Liquid Cancer

A theory for the carcinogenic effect of mRNA protein script injections on animal biology.

The following is a biological theory formed by an outsider. Some terms may be mis-used. I often preface my “heavier” writing by labelling myself, quite accurately, as a crackpot. At all events the goal is to warn the readers who are only interested in tangible metrics to turn away, and the readers who might share the writing to others, especially others educated in medicine or biology, to expect prompt denunciation and recitation of specific norms and orthodoxies which have been violated by the text which follows. It goes without saying that I would prefer such hypothetical denunciations, in this case, to turn out to be correct.

With that out of the way, let us delve into why I think rates of cancer resulting from injection of (non-spoiled¹) mRNA protein scripts of any type will be greater than 1/10. I propose that most cells which take up mRNA scripts will respond by transitioning into endocrine and apocrine phenotypes, or “secretors,” in order to express the protein back out into the intercellular and external environment. This is potentially supported by the experimentally confirmed appearance of spike-containing exosomes in the blood, and would explain the anecdotally observed “shedding” of spike into the air.

Conversion of cells and tissues into different phenotypes - metaplasia - is a known precursor to cancer. This could be due to the converted cell exiting normal quorum-sensing-like signaling pathways that would otherwise keep the cell in “quiescent” G0 phase (i.e., when cells pause the otherwise near-automatic growth and replication cycle); or it could be due to cascading metaplasia of nearby cells via the mRNA-invaded, spike protein-secreting cell’s disruption of local cellular metabolic pathways.

Like many forms of carcinogenesis, metaplasia is likely a common cellular hazard that is regulated by immune recognition and induced cellular death; and cancers resulting from metaplasia can be better explained as preventable immune system failures. However, broad dispersion of the spike script throughout the body ensures that metaplastic cells cannot be wholly identified and eliminated by the immune system for months. Many mRNA-invaded cells and their neighbors would have transitioned to cancerous states within days or weeks of the injection.²

³

1: Secretion of Spike

Among eight recipient-volunteers of the Pfizer/BioNTech pseudo-vaccine for Covid-19, circulating exosomes bearing the spike protein were detected in blood samples beginning 14 days after the first dose.⁴ The concentration of circulating exosomes was many times higher 14 days after the second dose - twelve times higher, in one volunteer. Exosomes were still in circulation among all eight volunteers four months later, at about the levels of the first dose + 14 day mark.

Exosomes are intercellular delivery mechanisms. Cells package up proteins, hormones, or bits of RNA in a bubble and send them out. They are among the most fundamental processes of life. But from a research perspective, they offer nothing but problems. They are tricky to measure. To distinguish them from cells, physical separation suffices - the cells can be filtered out, because they are bigger; but who knows how many exosomes are already damaged by then. Next, to distinguish them from viruses, you have to go through more of a hassle.

In the case of the filtered samples of these eight volunteers, the researchers in the study by Bansal, S. et al. checked whether antibodies for another part of SARS-CoV-2 - the nucleocapsid - stuck to the same particles that antibodies for the spike protein stuck to. If you can stain with spike antibody and not the “control” antibody, then congratulations: It’s an exosome.

Identification and quantification of proteins in exosomes (or any biological substance) is another frustrating problem for science. Proteins must be subjected to various chemical treatments to separate them by size and bind them to mediums where they can be measured. Despite modern improvements, different methods of preparation tend to catch and miss different types of proteins. These authors employed such methods to arrive at a low-resolution picture of changes to amount of spike protein in the exosomes produced by the eight volunteers.

What was revealed is that all eight volunteers’ samples told a fairly similar “exosome story.” Exosomes contain “a bit of” spike starting 14 days after the first dose, “a lot of” spike 14 days after the 2nd does, and are still carrying “a bit of” spike four months later:

The modern, “sophisticated” methods of proteomics are akin to measuring how much ketchup spilled on your shirt by throwing a bunch of ants at it, waving a hair dryer around, and taking a picture of the result. Still, the consistency of results in this case suggest the authors have managed to capture a real pattern.

