A science fiction author released a Zombie Apocalypse novel (or series) that featured a virus as the method of zombification.
Perhaps he extended the idea of T. gondii (not a virus) which seems to be able to confuse mice and can have symptoms like confusion and loss of coordination. His evil virus had two 'payloads.' One was some sort of normal virus that was highly infectious but the second was a payload that attacked some part (unspecified) of the brain and zombified the infected. Perhaps the second payload was supposed to further help the spread of the virus.
The notion of such a complex virus, however, is pretty stupid as almost everything not needed for the primary purpose (replication and transmission) is going to degrade and/or be dropped. Secondly, having tropism that can attack epithelial cells as well as specific neurons is pretty complex. Complexity is bad for viruses.
Well, that is true, and Phage Alpha (or something like that) does similar things in that it switches between a mode where it lyses its host and integrates into it's hosts genome.
However, most of these things are controlled by simple switches based on the presence of certain proteins.
In a similar way, Corona Viruses (and pretty much all viruses) have to switch between creating the structural and non-structural proteins needed, and replicating their RNA. That switch in the case of SARS-CoV-2 seems to be the level of the N-protein in the cell.
However, having two two payloads is a whole new level of complexity and my issue is that if the second, zombification payload is just not necessary for the virus to replicate, it will very quickly be lost.
Now, bacteria are a different kettle of fish, as they often have plasmids in them that can do interesting things, like the tetanus (Clostridium tetani). Many of the spore-forming bacteria have virulence genes in plasmids although some of them are in the DNA and in one or two cases in bacteriophages.
One could conceive of a zombifying bacteria that has the zombifying genes in a plasmid and perhaps being expressed when the bacteria is lysed by a macrophage etc.
Of course, you would have to identify the zombifying proteins first. I imagine Fauci and co have already done that.
It turns out that D3 is needed even for the innate immune system. Who knew? Well, it seems that Fauci did. And a large number of people in the West (and possibly elsewhere) are deficient or insufficient.
This tends to muddy the waters around the narrative "vaccine evil"! It may simply be "vaccine useless but it does damage some people and the real problem is that various winter viruses are killing people because their immune systems are not working".
Perhaps there are different things going on here during different seasons.
Off topic, but whoa. Has Ron Unz become an Anti-Vaxxer? He has section titles like "The Surprising Flaws in Vaccine Safety Testing". I have yet to read it so I cannot be sure ... but he refers to Turtles All The Way Down.
I believe that post meets the definition of an anti-vaxxer. "Oh, so we don't actually *know* if they are safe or help anyone. That seems... bad..." Not very different from my 3 core arguments in yesterday's post.
'The only clinical benefit recorded in the Pfizer C4591001 study published in the NEJM on the 10th Dec 2020 was: "a 95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for COVID by a PCR test conducted at Pfizer's laboratory in Pearl River"'
Right, so Arkmedic seems to be wrong in claiming that "the only clinical ..." was 95% reduction in getting a positive PCR test" unless I have misunderstood those words.
It seems to be a "95% (probably RRR) reduction in getting a positive PCR test and at least one symptom."
The codon optimization performed by Pfizer and Moderna is claimed by some to allow them to unblind the samples by testing to see if the samples have their specific mRNA in them and then subject them to different thresholds in the RT-PCR tests.
However, what if those are really designed to allow them to claim their share of the bounty for killing people? Did you ever think of that?
Igor is starting to figure out the consequences of a vaccine that is ineffective. Maybe that excess mortality is caused by SARS-CoV-2 after all because the vaccine Does. Not. Work.
I need to read the article in more depth, however.
Well, it would be difficult to sort out the meaning of "does not work." Clearly "Severe Covid-19" ie lungs being turned into soup (DAD + organizing pneumonia) isn't preceding these deaths. So do the injections trade rampant viral replication for brush fires that lead to cardiac arrest, i.e. it is both working and unworking at the same time? Maybe. In which case the whole thing could come down to IgG4 and overdoing the RNA / antigen dose.
Severe efficacy could have been achieved with only an extremely modest antibody response because the B Cells expand as soon as the infection happens. But by trying to overdo it and achieve infection efficacy, you get tolerance.
However, I think it's more to do with other infections, especially flu.
I wanted to expand on my comment ... we know that the really-really activated form of D3 (calciferol to calcifediol [activated in the liver] to calcitriol) is consumed by T-cells when they activate B-cells to produce antibodies.
It is also well known that lots of people (perhaps a majority) are D3 insufficient and D3 deficient.
The vaccine causes an immune response. The manufacturers go to great efforts to make sure that happens and measure antibody levels as proof of the effectiveness of their vaccines in some cases. That immune response depletes your serum D3 levels making you susceptible to all sorts of disease unless you do something to restore them.
So, while I rarely recommend that you get the #ClotShot, when I do I also recommend that you take lots of D3 as well. That fraud Fauci is on record as saying that he takes 6,000 IUs a day. You could also eat lots of polar bear livers (I hear they concentrate D3) or just liver, take cod-liver oil or get more sunlight. Old people tend to have low levels of serum D3 as well.
Dr David Grimes has a good series of articles on this with nice graphs etc. I am sure I have posted the article on the fact that T-cells will not activate B-cells to produce antibodies if your serum D3 levels are too low.
