In a world that’s still grappling with the ripple effects of the pandemic, one revelation about a new COVID-19 vaccine has sparked heated debate. The latest development from the University of Oxford has left people questioning the true intentions behind the jab. Prof. Sir John Bell, a prominent figure in the creation of Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine, recently let slip a startling admission during an interview—claiming that this new injection could potentially sterilize 60-70% of its recipients. But what does that really mean?
Unveiling the Controversial Statement: “Mass Sterilization?”
During a recent interview, Sir John Bell seemed to hint that one of the hidden objectives behind this vaccine might be population control, under the pretense of public health protection. His exact words? “These vaccines are unlikely to completely sterilize a population… but they’re very likely to have an effect in a percentage, say 60-70%.”
The full story here: The Covid Vaccine’s Secret Plot: Depopulation!
To many, this raised immediate red flags. Was he referring to sterilizing the virus, or was he hinting at something far more sinister? And why did the interviewer seem so eager to cut him off before more details slipped out? It’s these unanswered questions that have sent conspiracy theories and concerns swirling through the public domain.
The Debate Over “Sterilizing Immunity” vs. Sterilizing Humans
There’s been a lot of speculation about what Bell actually meant when he mentioned “sterilization.” Some have pointed out that the term might be referring to “sterilizing immunity,” a medical term that describes a vaccine’s ability to eliminate a pathogen before it can replicate in the host. In layman’s terms, it’s the ability of a vaccine to prevent infection and transmission entirely.
But here’s where it gets sticky: Oxford’s vaccine—and any COVID vaccine, for that matter—has not been shown to offer this kind of sterilizing immunity. As one X (formerly Twitter) user put it, “The Covid vaccines do not prevent you from catching or spreading the virus. They’re not sterilizing the virus, let alone anything else.”
So if sterilizing immunity isn’t what’s happening, what did Sir John mean by his sterilization comment? The vagueness of his statement only fuels suspicions.
The COVID Jab: Did It Help or Hurt the Pandemic?
Beyond the sterilization debate, critics have long argued that COVID vaccines, including those developed at warp speed, haven’t lived up to their promise. Despite mass vaccination campaigns, the world still faced waves of infections. Dr. Peter McCullough, a leading voice in pandemic-related discourse, has openly criticized the COVID vaccine’s effectiveness, stating it had little to no impact on controlling the spread.
Dr. McCullough outlines three key factors that he believes have made the illness less severe over time—none of which involve the vaccine:
- Early multidrug treatment protocols
- Natural immunity from prior strains
- The evolution of less dangerous variants, like Omicron
In fact, McCullough and other medical professionals, such as Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, have emphasized that the vaccines may have done more harm than good. Bowden even went so far as to describe the shots as “all risk” and “no benefit.” Both doctors argue that the jab should have been pulled from the market ages ago.
Was it Really “Profits Over People”?
The sentiment that pharmaceutical companies may have put profits over safety is one echoed by many in the medical and public spheres. With billions of doses administered worldwide, the financial windfall for vaccine manufacturers has been immense. Critics argue that this financial incentive could explain why vaccines remained on the market, even amid rising concerns about side effects and a lack of long-term effectiveness.
As Dr. Bowden bluntly stated, the shots were kept on the market despite mounting evidence that they posed risks without offering substantial benefits. She, like many others, suggests that financial motives took precedence over public health.
Data Manipulation: Were COVID Deaths Misrepresented?
There’s also been considerable debate about the data surrounding COVID-related deaths. Some argue that the official numbers may have been inflated, not to reflect true COVID-related fatalities, but to push the vaccine agenda. The argument here is that anyone who died—regardless of the actual cause—was counted as a COVID death if they happened to test positive for the virus.
Critics have highlighted this flawed reporting as another way to keep the pandemic narrative alive and justify continued vaccination campaigns. As one online user commented, the death toll would likely be much lower if only real COVID deaths were considered, rather than anyone who tested positive, no matter how effective—or ineffective—the vaccine turned out to be.
What’s Next for the Oxford COVID Jab?
The clinical trials for the new Oxford COVID shot are still ongoing, and it remains to be seen how regulators will handle the results. Sir John Bell hinted that there would be a delay between when the trial results come in and when the vaccine gets approval for public release. But after his revealing comments, many are wondering just what kind of scrutiny this vaccine will face.
Will regulators look carefully enough to ensure public safety? Or will they rush to approve the vaccine, just as they did with earlier COVID jabs, despite the questions surrounding its long-term effects?
Conclusion: Should We Be Concerned About the Oxford Jab?
The revelation about the potential for mass sterilization—whether of the virus or something else—raises many eyebrows. Combined with ongoing concerns about vaccine effectiveness, side effects, and potential manipulation of pandemic data, it’s clear that public trust in COVID vaccines has been shaken.
The takeaway? We need transparency, now more than ever. As more information surfaces, people must have access to all the facts so they can make informed decisions about their health. Whether the Oxford COVID jab becomes a game-changer or just another chapter in the ongoing vaccine debate, one thing is certain: the public deserves the truth.
Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. We need your support to survive. Please Contribute via GoGetFunding
