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]).
The DNA repair issue was brought up in the comments as the study in question was published at the same time I wrote this post. I found the study unconvincing at the time, and it has now been retracted. I agree with the rationale for the retraction - the findings were forced and overly dependent on subjective photographic interpretation. Intuitively, it does not seem plausible that a receptor-binding transmembrane glycoprotein for a virus would preferentially locate to the nucleus or interact with nucleic polymers as both actions would give viral fitness a haircut.
RE the "quadraplexes" paper, it is much sounder in theory / premise, but the mere observation of adjustments in innate immunity are not impressive since these have been observed with myriad "classic" vaccines.
I’m not trying to attack your supposition; I’m merely suggesting additional information. Suppression of p53 cannot be understated, nor should the mass-production of oncogenic microRNAs be ignored. I’m not taking anything away from what you wrote; I am merely adding pieces I believe can make a more complete picture to the carcinogenic properties of the gene therapy. 😁👍
Moreover, considering that the disruption of p53 cell signaling pathways is the most universal genetic mutation shared in cancers, it’s suppression would invariably increase chances for cancer. However, even if that were not the case, the single greatest cause for increasing cancer in the local environments where spike protein is being mass-produced may be the result of the microRNAs.
Obviously, interferons strongly inhibit cancer formation; likewise the effect of these microRNAs effecting interferons is tangibly viewed in the hundreds of thousands of cases of shingles in the transfected community (I refuse to call them “vaccinated”).
Moreover, as understood by basic cancer biology, chronic local inflammation - which results from the microRNAs - greatly increases chances of cancer because such an environment induces epigenetic changes that are either necessary for tumors or reduce the number of mutations necessary to make a tumor.
Hm, that increases my interest in the micro RNA piece. Sorry if my reply was terse - your comment was not interpreted as an attack, I just am skeptical of the localization/repair study.
I missed the p53 part the first time, sorry - but my objection there would be that it seems that they are (in silico) pointing out a generic feature of HRs (coiled coils), which are common to viral fusion glycoproteins of all sorts, as well as to numerous nonstructural coronavirus proteins and are abundantly employed in nature for gene regulation and manipulation. Certainly you could envision this being another scenario where non-destruction of the cell introduces a danger (vis-a-vis p53) that spike doesn't have in normal infection. OTOH the S2 is primarily going to be ported to the cell membrane, where presumably the HRs can't interact with any more p53, though premature cleavage of S1 might mess things up on that front.
I agree that in general there are loads of points regarding ECM and local environment changes that deserve to be raised which I have left out - ! Like a lot of my posts from last year it could probably do with a rewrite at some point.
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.
They should be called SUPER CHARGED TURBO CANCERS WITH NITROUS OXIDE AND NITROMETHANE! That would be the most accurate name for them!! It's no wonder at all that the bottom end of the engine is laying scattered all over the race track and the heads blew off the hood!!!
My friend's GF got just one (admitted to) "flu shot" and about 6 months later, she died in the hospital. First, about a month after the Trump/Biden/Fauci Death jab, her tongue went numb and she lost her ability to speak, then she could barely swallow and choked on her food often, then she began to trip and fall over, so she used a walker for a couple of weeks, then a wheel chair, then she couldn't get out of bed, and that was where she died. She went from a very pretty and sexy looking 145 down to only 83 pounds. We had to have a closed casket funeral for Marie because she looked so awful.
At first Tim lied about not getting the jabs, but he did, and now his liver is about 80% dead and he got lesions in his esophagus that bled blood into his gut, almost killing him from severe anemia. Lee, another guy I went to school with, got cancer on his back after getting the shots at the insistence of his son and daughter-in-law, he couldn't see his grandson unless he did so.
My sister in law....only took the original 2. Last one was taken in March. She developed extremely high blood pressure, they put her on some heart med (sorry, don't know what) and then she had to have her gall bladder removed in July. They saw liver cancer during the surgery and she was dead on Dec. 16, 2021.
Yes - that's the same paper that Markael linked to below. I was just dreaming that I found the part about spike getting into the nucleus very convincing but now that I am awake again, I still find it a bit iffy.
Ouch, sorry for interrupting your dreaming with this double-linking-troublesome-iffiness. So go back to sleep and dream of possibilities to end this nightmare of this technological takeover of our biology. Next time I read first and write afterwards. ;-)
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.
Geez! It could turn out to be an entire pandora's box of carcinogenic effects.
But yeah - virtualized cells and viruses (or in this case plasmids) are not real cells and viruses. The spike distribution photo doesn't seem very convincing (and the older paper came to the opposite conclusion), and normal infection has a thousand other elements which might include spike "routing" anyway. But mRNA transfection doesn't, so that last one's out. Still seems weird that spike would go into the nucleus unless it has an import sequence somewhere on it.
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.