It would be useful to see the age skew of the excess mortality.
Here I found a fun thread about escaped lab monkeys for you, Brian. I just wanted to point out that Ft. Derrick is to the south of PA, and maybe where these monkeys were headed.
Interesting, I don't remember hearing about that one. The polio vaccine program went through 17,000 Indian rhesus monkeys, putting suspected human polio into their brains between 1949 and 51. There were probably a few escapes, leaks, etc. along the way https://unglossed.substack.com/i/85015705/comment-cross-post-rsv-and-polio-history
Well, I must admit that I jumped the shark with my post. This is what happens when you do late night Substacking!
But seriously, the sensationalist format of the videos certainly got the best of me. Looking back there were certainly pieces that didn't make sense such as what you posted above- how does someone in his position know about all of these facts?
I guess, in a strange sense, he probably was trying to show off to his date?
I will probably make a quick post linking to this article and explaining my oopsie.
Your comments on GOF are actually something I've had questions about, hence my comments about whether an immunocompromised patient with persistent SARS-COV2 infections would be considered a GOF experiment. The term is used rather broadly, so either we continue to use it broadly and dilute the meaning of the term, or we use it in a more...directed manner.
Over at Eugyppius- there is a pinned comment that is also thought provoking- maybe you could expand on that too?
The Antisocial Darwinist
Writes The Antisocial Darwinist
2 hr ago
Pinned
Great take as always, E, but I am pushing back on this statement "I’ll be honest: I don’t think what Walker describes is necessarily dangerous. The virus is already training itself against vaccine-elicited antibodies in billions of people." I am speaking as an evolutionary microbiologist, and I believe this couldn't be farther from the truth, and what they did is inherently gain-of-function in terms of enhancing virulence.
Here's my reasoning -- in nature, viruses experience three primary types of selection. The first is what you describe, which is selection to overcome immune defenses in a population that has experience with the virus. The second is selection just to make more viruses during an infection -- "scramble competition" it is called, basically favoring whichever genotype can plow through the host the fastest before killing the host or getting stopped by the immune response. And the third is selection for transmission between hosts. That is partially related to the scramble competition, but favors other things like presence in bodily fluids, survival time outside the body and so forth.
My point is that in nature, there's expected to be a tension between scramble competition -- which favors lethality -- and transmission competition, which at least in respiratory viruses favors moderate illness because it inevitably prioritizes infection of the upper respiratory tract which is uncomfortable but not dangerous. But in a laboratory serial passage experiment, my understanding is that one animal is typically directly infected by a previous animal by intentional mobilization of infectious material by the experimenters, or by placing them together one-on-one in close contact. That is going to significantly reduce the power of selection for transmissivity and favor the scramble competition evolution of virulence. It's going to make a more dangerous virus, every time.
Like you say, there's no need for serial passage experiments in a world where massive PCR+sequencing monitoring is going on for vaxx resistant mutations, and where you can chemically synthesize any mRNA you want at a moments notice to make a new vaccine. The only reason for them to be doing serial passage imho is to look for more lethal variants, possibly to develop non-vaccine therapeutics like paxlovid or something.
Once again would not substantiate Walker's construction of the "scheme" since it doesn't tie the loose end of his fictional "pre-developing vaccines" that can't be marketed element.
Is someone trying to make more-lethal, less transmissible variants?
1 That someone would obviously already have to have a vector distribution system in place (ie, get virus to people when person-to-person transmission can't do the same without deattenuation via transmission bottlenecks)
2 Delta would be a great hypothetical example of the same, as it increased furin cleavage and cell fusion and symptom severity. So maybe it was a lab-grown hyper-lethal, vector distributed strain with poor person-to-person transmission. Though the genetic evidence for Delta after its emergence looks natural as far as I can tell, person-to-person not vector transmission.
3 What does it have to do with Walker? Unclear. Just seems to be painting words on the shiny object that has everyone's attention.
Sub-comment: Would my post have 444 likes in 4 hours if I hadn't pointed out Malone's putting his pants on backwards and thinking a contractor was a senior emissary? I should learn to be like Eugyppius and just trash-talk MSM talking head women and one random old German public health guy, never our own "team."
Lol- Eugyppius is a bit all over the place right now as he finds his voice in his new full time profession as a permanent substacker. But like everyone, he views things from his own German prism/lens. I appreciate your critical voice even if it ruffles some feathers in our “team”. Acknowledging your own intrinsic biases is difficult.
I appreciate Malone because he can pierce MSM (he got on Tucker) to educate the masses and he has been widely vilified for sticking his neck out there. He also got the jabs and yet admits it was a mistake.
One could devote an entire blog to trying to decipher Malone, put out a post every day with a different interpretation. It could be called "Who is Robert Malone," ha.
On Tucker, he is hitting the Scapegoat Pfizer for Intentional Deep State Biowarfare message hard. Straight on point, no futzing about with folksy moralizing and mistaking Walker for a senior exec. So was the latter just an op on the "Health Freedom Movement," aka, "Jabs Bad Island 1"? Keep them sedated with "bad evil gay guy bad, gay and evil"? Is everything just a troll to lash out for his failed plan to tank HCQ and cash in on his own vax back in 2020, as Webb intimates? Who knows.
