Disease”:

Researchers led by Mark Heise, Ph.D., an immunologist at the University of North Carolina, used laboratory mice to compare the effectiveness of an inactivated, alum-containing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (iCoV2) against two coronaviruses: the strain for which the vaccine was designed, known as the homologous strain, and a previously unencountered (“heterologous”) coronavirus.

Examples of virus-inactivated COVID-19 vaccines include China’s CoronaVac product, which was distributed in 40 countries, and the Indian COVAXIN product.

The alum-containing vaccine protected against homologous (i.e., same virus) challenges with no apparent ill effects. But when the mice were exposed to a coronavirus that the vaccine was not designed to protect against, they developed classic symptoms of vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD). The symptoms included delayed coronavirus clearance and decreased lung function. This effect, which persisted for at least 10 months, appears to be related to the adjuvant because when alum was replaced with Ribi — an unapproved, research-only adjuvant — mice cleared the virus faster and did not develop VAERD. Alum’s effect on VAERD was partially reduced by re-immunizing the animals with a Ribi-based adjuvant vaccine.

Ribi adjuvants are emulsions of salt water, a detergent, two bacterial products and the approved adjuvant squalene. Ribi interacts with immune cells to enhance the release of cytokines (immune molecules) and antigen processing.

There is a good reason or two why the alum adjuvants, beside being neurotoxic in their own right (more on this below), may be causing this VAERD phenomenon. “Vaccine Adjuvants review” (InvivoGen’s review):

Upon activation by cytokines, B cells differentiate into memory B cells (long-lived antigen-specific B cells) or plasma cells (effector B cells that secrete large quantities of antibodies). Most antigens activate B cells using activated T helper (Th) cells, primarily Th1 and Th2 cells.

Th1 cells secrete IFN-γ, which activates macrophages and induces the production of opsonizing antibodies by B cells. The Th1 response leads mainly to a cell-mediated immunity (cellular response), which protects against intracellular pathogens (invasive bacteria, protozoa and viruses). The Th1 response activates cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL), a sub-group of T cells, which induce death of cells infected with viruses and other intracellular pathogens. Natural killer (NK) cells are also activated by the Th1 response, these cells play a major role in the induction of apoptosis in tumors and cells infected by viruses.

Th2 cells secrete cytokines, including IL-4, which induces B cells to make neutralizing antibodies. Th2 cells generally induce a humoral (antibody) response critical in the defense against extracellular pathogens (helminthes, extracellular microbes and toxins).

And, as it turns out:

Alum provokes a strong Th2 response, but is rather ineffective against pathogens that require Th1–cell-mediated immunity. Alum induces the immune response by a depot effect and activation of antigen presenting cells (APCs). The NLRP3 inflammasome has been linked to the immunostimulatory properties of alum although its role in adjuvant-induced antibody responses remains controversial.

In other words, alum adjuvants in vaccines induce high humoral antibody titers, as if to fight the extracellular microbes or parasites, yet are subpar when it comes to fighting and clearing viruses that invade tissues. Hence the tsunami wave of Covid as soon as the Zero-Covid restrictions lifted in China, after the masses have been fully jabbed? No herd immunity at all? This gives the whole new meaning to the old saying of “barking up the wrong tree”.

Isn’t this reminiscent of the mRNA Covid jabs boasting high and lasting (6 months) antibody titers, yet lousy at preventing viral infections or clearing the virus from the system, hence lingering and recurring bouts of Covid in mRNA-jabbed?

As luck would have it, both the Chinese CoronaVac and Indian Covaxin deployed their traditional inactivated virus vaccines with alum adjuvants:

“CoronaVac” (Wikipedia):

CoronaVac, also known as the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine, is a whole inactivated virus COVID-19 vaccine developed by the Chinese company Sinovac Biotech… The resulting inactivated viruses are then mixed with the adjuvant aluminium hydroxide (Precipitated aluminium hydroxide is included as an adjuvant in some vaccines (e.g. anthrax vaccine). One of the well-known brands of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant is Alhydrogel, made by Brenntag Biosector. Since it absorbs protein well, it also functions to stabilize vaccines by preventing the proteins in the vaccine from precipitating or sticking to the walls of the container during storage. Aluminium hydroxide is sometimes called "alum", a term generally reserved for one of several sulfates.)

