SECOND REPLY TO DR.

SPAEDER

Dear Dr. Spaeder,

Thank you for your reply. I have the highest esteem for you and for the world-
famous institution from which you graduated, so I am sure that you will not be
able to deny that coronaviruses cause a brief and poor antibody response (they
may not even respond, sometimes), which do not allow the creation of effective
vaccines against single-chain RNA viruses for which failed attempts have been
made in which the grave and frequent risks (ADE, first of all) are superior to the
benefits, that with these types of virus you can never achieve the so-called herd
immunity, and that you should not vaccinate during the period of an epidemic,
especially with these families of viruses, in order not to favor the mutations
which flee from the vaccine, as well as ADE and vaccine-resistance.

Our common scientific preparation must make us recognize that these are gene-
based vaccines and, as such, are subject to the regulations of GMO drugs. This
must be made clear to the public, just as it must be made clear that, although
they have obtained conditional authorization, they do not de facto lose the
characteristic of experimentation, since there are not yet sufficient data to
establish their efficacy and safety. These molecules are already used in various
oncological and lung diseases, such as cystic fibrosis and so on, but it is the first
time ever that they are being used as vaccines. Personally, I think that all
compulsory vaccines, including vaccines used on children, in the military, and
those imposed for work reasons, constitute a violation of the ethical codes of
individual freedom.

We come to what you call the crux of our disagreement, the way we assign value
to medical research and publications. As an independent researcher, I usually
study mainly serious publications in serious journals, selecting studies not
polluted by partisan sponsorships or conflicts of interest. There is a need to be
very cautious and attentive, because self-referential or partisan studies, which
today, as you well know, unfortunately constitute the majority, lack credibility. I
remind you of the “Lancet-Gate” scandal: On May 22, 2020, two of the most
prestigious scientific journals, The Lancet and The New England Journal of
Medicine, two studies that claimed to have analyzed more than 96,000 records of
COVID-19 patients from more than 600 hospitals in the world to prove that
hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are not only useless but even dangerous.
The studies were withdrawn two weeks later because they were phoney,
completely invented (the obvious purpose was to withdraw hydroxychloroquine
[from consideration] as an excellent drug during the first phase of infection), as
even the directors of the two journals admitted. Richard Horton himself (editor
of The Lancet) had acknowledged in 2015 that "half of the scientific literature
could be false," while the well-known epidemiologist John Ioannidis already
argued in 2005: "most of the published studies are false and many experiments
are not replicable." So, we must be very careful not to fall into the trap of "it is
valid since it is published in an authoritative magazine." I am also in favor of
rigorous and intellectually serious scientific investigation, and that is why I only
consider works that bear the words "no financing, no conflicts of interest."

For example, with regard to spike prefusion (which I also talk about in my book
Apocalisse [Apocalypse] in the process of publication), you cite the article by the
esteemed cardiologist Glen Pyle (COVID-19 Vaccines and Spike Proteins – COVID-19
Resources Canada (covid19resources.ca), which criticizes numerous studies from
which, through pseudoviruses, it is clear that the spike alone is able to seriously
damage the endothelium causing the deadly damage that we know. Pyle argues
that the vaccinal spike does not go into the circulation and therefore cannot
damage the endothelium, since "the vaccine remains largely contained near the
injection site" and he states this based on the Ols study ( Route of Vaccine
Administration Alters Antigen Trafficking but Not Innate or Adaptive Immunity) Cell Rep.
30(12): 3964-71. 2020) which, however, does not refer to SARS-CoV-2 but to HIV-1,
and he limits himself to arguing that "the intradermal administration of an
mRNA vaccine (there is no mention of the vaccine for SARS-CoV-2) led to a more
efficient activation of antigen-presenting cells at the injection site than
intramuscular vaccination and was accompanied by transiently higher levels of
vaccine-specific T cell responses and antibody concentrations." This does not
mean that the spike does not go into the circulation. In addition, the Ols study is
funded by the NIH (historical partner of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)
and by IAVI, in turn funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: conflicts of
interest. Pyle reiterates that no significant amount of vaccine enters the
circulation, since the EMA has established this. But what scientific credibility can
an entitity that is 84% funded by the pharmaceutical industry have? Pyle claims
that this would happen thanks to the conformational change due to prefusion,
and he does so by citing the article by Cross (The tiny tweak behind COVID-19 vaccines.
Chem Eng News. 98(38)) which reports the claims of the two inventors of prefusion,
but note that Barney S. Graham and Jason McLellan work with NIH, NIAID and
Moderna and are entirely biased. There is no credible scientific validity in these
claims. According to Pyle, the spike thus engineered would not be able to make
the shape change necessary to bind effectively to cells and cites Corbett's study
(SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness). Nature.
586(7830): 567-571. 2020) in which several different authors, including Graham
himself, are inventors who have made patent applications for spike prefusion
and for a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2: conflicts of interest. In the end, Pyle quotes
verbatim that "in addition to designing the spike protein so that it cannot be
fully activated, the protein is labeled with an extra piece still called
transmembrane" and is based on Polack's well-known study ( Safety and Efficacy of
the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine) regarding the efficacy and safety of the Pfizer-
BioNTech vaccine, a study funded by Pfizer and BioNTech: zero credibility!

