What isn’t mentioned is that spike protein downregulates p53, the primary cell signaling molecule in apoptosis (the body’s primary defense against cancer and retroviruses). It also downregulates several DNA repair mechanisms. Moreover the microRNAs from the spike operon were left in the transcript being injected into people! These microRNAs downregulate interferons 7 and 9 (which regulate immune response against cancer and viruses) while upregulating inflammatory gene transcription (making a local environment which is very conducive to cancer by increasing cell division rates, suppressing apoptosis further, and increasing angiogenesis [formation of blood vessels near the effected tissues]).
Jul 24, 2022·edited Jul 24, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
These 3 cases could just be a coincidence.
My wife's co-worker has a 15yo vaxxed son. About 2 months after his last injection he had multiple agressive tumors all over his liver. They have now spread and he was given a 3% survival rate.
My cousins mother in law got boosted around January. She fell 3 weeks ago and went to the hospital. She was diagnosed with metastastic brain cancer. She just passed away last Friday.
One of my wife's friends, a 40yo healthy woman, got her mammogram about 6 months ago (breast cancer does run in her family). She was clear. She got her booster shortly after. Roughly a month ago she took off work sick for pain in abdomen. She had stage 4 breast cancer and liver cancer and was put in hospice. She passed away 2 weeks ago.
It just seems strange how fast and aggressive these cancers are.
Someone just shared this paper over on the Ecosophia discussion board this morning. Although I'm a bit skeptical of the wide-ranging spike effects and molecular interactions revealed by in vitro experiments, it would appear we can add "direct spike carcinogen" to the list of hypotheses.
One thing that I find very odd is that there is no signal whatsoever at seven days after the first injection. mRNA injection should be very fast-acting, with spike production peaking in the first few hours once all of the nanoparticles have made their way into cells, and declining after the first few days (although the spikes themselves may be stable). This is also the timeframe of most acute reactions to the shot. Antibody production is delayed due to the time required for B cells to mature - which also involves a tolerance screening to weed out those B cells that are producing self-reactive antibodies.
Anyway, I would tend to assume that if spike-producing cells are secreting exosomes as a matter of course, we would expect to see them appear right away - within the first day or two. Given that we only see them later, as antibody levels are increasing, perhaps exosome production might be a byproduct of apoptosis of spike-producing cells? In this case it would still be concerning with regard to the effects of free-floating spike, but it might not actually reflect a reprogramming of living cells for secretion of exosomes.
Depressing and unfortunately plausible, as usual for your analyses. That spike-exosome result was new to me and is exactly the sort of bombshell - along with the discovery that spike itself has biotoxic effects - that in any sort of normal world would lead to an immediate halt to the novel treatment until the full implications of the findings were elucidated.
A few comments and critiques:
1. I was very surprised to see no mention of immune tolerance here. Last week you shared with a me a video showing clear evidence of reduction of the innate immune response following the second shot. You mention that you are skeptical of the idea of "exhaustion" - the idea that these cells are simply overwhelmed and work themselves to death or to a state of dysfunction. I would agree, but the only other option then is that these cells are intentionally downregulated by the body - presumably through activation of tolerance mechanisms as the body perceives the attack on spike-bearing cells to be an autoimmune failure. The fact that spike is produced for four months (!) clearly indicates that the immune system is tolerating spike-producing cells. The question then becomes to what extent this is narrow spike-directed tolerance (which would have implications primarily for susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection) and to what extent it is broad tolerance, which would have significant implications for failure of cancer recognition, as well as for susceptibility to a wide range of infections as is true in the case of generalized immune suppression.
Immune tolerance is known to increase cancer risk (https://www.nature.com/articles/nrclinonc.2015.157), and mRNA vaccines of a very similar design have been demonstrated to induce tolerance (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-00880-0) so if there is indeed an increase in cancer prevalence resulting from these vaccines I would suggest induced tolerance as a likely contributor, if not the leading mechanism. I'm still waiting for a paper that examines the responses of the tolerance system - especially FoxP3+ regulatory T cells - to mRNA covid vaccination. You are putting a great deal more energy and effort into this than I am, so there's a good chance that it's already out there or that you will find it first when it appears.
2. You suggest that the spike-secretion response to mRNA script uptake represents a form of metaplasia, but I don't see that you propose a mechanism wherein this metaplasia would lead to further mutations of the sort that would eventually result in cancer. In the absence of mRNA transfection, metaplasia always represents a genetic mutation or a failure of transcriptional regulation which is a clear precursor to cancer. Given that the core genetic and regulatory machinery of the cell is (or should be?) largely unaffected, it's not obvious that temporary script-induced metaplasia would increase the odds of a cancerous conversion - and if this were true we would expect cancer to emerge most prominently in those tissues which are expressing spike - a surge of myosarcoma of the deltoid among others - which would be a more distinct and damning signal than the across-the-board increase in cancer which would result from immune detection failure.