Why did the authors look for exosomes in Covid-vaccinated volunteers? Allegedly, “[t]o determine the mechanism” by which these injections produce measurable antibodies. Lest the reader, at this point, imagine that this study is the idle application of National Institute of Health Grant AI123034 funds to play with previously-developed diagnostic toys - a vanity project which just happens to have uncovered an embarrassing truth about these injections - the authors pivot into a ludicrous, de novo theory for why exosomes containing spike protein are great!, and they probably are the reason the Covid vaccines produce an immune response in the first place.

Circulating Abs were detectable only after the second booster dose of vaccine (days 14), and the amount of exosomes containing spike protein was increased up to ~12-fold maximum. These results strongly support an important role for exosome induction conferring immune responses following immunization. This is further supported by our finding that immunization of mice with exosomes from the vaccinated individual with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein resulted in the development of Abs specific to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Ah, yes - that’s right, there were mice. When the authors took these filtered, spike-containing, non-viral exosomes and injected them into mice, the immune systems of the mice replied by generating antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike.

Does such a result “strongly support” a role of exosomes in prompting immune responses after spike mRNA transfection? According to an orthodox theory of the mechanism of the Covid vaccines, the suggestion is ludicrous. The lipid nanoparticles, after all, are supposed to magically be taken up directly by antigen presenting cells in the shoulder. Upon which blessed event, the cells in question will safely translate the mRNA into a single protein which they bust into bits and present to T Cells who carry out the accompanying immune response instructions: “Hey, go tell a B Cell to make antibodies against this bit, and another T Cell to eat any cells that are making it; and here’s money for gas and a Pepsi.”

In reality the fanciful narrative offered by the authors is just as plausible. The mRNA scripts in the Covid vaccines get into all the wrong cells, lead to the release of spike-laden exosomes into the bloodstream, and the immune system gradually takes notice as these exosomes begin to knock antigen presenting cells in the head. Or it could be that the antigen presenting cells partially intercept the spike protein as the cells generate it. Or it could be a mixture of all three of these things. Uh… hey, look at those mouse antibodies, though!

This paper was received for publication on July 1st, but only published 16 days ago. It completely renders false and ridiculous every expert assurance that the mRNA injections cannot result in circulating spike. They can and do do so. This and all their other stupid “fact-check” refutations of the dangers of the Covid vaccines, in advance of any rigorous safety-testing, are just so many rakes whipped into the face of Sideshow Bob in the parking lot. These injections are a debacle of unprecedented proportion. Spike is a toxin. Free-floating spike in the blood, in eight (formerly) healthy volunteers, is not safe!

But what to make of it, from the question of cancer?

To be up-front with the reader, I can offer no reason to interpret these results as suggesting that cells are undergoing conversion to “secreting phenotypes.” It could be, instead, that the mRNA script is ending up in “professional” secreting cells in various glands, and this is why it ends up packaged in exosomes as if it was a common hormone. Other cells that receive the script politely leave a few copies displayed on their cell wall, and wait for a T Cell to come and induce their destruction. Or, it could be the case that what the authors have detected is the remnants of mRNA-invaded, spike producing cells which have already been destroyed by the immune response - in reverse of their own conclusions.

But that is not what I think is happening. I find the anecdotal accounts of second-party sensitivity to something being “expressed” by the Covid-vaccinated, and the likelihood that what is being expressed is spike, compelling; and I think these anecdotes argue for secretion in the respiratory tract via conversion of respiratory epithelium into secreting cells; such as apocrine cells which are used to expel pheromones into the air. This conversion implies that non-secreting epithelium all over the body are also responding to the mRNA transfection by secreting spike.

What I propose, crudely, is that the mRNA script injections are a novel experiment in what happens if a cell is “hijacked,” as it would be during viral infections, but not automatically destroyed. Viruses are pied-pipers which lead their host cells into destruction as a part of the replication process. These mRNA transfections merely twirl the rats in a loop in the middle of the town square.