You will know that Derek Lowe has also tried to argue that the vaccine is
drained from lymph and not from blood, but unfortunately Lowe has conflicts of
interest with the pharmaceutical industry, having worked for Bayer, Vertex,
Schering-Plough and Novartis, and is a columnist for the Royal Society of
Chemistry, whose "editorial policies meet the guidelines established by major
funders," including Wellcome, Research England, NIH, the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, HHMI, UKRI and the European Commission." There is no evidence
that spike vaccines do not go into circulation and produce damage, so how can it
be said with certainty that the spike produced is harmless and that the contrary
thesis is unfounded? In contrast, Charles Hoffe states that only 25% of the
vaccine remains at the injection site, while the other 75% reaches the circulation
via the lymphatic system, damages the endothelium and increases coagulation
(increase in the D-dimer) in more than 60% of patients. Hoffe has been harshly
attacked, including by a study done by Imperial College London, repeatedly
funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has continually produced
erroneous models of the epidemic. There is no evidence that the spike does not
go into circulation, indeed, on the contrary, it has been seen that the spike
vaccine circulates and is even conveyed by exosomes ( Bansal S et al, Cutting Edge:
Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by
mRNA Vaccines. J Immunol. 2021; 207(10):2405-10). In addition, C-terminal truncated
and soluble spike variants spill into the lymphatic and blood circulation and
tend to escape HLA (immune evasion syndrome) causing "serious side effects
when they bind to endothelial cells that express ACE-2 in blood vessels: vaccine-
induced COVID-19 mimicry syndrome" (Kowarz, E. et al., "Vaccine-Induced Covid-19
Mimicry" Syndrome: Splice reactions within the SARS-CoV-2 Spike open reading frame result in
Spike protein variants that may cause thromboembolic events in patients immunized with
vector-based vaccines. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-558954/v1). Similar incompletely
translated proteins enter the lymphatic and blood circulation and are picked up
by different receptors (which, over time, are increasing) also in the brain tissue
(neuropilin-1 above all) being able to damage the vessels and the nervous
system (Bolgan, L., COVID-19 - the vaccine, in www.studiesalute.it). Truncated spikes can
arrive in vivo to 26% of all those produced (D'Alessandro A, High rate of SARS-CoV-2
nonsense spike genomes coding for prematurely truncated proteins. arXiv:2105.10074[q-bio.
GN]). Spike vaccines circulate in our body, so much so that "mRNA vaccines cause
inflammation of the endothelium (endothelitis) and infiltration of T lymphocytes
into the cardiac muscle" (Gundry S, Observational Findings of PULS Cardiac Test Findings
for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines. Circulation, 2021; 144:
A10712). Thus spike vaccines are responsible for serious vaccine damage and
adverse reactions, including the death of many of those who have been
vaccinated. The danger of these vaccines is beyond question.
Sorry to contradict you, but it is not at all true that these vaccines prevent
hospitalization and death, there is no evidence that they have saved lives, on the
other hand they have killed many. Since this infection is treatable, it does not
require vaccines as long as it is treated immediately and well. It is not so
extraordinary that I have avoided hospitalization for my patients; I am only a
doctor, not a specialist. I treat them in the way I have learned from literature and
experience, and hundreds of doctors in Italy and in other European nations have
done the same as me, and with even better results than me. COVID-19 does not
evolve into the severe form if it is treated immediately and well, within the first
48 hours. It is Medicine based on Evidence. People heal; this is a piece of factual
data. The tens of thousands of deaths or serious injuries among those who have
undergone these serums are also evidence. Above all among young people. The
ineffectiveness of the vaccine is demonstrated by the epidemic itself, which is
more ferocious than last year when the vaccines were not present. The regime's
propaganda has made the president of France say that the unvaccinated
minority of about seven million people in a nation where more than 90% of the
people are vaccinatedis the cause of the large number of infected people, about
300,000 per day. But, if mathematics is not an opinion, if it were only the
unvaccinated who infect then the infection would have run out in less than a
month. Instead, it is the vaccinated themselves who become infected and infect
others. Quasispecies can also be induced by traditional vaccines (attenuated
viruses), but in those used against SARS-CoV-2, engineered starting from a
unique sequence for the spike, these variants are even more frequent, making
vaccine effectiveness critical and favoring reinfections (Bolgan L., COVID-19 - the
vaccine,in www.studiesalute.it).
Dear doctor, we are doctors; ours is a sacred role, and it has been so since
ancient times, from Asclepios onwards. We must treat, reassure, and protect our
patients and we must do so both in science and in conscience, without following
the protocols written by the industry. If we are on the side of the patients, we
cannot stand with the industry, since the pharmaceutical industry does not want
the good of others and certainly is not a sacred profession as that of the doctor
must be.
Probably, each of us will remain in our positions. I am not interested in
convincing anyone or in undermining the powerful financial oligarchic system
that now rules everywhere. You will see that even this answer of mine will be
accompanied by articles by some journalist who, not being able to argue about
the contents, will invent nonsense concerning my person, confirming that they
do not know how to make information but only propaganda.
Dear Dr. Spaeder, it has been a pleasure to discuss this issue with you and I wish
you all the best.
With esteem,
Massimo Citro, M.D. Turin, 21 January 2022