“Covaxin” (Wikipedia):

Covaxin (development name, BBV152) is a whole inactivated virus-based COVID-19 vaccine developed by Bharat Biotech in collaboration with the Indian Council of Medical Research - National Institute of Virology… The resulting inactivated viruses are then mixed with the aluminium-based adjuvant Alhydroxiquim-II.

What’s more, Fauci’s NIH was the magnanimous donor of the Indian novel alum adjuvant technology, “Adjuvant developed with NIH funding enhances efficacy of India’s COVID-19 vaccine” (NIH, 2021.06.29) :

The adjuvant, Alhydroxiquim-II, comprises a small molecule attached in a unique way to Alhydrogel, a substance frequently called alum that is the most commonly used adjuvant in vaccines for people. Alhydroxiquim-II travels to lymph nodes, where the small molecule detaches from alum and activates two cellular receptors. These receptors, TLR7 and TLR8, play a vital role in the immune response to viruses. Alhydroxiquim-II is the first adjuvant in an authorized vaccine against an infectious disease to activate TLR7 and TLR8. In addition, the alum in Alhydroxiquim-II stimulates the immune system to search for an invading pathogen.

At this point the astute reader would ask: “Weren’t the aluminum adjuvants deemed unsafe and toxic?” “Not at all!” - answers a mysterious non-profit, Association of Immunization Managers (I kid you not!), that popped up out of nowhere in Nov. 2021, with the sole mission of instilling vaccine confidence, as it were. “Aluminum Adjuvants Talking Points (Fact Sheets & Talking Points, REACH & Health Equity, Safety, Vaccine Confidence)” (Association of Immunization Managers, 2022.09.27):

What do we know about aluminum in vaccines?

The aluminum salts in some U.S. licensed vaccines are aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, alum (potassium aluminum sulfate), or mixed aluminum salts.

Aluminum adjuvants are used in vaccines such as hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-containing vaccines, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and pneumococcal vaccines. However, they are not used in live viral vaccines, such as those that prevent measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and rotavirus. COVID-19 vaccines and influenza (flu) vaccines do not contain aluminum adjuvants. [they must be talking about mRNA jabs only]

Vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants have been used for over 60 years in hundreds of millions of people around the world and found to be safe. Serious complications are very rare and the most commonly reported side effects are redness and swelling at the injection site.

A study conducted by FDA determined that the risk to infants from the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low. This study provided additional scientific information confirming that the benefits of aluminum-containing vaccines administered during the first year of life outweigh any theoretical concerns about the potential effect of aluminum on infants. Of note, the most common source of exposure to aluminum is from eating food or drinking water.

Well, isn’t this tune reminiscent of what CDC had to say about the novel mRNA “vaccine” technology back in 2020, all of it turning out to be blatant misinformation? A brief search provided plenty of evidence that the aluminum in vaccines is definitely harmful to infants’ health. “Association Between Aluminum Exposure From Vaccines Before Age 24 Months and Persistent Asthma at Age 24 to 59 Months” (Acad Pediatr., 2022.09.28):

Among children with eczema, vaccine-associated aluminum was positively associated with persistent asthma (adjusted hazard ratio 1.26 per 1 mg increase in aluminum, 95% CI 1.07, 1.49); a positive association was also detected among children without eczema (adjusted hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.14, 1.25).

