Wow, he's really beefed up the graphics at this point.
Yes - but it's also possible without it. Whenever I read Girardot's theory I wonder, "Why are you forcing me to close my mind to other possibilities?" Sure, accidental IV admin could drive the effect -- but there could also just be variable leakage from the muscle. Variable effect on the transfected tissues. Etc. There's nothing about the russian roulette effect that *demands* the bolus theory. Instead, bolus is merely compatible with it.
Likewise, nothing about observed effects demands assuming no direct harm from spike. So there were immune infiltrates in the heart of the autopsies - that doesn't mean the organ wasn't profoundly injured by spike protein as well. It doesn't prove that the infiltrates did the damage. In fact, given how much we know about spike toxicity, it's flabbergasting that Girardot thinks we not only should but somehow need to subtract it from the equation.
Lastly, while he does an incredible job of visualizing and modeling the effects of diffuse endothelial destruction, capillaries are porous especially in certain organs and there will be LNP transfection of non-endothelial cells. So this can't be subtracted either. So it's likely a complex picture and I don't understand where he sees an argument for "One Kind of Damage."
Wow, he's really beefed up the graphics at this point.
Yes - but it's also possible without it. Whenever I read Girardot's theory I wonder, "Why are you forcing me to close my mind to other possibilities?" Sure, accidental IV admin could drive the effect -- but there could also just be variable leakage from the muscle. Variable effect on the transfected tissues. Etc. There's nothing about the russian roulette effect that *demands* the bolus theory. Instead, bolus is merely compatible with it.
Likewise, nothing about observed effects demands assuming no direct harm from spike. So there were immune infiltrates in the heart of the autopsies - that doesn't mean the organ wasn't profoundly injured by spike protein as well. It doesn't prove that the infiltrates did the damage. In fact, given how much we know about spike toxicity, it's flabbergasting that Girardot thinks we not only should but somehow need to subtract it from the equation.
Lastly, while he does an incredible job of visualizing and modeling the effects of diffuse endothelial destruction, capillaries are porous especially in certain organs and there will be LNP transfection of non-endothelial cells. So this can't be subtracted either. So it's likely a complex picture and I don't understand where he sees an argument for "One Kind of Damage."