See Ogata,AF et al., Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciab465; doi.org/cid/ciab465.
The spike protein rises quite quickly in 11 of the 13 subjects, 2 appear to have had preexisting natural immunity. I have not been able to understand if the spike protein circulates as trimer (as on the original viral surface), as monomer after release from the ribosome of the transfected cell, or mainly on the surface of exosomes as your example. The pathophysiology of the different structures might be quite different or irrelevant.
I also have not been able to find a good recipe for the neutralisation of circulating spikes, although hydroxychloroquine plus zinc does bind to the trimeric RBD.
Yes, I added an apoptosis theory shortly after post in reply to exactly that puzzle (the sentence beginning "Or, it could" - appropriately in the paragraph acknowledging that I am not offering an actual argument for joining in on my leap from exosome to metaplasia; it's just my leap).
But I think metaplasia at least leaves *room* for a delayed onset - the script is being read outside of the normal cellular "factory" that coronavirus codes for, so amino acid assembly in absence of tRNA and glycosylation and other steps create bottlenecks to duplicate reads; causing a slower burn (and the exosome study certainly suggests duplicate reads are occurring, even if the exosomes are from cell death). Alternately, there's just some natural buffer for spike-containing exosomes that needs to be filled before they are free-circulating. Here things get a bit circular - is this buffer anti-syncytin antibodies that are also binding to the cells? Alternately, the blot used by the authors wasn't sensitive enough to see lower levels.
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.
I left out the shoulder point. I didn't over-stress this part because I haven't created a whole "map" of possible invaded cell responses, but broadly I think epithelium is the most plastic of cell types and muscle cells not much at all (they are already fused to each other and multinucleated, etc), so even if most of the shot stays in the shoulder (iffy), the injection site won't contain the louder cancer signal.
That's a very good point, tolerance squares the exact same circle as exhaustion RE cancer. I'll have to revisit my comments on the Nathan Thompson video.
I am not aware of research supporting "metaplasia always..." - would be interested in seeing it, but the statement seems to exceed the limits of possible human knowledge on the prima facie level? Pathology is a very imprecise science since effects always resemble causes, etc. In the absence of an "always underlying disease X" axiom, I would presume metaplasia is like any other cellular talent that is beneficial in context, carcinogenic when misapplied. Healthy plant cells can form galls (essentially tumors) in response to external signals and genetic instructions from plasmids / viruses, etc. - an example I meant to write into the essay but forgot until now!
3 is a valid caution. But I'd rather be totally wrong about the mechanism than the risk calculation anyway. I think the three main maths for cancer are "golf balls driven blindly in all directions at pace X, and cancer only resulting if one accidentally lands in the hole (immune failure, with exercise as the biggest determinate of the size of the hole)," "the whole field becomes a hole" (immunodeficiency), and "the ball is dropped directly above the hole" (high radiation exposure, as an example). My mechanism proposes math 3.
"Always" might have been too strong of a word there, but my understanding of cancer is that it is associated with DNA damage rather than dysregulation. Dysregulation can lead to altered growth and (usually benign) tumor formation, as is the case with plant galls, but metastatic cancer requires a progressive de-differentiation of cells that has a genetic mutational basis. Could an altered cell phenotype to secrete spike lead to a de-differentiation cascade? I suppose, but I don't see any good reason a priori to expect that this would be the case.
Another hypothesis not explored here (and more likely to be involved from my perspective than spike-secretion-induced metaplasia) is simply that inflammation is itself carcinogenic, and these injections are clearly increasing inflammation - both as a consequence of immune attack on spike-bearing cells and also potentially as a result of spike-induced fibrin clot-mediated immune activation.
Immunodeficiency does not mean that the whole field becomes a hole. It just means that the holes are bigger. From this and some of your earlier comments it seems that you have somewhat of a binary perspective on this - e.g. "if the shots really knocked out the immune system then everyone would have scabies". Immunodeficiency in the context of autoimmune disease arises from tolerance-mediated downregulation of self-attack, and the effect is not a zeroing out of the innate immune response but rather a lower equilibrium meant to balance the need for immune/cancer protection with the need to maintain autoimmune-mediated tissue damage at a tolerable level.
So I guess given your options I would go with #2, but with the "bigger holes" modification.
Missing p53 would get you to "whole field," but that isn't part of the definition of immunodeficiency so I was misusing the term; I'm not in disagreement about your modification when using the term correctly (bear in mind I am not a precise word-selector!).
Widespread immune tolerance reactions lands squarely in my "perfect known unknown" box - there's no way to rate it until more (any) studies are done, so epistemically it's a 50/50. This makes it hard to productively write about. I definitely still think "shedded" spike could down-regulate unvaccinated immune competence, but it's all wait-and-see at this point.