Certainly a vast increase in the number of metaplastic cells will confuse the immune system in a "where's Waldo" sort of way which could lead to immune failure to detect nascent cancer cells during the time in which spike expression is prevalent. From my own perspective this along with tolerance would be the 1-2 punch that could easily lead to an increase in cancer.
3. I would caution against quantitative predictions (i.e. "greater than 1/10") in the absence of quantitative underlying science to justify them.
Cancer arises from too much energy. This refers to energy that does not fit into the context of the already existing cell coherence of a body and therefore destroys the coherence at the site of action because the coherence capacity on site is overrun. This excess can be, for example, radioactive radiation, but also a mutation in the hitherto coherent cell association or a protein that cells are forced to produce by ''vaccination''. The consequence? Altered energy balance in a cell, thus bringing forth potential for cancer.
No wonder human intervention in biology means more and more cancer potential. And this process accelerates immensely with mRNA technology.
Anecdotal and could of course be purely coincidental, but, hey: Mother-in-law (83 years old) got Pfizer-struck in the spring, and was diagnosed with cancer in one of her kidneys this summer. They took it out and she's doing OK. For some reason we all have two and can get by just fine on one.
In any case, these shots definitely hammer the immune system. Father-in-law (88) got Pfizer-struck at the same time and came down with a bad case of shingles soon after. Of course, that could just be a coincidence as well, right?
Between the unnatural code for the spike protein, the PEG lipid nanoparticle, the list of redacted proprietary ingredients that are unknown to the public, and the fact that our bodies are told to push an autoimmune like process- I can't see how those injected escape consequences. I am glad you mentioned the "cold chain". I agree, a lot of vials will not have remained at the intended temperature level and should, in theory, spare many recipients of the mRNA related 'protection'. The true genius behind this evil/incompetence is that every consequence can be easily explained away by environmental causes such as pollution, dirty water and poor diet of the recipient. The same pharma companies who created these nightmares will be the saviors, standing at the ready with a handful of novel mRNA therapeutics for the cancers, autoimmune disorders, etc. How convenient?! (and not at all planned, of course)
What isn’t mentioned is that spike protein downregulates p53, the primary cell signaling molecule in apoptosis (the body’s primary defense against cancer and retroviruses). It also downregulates several DNA repair mechanisms. Moreover the microRNAs from the spike operon were left in the transcript being injected into people! These microRNAs downregulate interferons 7 and 9 (which regulate immune response against cancer and viruses) while upregulating inflammatory gene transcription (making a local environment which is very conducive to cancer by increasing cell division rates, suppressing apoptosis further, and increasing angiogenesis [formation of blood vessels near the effected tissues]).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7324311/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
These 3 cases could just be a coincidence.
My wife's co-worker has a 15yo vaxxed son. About 2 months after his last injection he had multiple agressive tumors all over his liver. They have now spread and he was given a 3% survival rate.
My cousins mother in law got boosted around January. She fell 3 weeks ago and went to the hospital. She was diagnosed with metastastic brain cancer. She just passed away last Friday.
One of my wife's friends, a 40yo healthy woman, got her mammogram about 6 months ago (breast cancer does run in her family). She was clear. She got her booster shortly after. Roughly a month ago she took off work sick for pain in abdomen. She had stage 4 breast cancer and liver cancer and was put in hospice. She passed away 2 weeks ago.
It just seems strange how fast and aggressive these cancers are.
"Something wicked this way comes?"
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-worrisome-paper-about-the/comments
Someone just shared this paper over on the Ecosophia discussion board this morning. Although I'm a bit skeptical of the wide-ranging spike effects and molecular interactions revealed by in vitro experiments, it would appear we can add "direct spike carcinogen" to the list of hypotheses.
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm
I finally managed to get a look at the actual exosome paper: https://pdfhost.io/v/ZRcezbv7t_JI2100637_proof
One thing that I find very odd is that there is no signal whatsoever at seven days after the first injection. mRNA injection should be very fast-acting, with spike production peaking in the first few hours once all of the nanoparticles have made their way into cells, and declining after the first few days (although the spikes themselves may be stable). This is also the timeframe of most acute reactions to the shot. Antibody production is delayed due to the time required for B cells to mature - which also involves a tolerance screening to weed out those B cells that are producing self-reactive antibodies.
Anyway, I would tend to assume that if spike-producing cells are secreting exosomes as a matter of course, we would expect to see them appear right away - within the first day or two. Given that we only see them later, as antibody levels are increasing, perhaps exosome production might be a byproduct of apoptosis of spike-producing cells? In this case it would still be concerning with regard to the effects of free-floating spike, but it might not actually reflect a reprogramming of living cells for secretion of exosomes.
