You skipped over the VAERS thing, the system designed to spot a safety signal with new vaccines, which is screaming its fucking head off, even though there's evidence of deletions as well as the difficulties with reporting and the 10X minimum URF.

Sure, absolutely let's talk about VAERS and ACTIVE.

First, their very existence contradicts the antivaxx narrative. The narrative is that "They" (whether "They" a consortium of world governments, The Jews, the Illuminati, whatever) want to poison everybody on the planet, for Reasons.

What VAERS and ACTIVE are is government scientists saying: So what if there's safety data we can't see in official hospital records? Can we poll the public directly?

Not something the Illuminati would really be interested in doing, right? But of course this effort ran into three predictable problems, immediately:

1. The anonymous public are a bunch of insane trolls. Ask them to name a bridge, and they'll name it Bridgey McBridgeface. Ask them what country Justin Bieber should tour next, and they'll send him to North Korea. Ask them who the most influential man in 2009 was, and they'll say "moot."

2. There are people who want to believe that they've had adverse events. So, for example, say I got vaccinated. Then, ten days later, I was puking and shitting my guts out for 36 hours. If I'm someone who doesn't want to believe the vaccine has adverse effects, I'll think "Obviously I got a norovirus and the timing was a coincidence." If I'm someone who does want to believe the vaccine has adverse effects, I'll hop on VAERS and write "I got vaxxed and within DAYS I was the sickest I've ever been." So you can see how this is not creating very useful scientific data right?

3. There are people out there who are actively profiting from antivax propaganda. They're either selling "alternative" products, or they're simply directing you to sites that are flooded with ads for scams. So VAERS and ACTIVE just handed them a powerful tool. Now they can simply write a few scripts to say "Took vaccine, had heart attack within 6 hours." If that data shows up in results, they can say "Look, it's dangerous, come to my site!" If that data gets deleted, they can say "Look, it's a conspiracy, come to my site!" Either way, they've got believers by the wallet.

You also skipped over the contamination issue. You might find this interesting then:

Of couse it's interesting. That is to say, the findings of Kevin McKernan and Phillip Buckhaults are interesting.

Umbreallanews.com.au is, well, have you ever looked at that site? They run "news" articles with headlines like "Digital Penetration" and "The Barbarians Are Back" and "We're Living In A Neofeudal Bubble." It's a website that is designed specifically to cause fear and outrage and to profit from it.

The article you sent me is written by Rebekah Barnett, a young woman with a Bachelor's Degree in Communications. Her Twittle handle is @dystopian_DU and it seems the main thing she does with her life is to write antivaxx articles for money. In other words, she starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to justify the conclusion - the exact opposite of the scientific method.

If we want to understand the issue of DNA plasmid contamination, we should read McKernan and Buckhaults directly (among many other sources). In no world should we read Rebekah Barnett, an unemployed recent college graduate who is getting paid to scare people like you by taking five or six quotes by McKernan and Buckhaults and twisting it into the "we're all going to die" narrative she'd already decided on before she wrote the first word.