I would be very surprised if "shedded" spike had effects that profound, since the doses received would be comparatively very small (on the order of 100x or more less than the people doing the "shedding") and little if any of it should enter the bloodstream. If there is indeed an effect, I would expect it to be akin to an allergic reaction rather than a direct physiological disruption.
Right, allergic IgE sensitization was the (first offered) flip side in my original Forever Spike Disaster! I think a lot depends on duration of exposure; but as with everything about FSD! it's just a swirl of what-ifs at the moment and I'd rather assume the unvaccinated immune system has nothing to worry about.
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.
I think that is a productive way of putting it. Science loves to tease apart the machinery of cell signaling but it's all relativistic in the end. A cell that is suddenly engaged in a locally unique metabolic activity - producing spike - is going to start to lose fluency in the locally prevalent mix of kinases that regulate growth. A signal that would normally mean "+ 10 to growing" in that given tissue suddenly means "+100 to growing" to the cell. The same way a conductor can gesture for 10 and 100 decibels with the same arm-jerk, depending on where the players are on the score.
The key word might be coherence, in the sense of an interweaving of approach and distancing, of possibilities and necessities, of cooperation and competition that has grown over long periods of time.
If life is energy striving for equilibrium NOT to reach it for as long as possible, then context-free building instructions for proteins mean the further approach to said energetic equilibrium (vulnerability, fragility, stasis, eventually death) at the increasing loss of being able to stay away from it as energy-efficiently as possible.
The more energy the body tries to convert into coherence, or the more effort it has to make to enable/maintain sufficient coherence, the greater the risk of cancer.
The more misunderstandings arise through circumvention of the silent genes, in that only the coding genes determine protein production by building instructions, the more likely the coherent understanding between silent and coding genes will become a decoherent misunderstanding - and thus an increasing risk of cancer.
That’s really good, too - circumvention of silent genes, aka the brain of the cell, is another thing that on its own is probably pathogenic. At best the cell triggers self-desth; at worst cancer. Again the normal, but subtracted safeguard to this automatic disorder is viral destruction.
Regardless of the relationship between mRNA 'vaccinations' against SARS-CoV-2 and the possible development of cancer, the possibilities that these mRNA technologies now offer on a large scale, and which will ensure that more and more non-biological proteins are produced by our cells on demand, will inevitably increase the risk of cancer. But the really crazy thing is that this danger will then also be countered with mRNA 'vaccinations' against cancer. According to the motto: first create a problem and then offer a solution to it.
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?
That’s a brilliant formulation. ‘Side effects include coincidences.’ A coincidental cancer claimed my mother’s dog-groomer (and wife of the local vet) yesterday; I have no knowledge of whether she got Covid-vaccinated but the diagnosis was shortly after the approval for 40+ year-olds. Glad your mother-in-law came out ok.
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)
Yes, shifting blame is exactly what I propose is the point of molnupiravir. And it’s not like they don’t have practice. It’s so easy to blame other recent trends in childhood illness following the exponential expansion of the vaccine schedule on “uh, pollution” - even though the human environment was plenty polluted when I grew up, and most kids were just fine. I never met anyone growing up who had the problems that seemingly half of Americans born after 1990 have, e.g. “carsickness” etc.
Peanut allergies, gluten intolerance, etc. Us humans do a lot of dumb things and then act surprised when consequences arise.
I'm not sure that Mopulnivir will be the obvious scapegoat. I think it is just another item thrown into the mix to increase plausible deniability. Ruining the control group in the trials, allowing mix and match doses at any stage of multiple products, Remdesivir and Mopulnivir- all a confetti of distractions and with so many people taking more than one of these products, combined with the symptom profile of covid-19 being broad enough to cover product related side effects- no court could ever have enough evidence to pinpoint one singular cause. They'll even go so far to say shedding person to person or in the tap water could be to blame. We will be in a time of perpetual ass covering and blame shifting. All the while, those harmed the most are medical ly bankrupted because of liability immunity. Part of me hopes that this was all by design, because if we are simply this incompetent and stupid as a species, what is left?
Haha - it was probably a save-point on the template that was loaded to create the specific document. So, totally innocuous. Pfizer was just making sure their house was in order as far as materials for giant clinical trials, for no particular reason.
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
The DNA repair issue was brought up in the comments as the study in question was published at the same time I wrote this post. I found the study unconvincing at the time, and it has now been retracted. I agree with the rationale for the retraction - the findings were forced and overly dependent on subjective photographic interpretation. Intuitively, it does not seem plausible that a receptor-binding transmembrane glycoprotein for a virus would preferentially locate to the nucleus or interact with nucleic polymers as both actions would give viral fitness a haircut.
RE the "quadraplexes" paper, it is much sounder in theory / premise, but the mere observation of adjustments in innate immunity are not impressive since these have been observed with myriad "classic" vaccines.