But unlike metaphorical pests, cells are quite fluid in their nature. After all, the nerve cells in your brain and the muscle cells in your toe, the cells you produce which can live for a century and the cells which renew every few days, all contain the same DNA. The role and nature of every cell is contextually inferred by the cell itself - that context, for many cells, is provided by signals from other nearby cells. mRNA protein scripts - not just for the toxic SARS-CoV-2 spike, but likely any protein - are akin to a bulletin informing the transfected cell that its role in life is to express protein; i.e., to secrete. The cell activates appropriate physical operations in response. It changes shape; it changes its rate of consumption of nearby metabolic resources; it changes its rate of production of exosomes, and packs them full of spike; it pinches off entire portions of itself to release spike into the surrounding environment. It runs in circles.⁵

⁶

2: Immune Evasion

Modern research has tended to reveal that most of the “direct” causes of cancer are fairly commonplace cellular events. DNA damage during cellular replication is so routine that it is reliably accompanied by elaborate detection and repair mechanisms; and if these fail, the immune system is likely to take notice anyway, and intervene by destroying the offending cell; even nearby, non-immune cells can prompt the destruction of an offending neighbor. This has led, in most cases⁷, to a contemporary trend of explaining cancer as a failure of the repair system.

The mRNA Covid vaccines, notably, are designed to evade the human repair system. In the first pace they are coated with PEG, which allegedly helps the contained mRNA package avoid detection by the same immune cells that are allegedly meant to receive it. Uh, sure. Sounds like a vaccine to me!

In the second place, the mRNA script is fabricated inside of a chemical soup in which the molecule for the code U is absent, replaced by a naturally occurring analog, N1-methyl-pseudouridine, or Ψ. The biological machines that create the resulting script obligingly place Ψ where U is called for.⁸

Within the cells that take up the script, Ψ-containing mRNA (or “modRNA,” to represent the modified molecule representing U), doesn’t set off the same inflammatory channels that normal external mRNA might. Potentially, this also enables the script to totally exit the normal “sell-by” date of mRNA being translated by the cell’s ribosomes. By this and other means, Ψ-containing mRNA leads to higher output of scripted proteins in lab testing.⁹ Conceivably, it leads to endless re-reading. No one in the development of the Covid vaccines seems to have really checked.¹⁰

Additionally, the dispersion of the spike script to multiple cells throughout the body - and the doubling of the dose a few weeks after the first - contribute to immune evasion by ensuring the exhaustion of available immune cells which would otherwise clean up the damage. This is the theory for Covid vaccine-induced cancer insinuated by Ryan Cole, who asserts that this year has brought an unprecedented number of novel cancers to his practice.¹¹ Here, again, we find the modern preference for explaining cancer as a deficit of the repair process. The mRNA Covid-vaccines are not causing-causing cancer, they are just leading to a lack of normal suppression.

But given that the normal amount of stress placed on the immune system by everyday life, including such events as the common cold, is under-studied, I am not sure this is such a safe bet. The depression of circulating T Cell levels observed after Covid vaccination might not be such a danger signal on its own as it seems. It might mean that the reserve forces in the blood have migrated to damaged tissues to relieve the T Cells which were used up - in which case, the incidence of cancers would likely be non-zero, but not great. It could land somewhere on the order of the rate of outbreaks of shingles, which is also plausibly caused by exhaustion of normal cellular immune watchdogs.¹²

On the other hand, if this exhaustion is combined with a direct carcinogenic effect - i.e., widespread metaplasia, especially after the second dose when cellular immunity is already at a deficit - it would directly magnify progression from metaplasia to tumor states, to the extent that the rare outcome is to not get cancer.

Failure of repair is a popular explanation for cancer because it restores the binary. If you can’t repair cancer via normal cellular mechanisms, you’ll get cancer. It doesn’t matter how often a sun ray bumps into your DNA or whatever.

Claims of non-repair-related etiology face a steeper climb. The true, normal amount of carcinogenic “errors” committed by our cells is unknown; as is the length of the window for the immune system to intervene if our robust, intracellular cancer-suppression pathways do not activate. Both would seemingly be generous; indeed, holistic medicine is pushing the frontier of effective immune repair far beyond what medicine would accept as possible.