Indeed, Malone is a complex character. I’m certainly not clever enough to figure out many of the smaller impetuses of these people. It’s why I try to read a lot and focus on the wider angle that we really need to get out to the public more. The jabs are dangerous and we have some arrogant morons tinkering in labs who shouldn’t be without more regulations and babysitters. I’m now in NC and I hear every single day on the radio them pushing the jabs. Totally criminal.
I still have to try and believe that the CIa always thinking they are the smartest person in the room is what is going to end up blowing up in their faces. It invariably does. Our problem is that they never suffer any actual consequences for it- we end up paying for it instead (taxpayers funded wars, combatting new enemies like isis, and trying to jab our way out of a pandemic guided by greedy big pharma).
What about monkey pox instead of Delta? I mean just because we don’t have definitive proof yet of lab-grown strains, doesn’t mean they aren’t out there. I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg, personally.
Right, but like I say in my post, it's the difference between acknowledging that the unknown mutant-virus-releaser "phantasm" is unknown, and strutting across the Mission Accomplished aircraft carrier for deposing a scapegoat of the US 9-11 doers oops I mean virus releasers oops I mean...
Am not caught up, but I logged in to facebook on my damn laptop to copy & paste this post I did to get this to a level of public thinking. I just ran it by a doctor who is not my mom and she just said it's dense... and I think it is dense in the same way you can be--it's like how a virus is this absent thing you're keeping tracking of, so I'll be reading one of your posts and i'll mentally attribute "joke" but... like i don't get it dude! haha. so if you have any reactions on the level of communicating i'd be curious to hear. or on the level of St. Thomas Francis Jr.:
"I guess I'm in an anti-Deleuzean period, which... grant me that, he co-authored Anti-Oedipus, which I do buy the line is the most Oedipal thing one can do --I'm like why didn't I think of that, it's baldingly obvious in the same way tolerance may be a factor if you keep injecting people with something that is meant to severely effect their system--
I might as well outright say if you are on the bleeding edge of the mainstream account of vaccines, you might run into a pushback manifested as the Original Antigenic Sin theory... this was actually called this and the whole COVID thing is like a weird re-telling of modernism, structural linguistics and psychoanalysis--it's just too on-the-nose if you spend your life absorbing stuff no one you know cares about and makes itself out to be inscrutable but only as an effect academic elitism as far as I can tell...
ANYWAY, so as far as I can tell Original Antigenic Sin, was sort of an ironic/not-ironic puritanically neurotic take on viruses, these things we can infer through different markers, but we don't outright see, that this guy, I think it was Thomas Francis Jr, very saintly name, came up with because he thought he could cash-in on a universal flu vaccine, so he saw some stuff that made him think one's first encounter with influenza imprints itself in the reaction so thereafter the body's response specifically targets that one particular... expression, I don't know exactly what he was working with now that I think about, this was in the 60s so long before PCR, but they could nail down some specific difference enough so this guy could come up with a theory of why, I'm still a bit iffy on this actually, his universal vaccine is totally necessary from the get-go. I have trouble attributing this as blatantly alarmist and self-serving logic, but it's on the table and to some degree I think it may accord with reality. I think I can get my mind to be like a brain that's almost the size of the universe, in which thoughts can exist like the albino cat I see in my backyard everyday just existing and doing it's thing until otherwise.
So there was a Wall Street Journal editorial, that I think was wrote to alarm people about the implications of vaccines and Original Antigenic Sin. And I think cellular plasticity or whatever, is beyond this weird biblical/but-not logic. In my opinion one should not be alarmed, but consider that there may be some tolerance effect to injecting themselves with a virus reaction on an accelerated basis. In the words of Deleuze, if you are caught in another's dream you're f-cked.
Oh yeah, but my point is I probably am Deleuzian, I was born this way, but what is deleuze but another (post) modern approximation of indigenous existence. So that's where I'm at."
I can't dance to French philosophy. I have always meant to take lessons.
Measuring immune targets / impressions was crude and physical. First, in the 30s with the first flu passages, you would just see if people's blood stopped ferrets or rabbits etc. from getting sick with another infected animal's lung juice.
Then, 40s, there was complement tests and blood-glomming-inhibition. Basically the same information, does blood stop this version of infected lung juice or egg virus from causing a reaction.
Then, 50s, there was absorption. You wave flu spike-affixed prongs through the blood to take out all the antibodies that can bind to that spike. Then you see if any are left that can still cause the blood to stop a reaction to a different spike that it could stop a reaction to previously. So you can have this blood that stops a reaction to both A and B spike but A spike can remove all the B-reaction-stopping things from it, and not vice-versa. So that means that no B antibodies are "specific" for B, they are all cross-reactive. Whereas B can't stop A reactions so some A antibodies are specific. This was a godsend to Francis for his stupid, idiotic theory, he got to appropriate imprinting to salvage his falsified claims.
Then, 70s, there was the really complex thing where there were seven different inhibition pools at once, I can't ever remember the logic of that one but it was cool.
"Directed evolution" another moronic phrase. If "evolution" means anything at all, of course it's directed. Random mutation acted on by natural selection... Selection=direction. Further abuse of the English language.