Not only that, aluminum vaccine adjuvants are definitely long-term neurotoxic and immunogenic, and correlate with the rate of autism spectrum disorders in children:

“Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity” (Imunnol Res., 2013.04.23):

We have examined the neurotoxicity of aluminum in humans and animals under various conditions, following different routes of administration, and provide an overview of the various associated disease states. The literature demonstrates clearly negative impacts of aluminum on the nervous system across the age span. In adults, aluminum exposure can lead to apparently age-related neurological deficits resembling Alzheimer’s and has been linked to this disease and to the Guamanian variant, ALS–PDC. Similar outcomes have been found in animal models. In addition, injection of aluminum adjuvants in an attempt to model Gulf War syndrome and associated neurological deficits leads to an ALS phenotype in young male mice. In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders. Many of the features of aluminum-induced neurotoxicity may arise, in part, from autoimmune reactions, as part of the ASIA syndrome.

I will cite two more testimonies to the “benign” nature of aluminum adjuvants, for completeness sake:

• “Myalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome following immunization: macrophagic myofasciitis and animal studies support linkage to aluminum adjuvant persistency and diffusion in the immune system” (Autoimmunity Reviews, 2019.06.17):

  Comparing toxicology of different forms of aluminum and different types of exposure is misleading and inadequate and small animal experiments have turned old dogma upside down. Instead of being rapidly solubilized in the extracellular space, injected aluminum particles are quickly captured by immune cells and transported to distant organs and the brain where they elicit an inflammatory response and exert selective low dose long-term neurotoxicity. Clinical observations and experiments in sheep, a large animal like humans, confirmed both systemic diffusion and neurotoxic effects of aluminum adjuvants. Post-immunization ME/CFS represents the core manifestation of “autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants” (ASIA).

• “Towards an understanding of the adjuvant action of aluminium” (Nat Rev Immunol. 2009 Apr; 9(4): 287–293):

  Outstanding questions: Recent studies have increased our knowledge of the biological events that are induced following the administration of aluminium adjuvants. However, the mechanisms that are required for the subsequent induction of the adaptive immune response are still debated. Some additional questions remain to be answered and some important discrepancies need to be resolved: Is there a specific cellular receptor that recognizes aluminium salts? In vivo, does aluminium salt-induced inflammation occur indirectly by causing cytotoxicity and release of DAMPs such as uric acid, which forms MSU crystals, or directly by triggering phagocytosis and lysosomal disruption? LPS is required to upregulate Il1b mRNA expression and to activate caspase-1 in vitro, but what induces these effects in vivo? Is there a biological role for the induction of IL-1β and neutrophil accumulation? Is activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome and activation of caspase-1 crucial for the adjuvant activity of aluminium salts or not? If they do have a role, which caspase-1 target (or targets) is required for the induction of an adaptive immune response? Finally, after over 80 years of research, there is still no definitive proof for Alexander Glenny’s original hypothesis that the depot effect of aluminium salts contributes to their adjuvant action.

  Aluminium adjuvants have been successfully used in hundreds of millions of humans since 1932, greatly decreasing morbidity and mortality with minimal toxicity. Although there are instances where aluminium adjuvants are not protective, such as vaccination against pathogens that require Th1-type immunity, it is hoped that the answers to these questions will aid in improving the effectiveness of aluminium adjuvants and speed development of alternative adjuvants.

As for the claims that aluminum adjuvants have been safely used for many decades in all sorts of vaccines that were stringently tested for safety, and even being a “golden standard” of adjuvants, read this! “Unraveling the enigma: elucidating the relationship between the physicochemical properties of aluminium-based adjuvants and their immunological mechanisms of action” (Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology volume 14, Article number: 80, 2018.11.07):

There are two aluminium based adjuvants (ABAs) commonly used in vaccines [1]. Alhydrogel® is a semi-crystalline form of aluminium oxyhydroxide (AH) and AdjuPhos® is an amorphous salt of aluminium hydroxyphosphate (AP). A sulphate salt of the latter (AAHS) is also listed as being one component of an adjuvant system used in vaccinations against HPV [2]. Alhydrogel® and AdjuPhos® are commonly referred to as clinically-approved ABAs [3] and yet this is not the case. There are no ABAs which have been approved for intramuscular or subcutaneous injection into humans. There are no requirements for their approval, they are only ‘approved’ as part of vaccine preparations.

Aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines have a long history of clinical successes and a commensurately long history of vaccine-related adverse events [4]. Since there is no requirement to demonstrate the safety of ABAs one could quickly surmise that adverse events following vaccination are the direct or indirect effects of ABAs. This is almost certainly true as the phenotypes of most adverse events are unrelated to the disease being treated and are reproduced, at least in the short term, in ‘clinical approval trials’ where ABAs are the ill thought through placebos [5]. It is almost certainly the widespread use of ABAs and/or other aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines as placebos in vaccine safety trials that have guaranteed clinical approval of many vaccines.

One aspect of the injection of a vaccine that invariably seems to be ignored is the immediate acuity of such an exposure to aluminium. The concentration of total aluminium in the vaccine can be as much as 63 mM (1.7 mg/mL) and immediately upon its dilution into interstitial fluid its concentration in the immediate vicinity of the injection site will remain high, mM, for minutes if not hours following the injection. The solubility of the ABA will increase markedly upon its dilution at the injection site, both due to dilution but also the influence of myriad solubilising moieties reacting with , and commensurate with this will be a significant increase in the biological availability of aluminium [6]. Toxicity will be inevitable under such conditions and might be expected to be manifested as necrotic cell death and a subsequent inflammatory response. Herein, perhaps, is the origin of the potent adjuvant activity of aluminium salts; an immediate potency (often manifested as a simple reddening and swelling of the skin at the site of the injection) which will depend upon the presentation of the aluminium salt in question and, critically, the physiological response of the recipient. While some degree of toxicity and cell death is probably inevitable, all subsequent responses to the adjuvant will bear the signature of an individual and these iatrogenic effects can range from benign to fatal.

We know that ABAs are taken up by monocytic T helper 1 (THP-1) [7] cells and we also know that these cells respond differently to different ABAs. What we do not know is how such different responses are manifested in the innate response. For example, is endocytosis of ABA a prerequisite for the successful generation of innate immunity to the associated antigen? The apparent capability for monocytes to endocytose significant amounts of ABA without suffering obvious toxicity adds the additional dimension of these cells being vehicles for the trafficking of aluminium adjuvant throughout the body and into the brain.

So, all the aluminum adjuvant vaccine safety trials were rigged by testing the vaccines with aluminum adjuvants against “placebos” with same aluminum adjuvants!

And as for the claim that we get aluminum with food anyways, so what’s the big deal if some of it, in the form of hydrogel, is injected into infants with “vaccines, this article explains the difference. “Human exposure to aluminium” (Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 2013):

Human activities have circumvented the efficient geochemical cycling of aluminium within the lithosphere and therewith opened a door, which was previously only ajar, onto the biotic cycle to instigate and promote the accumulation of aluminium in biota and especially humans. Neither these relatively recent activities nor the entry of aluminium into the living cycle are showing any signs of abating and it is thus now imperative that we understand as fully as possible how humans are exposed to aluminium and the future consequences of a burgeoning exposure and body burden. The aluminium age is upon us and there is now an urgent need to understand how to live safely and effectively with aluminium.

There are surprising few data relating to the aluminium content of human organs and only the brain has received significant recent attention. For a ‘reference’ population (i.e. not knowingly exposed to aluminium) the major organs acting as systemic sinks for aluminium appear to be lung and bone, up to 6 μg g−1 dry wt, followed by liver, kidney and brain, all less than 1 μg g−1 dry wt, though these averaged data should certainly be taken as equivocal in that there are no human tissues where the distribution of aluminium is expected to be homogeneous.

To recap. Although the adverse reactions are probably much higher in the mRNA-jabbed, the more traditional Chinese and Indian SARS-CoV-2 jabs also, by design, facilitate viral spread and viral selection in “vaccinated” populations. The 4th year of ongoing elevated viral loads in these populations is a living testimony to that, with all the ensuing consequences. Of course, if you believe in viruses at all.