Depressing and unfortunately plausible, as usual for your analyses. That spike-exosome result was new to me and is exactly the sort of bombshell - along with the discovery that spike itself has biotoxic effects - that in any sort of normal world would lead to an immediate halt to the novel treatment until the full implications of the findings were elucidated.
A few comments and critiques:
1. I was very surprised to see no mention of immune tolerance here. Last week you shared with a me a video showing clear evidence of reduction of the innate immune response following the second shot. You mention that you are skeptical of the idea of "exhaustion" - the idea that these cells are simply overwhelmed and work themselves to death or to a state of dysfunction. I would agree, but the only other option then is that these cells are intentionally downregulated by the body - presumably through activation of tolerance mechanisms as the body perceives the attack on spike-bearing cells to be an autoimmune failure. The fact that spike is produced for four months (!) clearly indicates that the immune system is tolerating spike-producing cells. The question then becomes to what extent this is narrow spike-directed tolerance (which would have implications primarily for susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection) and to what extent it is broad tolerance, which would have significant implications for failure of cancer recognition, as well as for susceptibility to a wide range of infections as is true in the case of generalized immune suppression.
Immune tolerance is known to increase cancer risk (https://www.nature.com/articles/nrclinonc.2015.157), and mRNA vaccines of a very similar design have been demonstrated to induce tolerance (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-00880-0) so if there is indeed an increase in cancer prevalence resulting from these vaccines I would suggest induced tolerance as a likely contributor, if not the leading mechanism. I'm still waiting for a paper that examines the responses of the tolerance system - especially FoxP3+ regulatory T cells - to mRNA covid vaccination. You are putting a great deal more energy and effort into this than I am, so there's a good chance that it's already out there or that you will find it first when it appears.
2. You suggest that the spike-secretion response to mRNA script uptake represents a form of metaplasia, but I don't see that you propose a mechanism wherein this metaplasia would lead to further mutations of the sort that would eventually result in cancer. In the absence of mRNA transfection, metaplasia always represents a genetic mutation or a failure of transcriptional regulation which is a clear precursor to cancer. Given that the core genetic and regulatory machinery of the cell is (or should be?) largely unaffected, it's not obvious that temporary script-induced metaplasia would increase the odds of a cancerous conversion - and if this were true we would expect cancer to emerge most prominently in those tissues which are expressing spike - a surge of myosarcoma of the deltoid among others - which would be a more distinct and damning signal than the across-the-board increase in cancer which would result from immune detection failure.
Certainly a vast increase in the number of metaplastic cells will confuse the immune system in a "where's Waldo" sort of way which could lead to immune failure to detect nascent cancer cells during the time in which spike expression is prevalent. From my own perspective this along with tolerance would be the 1-2 punch that could easily lead to an increase in cancer.
3. I would caution against quantitative predictions (i.e. "greater than 1/10") in the absence of quantitative underlying science to justify them.
Cancer arises from too much energy. This refers to energy that does not fit into the context of the already existing cell coherence of a body and therefore destroys the coherence at the site of action because the coherence capacity on site is overrun. This excess can be, for example, radioactive radiation, but also a mutation in the hitherto coherent cell association or a protein that cells are forced to produce by ''vaccination''. The consequence? Altered energy balance in a cell, thus bringing forth potential for cancer.
No wonder human intervention in biology means more and more cancer potential. And this process accelerates immensely with mRNA technology.
Anecdotal and could of course be purely coincidental, but, hey: Mother-in-law (83 years old) got Pfizer-struck in the spring, and was diagnosed with cancer in one of her kidneys this summer. They took it out and she's doing OK. For some reason we all have two and can get by just fine on one.
In any case, these shots definitely hammer the immune system. Father-in-law (88) got Pfizer-struck at the same time and came down with a bad case of shingles soon after. Of course, that could just be a coincidence as well, right?
Covid shots -- the leading cause of coincidences.
And for those who haven't seen it, Pfizer-struck:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-lxb_ZleSQ
Between the unnatural code for the spike protein, the PEG lipid nanoparticle, the list of redacted proprietary ingredients that are unknown to the public, and the fact that our bodies are told to push an autoimmune like process- I can't see how those injected escape consequences. I am glad you mentioned the "cold chain". I agree, a lot of vials will not have remained at the intended temperature level and should, in theory, spare many recipients of the mRNA related 'protection'. The true genius behind this evil/incompetence is that every consequence can be easily explained away by environmental causes such as pollution, dirty water and poor diet of the recipient. The same pharma companies who created these nightmares will be the saviors, standing at the ready with a handful of novel mRNA therapeutics for the cancers, autoimmune disorders, etc. How convenient?! (and not at all planned, of course)