-"Well, let's see, ah yes, recently, I was drilling holes in a lot of monkey heads and putting stuff in it, and waited to see whether it made them miserable. It's really interesting."
Now that sounds like a well-adjusted, healthy psyche right there. The first choice when I'd be looking for someone to watch over my children (if I had any) while I'm absent.
Freemasons are very fond of Malthus and Darwin. Historically, whererever there’s population apocalypticists, anti-natalism, eugenics, sterilization and depopulation, we’d find freemasonic money, like bees to honey:
In 1913, eugeni-racist Margaret Sanger gave a conference at a UK freemasonic Fabian Society, where she met eugenicist (and later pro-Nazi) Marie Stopes, who advocated sterilization of non-whites and the poor, and helped her writing a chapter on contraception.
In 1917, Binnie Dunlop, secretary of the freemasonic Malthusian League, introduced her to Humphrey Verdon Roe, her future husband, who’d publish her after all editors had refused to.
In 1921, Marie Stopes opened the first birth control facility in the UK
Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
In the 1930s John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics from Britain to Germany funding the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, a pillar of the Nazi super race.
In 1947 the head of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and Nobel Prize (1960) immunologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet advised the Australian government to develop biological and chemical weapons to target food crops and spread infectious diseases against Indonesia and other “overpopulated” countries of South-East Asia.
In the 1950s, the Rockefellers funded population-control and abortion groups, including The Eugenics Society, renamed the Society for the Study of Social Biology.
In the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England adopted “crypto-eugenics”, i.e. instruments falsely not labelled as eugenics, such as population control, population stabilization and family planning of whoever they consider the un-fittest to be terminated. Rockefeller funded the International Planned Parenthood Federation, addressed for 12 years in the Eugenics Society. For instance, most PP abortuaries in the USA are located in African American and Latino neighbourhoods.
In 1969, a Department of State telegram, reported the support of John D. Rockefeller III and others, for the appointment of Rafael Salas of the Philippines as senior officer to co-ordinate and administer the UN population program, because of his color and Catholic religion (to dupe such groups).1
In 1974 Bilderberger Henry Kissinger wrote the National Security Memorandum 200, a plan to use food scarcity and family planning, defined as health services (in spite of including abortion, abortifacients wrongly called contraception and lethal contraceptives), as weapons (truly WMD) in order to achieve population reduction in lesser-developed countries (LDC). Also, it planned exchanging aid food and funds for mandatory population control through the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), “avoiding the danger that some LDC leaders will see developed-country pressures for family planning as a form of economic or racial imperialism”. 2
In 1977 White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s textbook Ecoscience called for a global dictatorship to enforce depopulation, even with forced sterilization.
In 1988, Prince Phillipe RIP, the queen’s consort, who was a freemason, like most of the UK royals, said: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” 3
In 2006, Dr. Erik Pianka advocated in a conference the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population, “no better than bacteria!”, through sterilization and an airborne virus (avian flu, ebola). Got a standing ovation.4
5 May 2009, David Rockefeller Jr hosted a secretive meeting with Gorge Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey, calling themselves “The Good Club”, to discuss depopulation plans. “Why all the secrecy? They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government.” 5
In 2012, as a result from that meeting, CNN mogul Ted Turner, a freemason Bilderberger, wanted a population reduction of 95% (360 million left out of 7 billion) through a global 100 year one child policy (although he had 5 children and 2 million acres), due to an alleged global warming of 8° in 40 years (although he has private jets).6
Yet, even before that, less than one year after “The Good Club” meeting:
In 2010, Bill Gates said in a TED talk promoting decarbonisation by population culling as a solution to the weather change fake crisis: “So you’ve got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero, and that’s going to be based on the number of people, the services each person is using on average, the energy, on average, for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy… The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (i.e. murdering unborn babies through abortion and abortifacients promoted by the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation), we could lower that by, perhaps 10 or 15 percent”.7
A science fiction author released a Zombie Apocalypse novel (or series) that featured a virus as the method of zombification.
Perhaps he extended the idea of T. gondii (not a virus) which seems to be able to confuse mice and can have symptoms like confusion and loss of coordination. His evil virus had two 'payloads.' One was some sort of normal virus that was highly infectious but the second was a payload that attacked some part (unspecified) of the brain and zombified the infected. Perhaps the second payload was supposed to further help the spread of the virus.
The notion of such a complex virus, however, is pretty stupid as almost everything not needed for the primary purpose (replication and transmission) is going to degrade and/or be dropped. Secondly, having tropism that can attack epithelial cells as well as specific neurons is pretty complex. Complexity is bad for viruses.
but lots of viruses are complex and bimodal, eg herpes (chickenpox -> dormancy -> shingles) etc
Well, that is true, and Phage Alpha (or something like that) does similar things in that it switches between a mode where it lyses its host and integrates into it's hosts genome.
However, most of these things are controlled by simple switches based on the presence of certain proteins.
In a similar way, Corona Viruses (and pretty much all viruses) have to switch between creating the structural and non-structural proteins needed, and replicating their RNA. That switch in the case of SARS-CoV-2 seems to be the level of the N-protein in the cell.
However, having two two payloads is a whole new level of complexity and my issue is that if the second, zombification payload is just not necessary for the virus to replicate, it will very quickly be lost.