Among all eight volunteers in the study by Bansal, S. et al., exosomes containing spike were still circulating in the blood four months after the second dose. This suggests that somewhere, cells are still producing and secreting spike - these cells have not been eliminated by the immune system, despite the generation of anti-spike immune response. That really shouldn’t be the case.

3: Obfuscation

Doppelgänger.

1. I am very skeptical of the “cold chain” on the US Covid vaccine rollout, in particular. I’ve worked in logistics in various guises; American companies are not good at taking care of the things they ship. Thus, this entire post is caveated with the acknowledgement that outside of the contexts of the trials and the more closely-observed rollout in Israel, most mRNA Covid vaccine recipients may in fact have played Russian Roulette with the cancer risk; the rate of viable mRNA injections being a total question mark.

2. Thus, the time to detection of Covid-vaccine-induced cancers is not a factor of how long they take to develop, but where they happen to emerge.

3. (index link anchor)

4. 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.” The Journal of Immunology. October 15, 2021, ji2100637.

5. Although stated in the introduction, it should be emphasized that this theory of etiology applies to the mRNA script for any given protein. While it is seemingly clear that the spike for SARS-CoV-2 is toxic, I think the spike itself is a distraction. Absent the inflammatory, immune-dysfunctional response that leads to severe “Covid-19” and subsequent widespread viremia, who’s to say that the spike for SARS-CoV-2 is any more capable of causing clotting than a normal coronavirus spike? Thus, Covid-vaccine promoters are able to thrust the questioning reader into a Two Spidermans Meme quandary of guessing which way of getting spike into the blood is safer: Direct injection or let the dirty virus touch my lung cells? Of course it is the latter; it’s just a coronavirus.

The question of whether the mRNA scripts for spike are safe is thus a sweeping redirect from the more fundamental, obvious, and yet unasked question of whether mRNA scripts for anything are safe.

6. (index link anchor)

7. Except for the case of viruses! Better put that Hep B vaccine in your literal newborn baby! Because cancer!

8. Unlike with the nucleoside analog contained in Molnupiravir, Ψ is one of the common naturally-synthesized analogs used for RNA modification - when cells manufacture “worker RNA” strands in the nucleus by switching some of the initially-placed A/U/G/C bits with specialty molecules. Here it is in two spots in a yeast tRNA:

Source: “Yikrazuul”

Good job, yeast!

The fact that viruses do not seem to bother with heavy use of Ψ as a “cloaking” device is interesting. Presumably, blunt inhibition of intracellular immune response pathways is more metabolically efficient than trying to write their own genomes in invisible ink.

9. See Svitkin, Y. et al. (2017.) “N1-methyl-pseudouridine in mRNA enhances translation through eIF2α-dependent and independent mechanisms by increasing ribosome density.” Nucleic Acids Research. 2017 Jun 2; 45(10): 6023–6036.

10. The Pfizer/BioNTech Phase 1 “trials” considered both modified and unmodified mRNA, as well as “self-amplifying” RNA. “BNT162b2” represents the modRNA version used for the farcical Phase II/III “trial” and final product.

It is interesting that they (as in, BioNTech - Pfizer seems not to be calling any of the shots, and only adding value via marketing and lobbying for the injections, with the American trials a totally perfunctory exercise) invested in three different “versions” of the receptor binding domain-only script, only to go with the one version of the “underdog” whole spike script. As far as I can tell, this was merely to ape the choice made by Moderna; at all events it implies that the use of a Ψ-containing modRNA instead of unmodified mRNA was more or less an accident. Per the trial protocol, the extent of testing used to decide between the candidate versions was limited to injecting a few dozen saps, measuring antibodies, and counting “symptoms” - with little observable difference anyway.

11. The most famous interview he gave was taken off of youtube, but the relevant excerpt is on rumble: https://rumble.com/vldb8g-dr.-ryan-cole-concerned-that-vax-compromises-auto-immunity.html

12. However, I think it just as plausibly a result of Covid vaccine-induced tissue damage signals that activate dormant zoster virus gene “sensors.” For more on dormant viruses, see “Crackpot Corner: Marekspocalypse Edition.”