Now, bacteria are a different kettle of fish, as they often have plasmids in them that can do interesting things, like the tetanus (Clostridium tetani). Many of the spore-forming bacteria have virulence genes in plasmids although some of them are in the DNA and in one or two cases in bacteriophages.
One could conceive of a zombifying bacteria that has the zombifying genes in a plasmid and perhaps being expressed when the bacteria is lysed by a macrophage etc.
Of course, you would have to identify the zombifying proteins first. I imagine Fauci and co have already done that.
Another Off Topic or maybe not.
It turns out that D3 is needed even for the innate immune system. Who knew? Well, it seems that Fauci did. And a large number of people in the West (and possibly elsewhere) are deficient or insufficient.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26433491/
This tends to muddy the waters around the narrative "vaccine evil"! It may simply be "vaccine useless but it does damage some people and the real problem is that various winter viruses are killing people because their immune systems are not working".
Perhaps there are different things going on here during different seasons.
Off topic, but whoa. Has Ron Unz become an Anti-Vaxxer? He has section titles like "The Surprising Flaws in Vaccine Safety Testing". I have yet to read it so I cannot be sure ... but he refers to Turtles All The Way Down.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-vaccines-and-the-mystery-of-polio/
I believe that post meets the definition of an anti-vaxxer. "Oh, so we don't actually *know* if they are safe or help anyone. That seems... bad..." Not very different from my 3 core arguments in yesterday's post.
Over at Arkmedic in https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/dont-be-arrsey it says:
'The only clinical benefit recorded in the Pfizer C4591001 study published in the NEJM on the 10th Dec 2020 was: "a 95% reduction in the chance of testing positive for COVID by a PCR test conducted at Pfizer's laboratory in Pearl River"'
However, in the Daily Clout Pfizer Documents Analysis Volunteers' Report Ebook (https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/ref=sr_1_1) on page 48 it says that the FDA criteria for a confirmed Covid diagnosis was:
A. One of the following symptoms and they list 10 symptoms)
N. Plus: a respiratory specimen in suspected SC2 + by NAAT obtained during symptomatic period +/- four days before.
An NAAT seems to refer to a Nucleic Acid Amplification Test like RT-PCR.
Now, on the surface of it it seems that at least one of the above two claims are incorrect.
I have yet to read the NEJM paper but it is curious that people cannot seem to get these things correct.
It was symptom + positive test, usually PCR at Pearl River but NAAT if telehealth. Page 29 of clinical overview https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/STN-125742_0_0-Section-2.5-Clinical-Overview.pdf
Right, so Arkmedic seems to be wrong in claiming that "the only clinical ..." was 95% reduction in getting a positive PCR test" unless I have misunderstood those words.
It seems to be a "95% (probably RRR) reduction in getting a positive PCR test and at least one symptom."
I am starting to get the following feeling.
The environment our immune system lives in is complex, so simple explanations are probably wrong. Please prove me wrong.
CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT!
The codon optimization performed by Pfizer and Moderna is claimed by some to allow them to unblind the samples by testing to see if the samples have their specific mRNA in them and then subject them to different thresholds in the RT-PCR tests.
However, what if those are really designed to allow them to claim their share of the bounty for killing people? Did you ever think of that?
Igor is starting to figure out the consequences of a vaccine that is ineffective. Maybe that excess mortality is caused by SARS-CoV-2 after all because the vaccine Does. Not. Work.
I need to read the article in more depth, however.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/is-geerts-prediction-of-a-deadlier
Well, it would be difficult to sort out the meaning of "does not work." Clearly "Severe Covid-19" ie lungs being turned into soup (DAD + organizing pneumonia) isn't preceding these deaths. So do the injections trade rampant viral replication for brush fires that lead to cardiac arrest, i.e. it is both working and unworking at the same time? Maybe. In which case the whole thing could come down to IgG4 and overdoing the RNA / antigen dose.
Severe efficacy could have been achieved with only an extremely modest antibody response because the B Cells expand as soon as the infection happens. But by trying to overdo it and achieve infection efficacy, you get tolerance.
However, I think it's more to do with other infections, especially flu.
I wanted to expand on my comment ... we know that the really-really activated form of D3 (calciferol to calcifediol [activated in the liver] to calcitriol) is consumed by T-cells when they activate B-cells to produce antibodies.
It is also well known that lots of people (perhaps a majority) are D3 insufficient and D3 deficient.
The vaccine causes an immune response. The manufacturers go to great efforts to make sure that happens and measure antibody levels as proof of the effectiveness of their vaccines in some cases. That immune response depletes your serum D3 levels making you susceptible to all sorts of disease unless you do something to restore them.
So, while I rarely recommend that you get the #ClotShot, when I do I also recommend that you take lots of D3 as well. That fraud Fauci is on record as saying that he takes 6,000 IUs a day. You could also eat lots of polar bear livers (I hear they concentrate D3) or just liver, take cod-liver oil or get more sunlight. Old people tend to have low levels of serum D3 as well.
Dr David Grimes has a good series of articles on this with nice graphs etc. I am sure I have posted the article on the fact that T-cells will not activate B-cells to produce antibodies if your serum D3 levels are too low.
It would be useful to see the age skew of the excess mortality.
Here I found a fun thread about escaped lab monkeys for you, Brian. I just wanted to point out that Ft. Derrick is to the south of PA, and maybe where these monkeys were headed.
https://twitter.com/TaraBull808/status/1619079682040934400
Interesting, I don't remember hearing about that one. The polio vaccine program went through 17,000 Indian rhesus monkeys, putting suspected human polio into their brains between 1949 and 51. There were probably a few escapes, leaks, etc. along the way https://unglossed.substack.com/i/85015705/comment-cross-post-rsv-and-polio-history
Wow, what a new concept. So new that the body has been doing it for a long while:
https://www.science.org/content/article/protein-decoys-viruses-may-battle-covid-19-and-more
"Protein decoys for viruses may battle COVID-19 and more
Drugs designed to resemble pathogen’s cellular targets could prevent infection"
Healthy individuals embed sialic acid in their mucus as just one example.
I wonder if anyone has looked to see what other interesting receptor analogs?
This is also pointing out that it's a numbers game. If we can reduce the number of virions that can infect cells, we are winning.
Pfizer clarifies: "We don't always do Gain of Function research but when we do we make hundreds of billions of dollars" or something like that.
Well, I must admit that I jumped the shark with my post. This is what happens when you do late night Substacking!
But seriously, the sensationalist format of the videos certainly got the best of me. Looking back there were certainly pieces that didn't make sense such as what you posted above- how does someone in his position know about all of these facts?
I guess, in a strange sense, he probably was trying to show off to his date?
I will probably make a quick post linking to this article and explaining my oopsie.
Your comments on GOF are actually something I've had questions about, hence my comments about whether an immunocompromised patient with persistent SARS-COV2 infections would be considered a GOF experiment. The term is used rather broadly, so either we continue to use it broadly and dilute the meaning of the term, or we use it in a more...directed manner.
Over at Eugyppius- there is a pinned comment that is also thought provoking- maybe you could expand on that too?
The Antisocial Darwinist
Writes The Antisocial Darwinist
2 hr ago
Pinned
Great take as always, E, but I am pushing back on this statement "I’ll be honest: I don’t think what Walker describes is necessarily dangerous. The virus is already training itself against vaccine-elicited antibodies in billions of people." I am speaking as an evolutionary microbiologist, and I believe this couldn't be farther from the truth, and what they did is inherently gain-of-function in terms of enhancing virulence.
Here's my reasoning -- in nature, viruses experience three primary types of selection. The first is what you describe, which is selection to overcome immune defenses in a population that has experience with the virus. The second is selection just to make more viruses during an infection -- "scramble competition" it is called, basically favoring whichever genotype can plow through the host the fastest before killing the host or getting stopped by the immune response. And the third is selection for transmission between hosts. That is partially related to the scramble competition, but favors other things like presence in bodily fluids, survival time outside the body and so forth.
My point is that in nature, there's expected to be a tension between scramble competition -- which favors lethality -- and transmission competition, which at least in respiratory viruses favors moderate illness because it inevitably prioritizes infection of the upper respiratory tract which is uncomfortable but not dangerous. But in a laboratory serial passage experiment, my understanding is that one animal is typically directly infected by a previous animal by intentional mobilization of infectious material by the experimenters, or by placing them together one-on-one in close contact. That is going to significantly reduce the power of selection for transmissivity and favor the scramble competition evolution of virulence. It's going to make a more dangerous virus, every time.
Like you say, there's no need for serial passage experiments in a world where massive PCR+sequencing monitoring is going on for vaxx resistant mutations, and where you can chemically synthesize any mRNA you want at a moments notice to make a new vaccine. The only reason for them to be doing serial passage imho is to look for more lethal variants, possibly to develop non-vaccine therapeutics like paxlovid or something.
Once again would not substantiate Walker's construction of the "scheme" since it doesn't tie the loose end of his fictional "pre-developing vaccines" that can't be marketed element.
Is someone trying to make more-lethal, less transmissible variants?
1 That someone would obviously already have to have a vector distribution system in place (ie, get virus to people when person-to-person transmission can't do the same without deattenuation via transmission bottlenecks)
2 Delta would be a great hypothetical example of the same, as it increased furin cleavage and cell fusion and symptom severity. So maybe it was a lab-grown hyper-lethal, vector distributed strain with poor person-to-person transmission. Though the genetic evidence for Delta after its emergence looks natural as far as I can tell, person-to-person not vector transmission.
3 What does it have to do with Walker? Unclear. Just seems to be painting words on the shiny object that has everyone's attention.
Sub-comment: Would my post have 444 likes in 4 hours if I hadn't pointed out Malone's putting his pants on backwards and thinking a contractor was a senior emissary? I should learn to be like Eugyppius and just trash-talk MSM talking head women and one random old German public health guy, never our own "team."
Lol- Eugyppius is a bit all over the place right now as he finds his voice in his new full time profession as a permanent substacker. But like everyone, he views things from his own German prism/lens. I appreciate your critical voice even if it ruffles some feathers in our “team”. Acknowledging your own intrinsic biases is difficult.
I appreciate Malone because he can pierce MSM (he got on Tucker) to educate the masses and he has been widely vilified for sticking his neck out there. He also got the jabs and yet admits it was a mistake.
One could devote an entire blog to trying to decipher Malone, put out a post every day with a different interpretation. It could be called "Who is Robert Malone," ha.
On Tucker, he is hitting the Scapegoat Pfizer for Intentional Deep State Biowarfare message hard. Straight on point, no futzing about with folksy moralizing and mistaking Walker for a senior exec. So was the latter just an op on the "Health Freedom Movement," aka, "Jabs Bad Island 1"? Keep them sedated with "bad evil gay guy bad, gay and evil"? Is everything just a troll to lash out for his failed plan to tank HCQ and cash in on his own vax back in 2020, as Webb intimates? Who knows.
Indeed, Malone is a complex character. I’m certainly not clever enough to figure out many of the smaller impetuses of these people. It’s why I try to read a lot and focus on the wider angle that we really need to get out to the public more. The jabs are dangerous and we have some arrogant morons tinkering in labs who shouldn’t be without more regulations and babysitters. I’m now in NC and I hear every single day on the radio them pushing the jabs. Totally criminal.
I still have to try and believe that the CIa always thinking they are the smartest person in the room is what is going to end up blowing up in their faces. It invariably does. Our problem is that they never suffer any actual consequences for it- we end up paying for it instead (taxpayers funded wars, combatting new enemies like isis, and trying to jab our way out of a pandemic guided by greedy big pharma).
What about monkey pox instead of Delta? I mean just because we don’t have definitive proof yet of lab-grown strains, doesn’t mean they aren’t out there. I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg, personally.
Right, but like I say in my post, it's the difference between acknowledging that the unknown mutant-virus-releaser "phantasm" is unknown, and strutting across the Mission Accomplished aircraft carrier for deposing a scapegoat of the US 9-11 doers oops I mean virus releasers oops I mean...
Am not caught up, but I logged in to facebook on my damn laptop to copy & paste this post I did to get this to a level of public thinking. I just ran it by a doctor who is not my mom and she just said it's dense... and I think it is dense in the same way you can be--it's like how a virus is this absent thing you're keeping tracking of, so I'll be reading one of your posts and i'll mentally attribute "joke" but... like i don't get it dude! haha. so if you have any reactions on the level of communicating i'd be curious to hear. or on the level of St. Thomas Francis Jr.:
"I guess I'm in an anti-Deleuzean period, which... grant me that, he co-authored Anti-Oedipus, which I do buy the line is the most Oedipal thing one can do --I'm like why didn't I think of that, it's baldingly obvious in the same way tolerance may be a factor if you keep injecting people with something that is meant to severely effect their system--
I might as well outright say if you are on the bleeding edge of the mainstream account of vaccines, you might run into a pushback manifested as the Original Antigenic Sin theory... this was actually called this and the whole COVID thing is like a weird re-telling of modernism, structural linguistics and psychoanalysis--it's just too on-the-nose if you spend your life absorbing stuff no one you know cares about and makes itself out to be inscrutable but only as an effect academic elitism as far as I can tell...
ANYWAY, so as far as I can tell Original Antigenic Sin, was sort of an ironic/not-ironic puritanically neurotic take on viruses, these things we can infer through different markers, but we don't outright see, that this guy, I think it was Thomas Francis Jr, very saintly name, came up with because he thought he could cash-in on a universal flu vaccine, so he saw some stuff that made him think one's first encounter with influenza imprints itself in the reaction so thereafter the body's response specifically targets that one particular... expression, I don't know exactly what he was working with now that I think about, this was in the 60s so long before PCR, but they could nail down some specific difference enough so this guy could come up with a theory of why, I'm still a bit iffy on this actually, his universal vaccine is totally necessary from the get-go. I have trouble attributing this as blatantly alarmist and self-serving logic, but it's on the table and to some degree I think it may accord with reality. I think I can get my mind to be like a brain that's almost the size of the universe, in which thoughts can exist like the albino cat I see in my backyard everyday just existing and doing it's thing until otherwise.
So there was a Wall Street Journal editorial, that I think was wrote to alarm people about the implications of vaccines and Original Antigenic Sin. And I think cellular plasticity or whatever, is beyond this weird biblical/but-not logic. In my opinion one should not be alarmed, but consider that there may be some tolerance effect to injecting themselves with a virus reaction on an accelerated basis. In the words of Deleuze, if you are caught in another's dream you're f-cked.
Oh yeah, but my point is I probably am Deleuzian, I was born this way, but what is deleuze but another (post) modern approximation of indigenous existence. So that's where I'm at."
I can't dance to French philosophy. I have always meant to take lessons.
Measuring immune targets / impressions was crude and physical. First, in the 30s with the first flu passages, you would just see if people's blood stopped ferrets or rabbits etc. from getting sick with another infected animal's lung juice.
Then, 40s, there was complement tests and blood-glomming-inhibition. Basically the same information, does blood stop this version of infected lung juice or egg virus from causing a reaction.
Then, 50s, there was absorption. You wave flu spike-affixed prongs through the blood to take out all the antibodies that can bind to that spike. Then you see if any are left that can still cause the blood to stop a reaction to a different spike that it could stop a reaction to previously. So you can have this blood that stops a reaction to both A and B spike but A spike can remove all the B-reaction-stopping things from it, and not vice-versa. So that means that no B antibodies are "specific" for B, they are all cross-reactive. Whereas B can't stop A reactions so some A antibodies are specific. This was a godsend to Francis for his stupid, idiotic theory, he got to appropriate imprinting to salvage his falsified claims.
Then, 70s, there was the really complex thing where there were seven different inhibition pools at once, I can't ever remember the logic of that one but it was cool.
"Directed evolution" another moronic phrase. If "evolution" means anything at all, of course it's directed. Random mutation acted on by natural selection... Selection=direction. Further abuse of the English language.
I remember 20 years ago, the big buzz word was just-in-time evolution
I actually don't remember that one.
*at the restaurant table, date #1*
"So, what do you actually do at your job?"
-"Well, let's see, ah yes, recently, I was drilling holes in a lot of monkey heads and putting stuff in it, and waited to see whether it made them miserable. It's really interesting."
Now that sounds like a well-adjusted, healthy psyche right there. The first choice when I'd be looking for someone to watch over my children (if I had any) while I'm absent.
The guy is used to accolades for talking crap like this.
The use of live primates (or beagles) in biomedical research makes me sick.
Wow! Are you a CIA analyst? You surely have the skills to put the puzzle back together!
I'd like to quote several key parts of it in my book: how should I?
I'm not attacking you but you are missing key pieces which could turn your conclusion upside down.
How can you explain that the same HIV sequence was found in SARS-Cov1 and MERS?:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
Would you change your conclusion after reading that?
Are you are denying there's a freemason plot to kill 95%+ of the population?
https://youtu.be/SOIs42o5AI8?t=30585
Freemasons are very fond of Malthus and Darwin. Historically, whererever there’s population apocalypticists, anti-natalism, eugenics, sterilization and depopulation, we’d find freemasonic money, like bees to honey:
In 1913, eugeni-racist Margaret Sanger gave a conference at a UK freemasonic Fabian Society, where she met eugenicist (and later pro-Nazi) Marie Stopes, who advocated sterilization of non-whites and the poor, and helped her writing a chapter on contraception.
In 1917, Binnie Dunlop, secretary of the freemasonic Malthusian League, introduced her to Humphrey Verdon Roe, her future husband, who’d publish her after all editors had refused to.
In 1921, Marie Stopes opened the first birth control facility in the UK
Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
In the 1930s John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics from Britain to Germany funding the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, a pillar of the Nazi super race.
In 1947 the head of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and Nobel Prize (1960) immunologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet advised the Australian government to develop biological and chemical weapons to target food crops and spread infectious diseases against Indonesia and other “overpopulated” countries of South-East Asia.
In the 1950s, the Rockefellers funded population-control and abortion groups, including The Eugenics Society, renamed the Society for the Study of Social Biology.
In the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England adopted “crypto-eugenics”, i.e. instruments falsely not labelled as eugenics, such as population control, population stabilization and family planning of whoever they consider the un-fittest to be terminated. Rockefeller funded the International Planned Parenthood Federation, addressed for 12 years in the Eugenics Society. For instance, most PP abortuaries in the USA are located in African American and Latino neighbourhoods.
In 1969, a Department of State telegram, reported the support of John D. Rockefeller III and others, for the appointment of Rafael Salas of the Philippines as senior officer to co-ordinate and administer the UN population program, because of his color and Catholic religion (to dupe such groups).1
In 1974 Bilderberger Henry Kissinger wrote the National Security Memorandum 200, a plan to use food scarcity and family planning, defined as health services (in spite of including abortion, abortifacients wrongly called contraception and lethal contraceptives), as weapons (truly WMD) in order to achieve population reduction in lesser-developed countries (LDC). Also, it planned exchanging aid food and funds for mandatory population control through the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), “avoiding the danger that some LDC leaders will see developed-country pressures for family planning as a form of economic or racial imperialism”. 2
In 1977 White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s textbook Ecoscience called for a global dictatorship to enforce depopulation, even with forced sterilization.
In 1988, Prince Phillipe RIP, the queen’s consort, who was a freemason, like most of the UK royals, said: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” 3
In 2006, Dr. Erik Pianka advocated in a conference the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population, “no better than bacteria!”, through sterilization and an airborne virus (avian flu, ebola). Got a standing ovation.4
5 May 2009, David Rockefeller Jr hosted a secretive meeting with Gorge Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey, calling themselves “The Good Club”, to discuss depopulation plans. “Why all the secrecy? They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government.” 5
In 2012, as a result from that meeting, CNN mogul Ted Turner, a freemason Bilderberger, wanted a population reduction of 95% (360 million left out of 7 billion) through a global 100 year one child policy (although he had 5 children and 2 million acres), due to an alleged global warming of 8° in 40 years (although he has private jets).6
Yet, even before that, less than one year after “The Good Club” meeting:
In 2010, Bill Gates said in a TED talk promoting decarbonisation by population culling as a solution to the weather change fake crisis: “So you’ve got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero, and that’s going to be based on the number of people, the services each person is using on average, the energy, on average, for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy… The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (i.e. murdering unborn babies through abortion and abortifacients promoted by the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation), we could lower that by, perhaps 10 or 15 percent”.7
This is the full plan:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
If interested in the book subscribe.
Don't worry folks. It will all die down now that YT has banned that video.