I’m not trying to attack your supposition; I’m merely suggesting additional information. Suppression of p53 cannot be understated, nor should the mass-production of oncogenic microRNAs be ignored. I’m not taking anything away from what you wrote; I am merely adding pieces I believe can make a more complete picture to the carcinogenic properties of the gene therapy. 😁👍
*overstated
Moreover, considering that the disruption of p53 cell signaling pathways is the most universal genetic mutation shared in cancers, it’s suppression would invariably increase chances for cancer. However, even if that were not the case, the single greatest cause for increasing cancer in the local environments where spike protein is being mass-produced may be the result of the microRNAs.
Obviously, interferons strongly inhibit cancer formation; likewise the effect of these microRNAs effecting interferons is tangibly viewed in the hundreds of thousands of cases of shingles in the transfected community (I refuse to call them “vaccinated”).
Moreover, as understood by basic cancer biology, chronic local inflammation - which results from the microRNAs - greatly increases chances of cancer because such an environment induces epigenetic changes that are either necessary for tumors or reduce the number of mutations necessary to make a tumor.
Hm, that increases my interest in the micro RNA piece. Sorry if my reply was terse - your comment was not interpreted as an attack, I just am skeptical of the localization/repair study.
I missed the p53 part the first time, sorry - but my objection there would be that it seems that they are (in silico) pointing out a generic feature of HRs (coiled coils), which are common to viral fusion glycoproteins of all sorts, as well as to numerous nonstructural coronavirus proteins and are abundantly employed in nature for gene regulation and manipulation. Certainly you could envision this being another scenario where non-destruction of the cell introduces a danger (vis-a-vis p53) that spike doesn't have in normal infection. OTOH the S2 is primarily going to be ported to the cell membrane, where presumably the HRs can't interact with any more p53, though premature cleavage of S1 might mess things up on that front.
I agree that in general there are loads of points regarding ECM and local environment changes that deserve to be raised which I have left out - ! Like a lot of my posts from last year it could probably do with a rewrite at some point.
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.
They should be called SUPER CHARGED TURBO CANCERS WITH NITROUS OXIDE AND NITROMETHANE! That would be the most accurate name for them!! It's no wonder at all that the bottom end of the engine is laying scattered all over the race track and the heads blew off the hood!!!
My friend's GF got just one (admitted to) "flu shot" and about 6 months later, she died in the hospital. First, about a month after the Trump/Biden/Fauci Death jab, her tongue went numb and she lost her ability to speak, then she could barely swallow and choked on her food often, then she began to trip and fall over, so she used a walker for a couple of weeks, then a wheel chair, then she couldn't get out of bed, and that was where she died. She went from a very pretty and sexy looking 145 down to only 83 pounds. We had to have a closed casket funeral for Marie because she looked so awful.
At first Tim lied about not getting the jabs, but he did, and now his liver is about 80% dead and he got lesions in his esophagus that bled blood into his gut, almost killing him from severe anemia. Lee, another guy I went to school with, got cancer on his back after getting the shots at the insistence of his son and daughter-in-law, he couldn't see his grandson unless he did so.
My sister in law....only took the original 2. Last one was taken in March. She developed extremely high blood pressure, they put her on some heart med (sorry, don't know what) and then she had to have her gall bladder removed in July. They saw liver cancer during the surgery and she was dead on Dec. 16, 2021.
Wow.
EXTREMELY strange - a very sad and disturbing set of outcomes
"Something wicked this way comes?"
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-worrisome-paper-about-the/comments
Yes - that's the same paper that Markael linked to below. I was just dreaming that I found the part about spike getting into the nucleus very convincing but now that I am awake again, I still find it a bit iffy.
Ouch, sorry for interrupting your dreaming with this double-linking-troublesome-iffiness. So go back to sleep and dream of possibilities to end this nightmare of this technological takeover of our biology. Next time I read first and write afterwards. ;-)
There is no need for remorse. The doctors predict I will recover.
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
Geez! It could turn out to be an entire pandora's box of carcinogenic effects.
But yeah - virtualized cells and viruses (or in this case plasmids) are not real cells and viruses. The spike distribution photo doesn't seem very convincing (and the older paper came to the opposite conclusion), and normal infection has a thousand other elements which might include spike "routing" anyway. But mRNA transfection doesn't, so that last one's out. Still seems weird that spike would go into the nucleus unless it has an import sequence somewhere on it.
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.
See Ogata,AF et al., Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciab465; doi.org/cid/ciab465.
The spike protein rises quite quickly in 11 of the 13 subjects, 2 appear to have had preexisting natural immunity. I have not been able to understand if the spike protein circulates as trimer (as on the original viral surface), as monomer after release from the ribosome of the transfected cell, or mainly on the surface of exosomes as your example. The pathophysiology of the different structures might be quite different or irrelevant.
I also have not been able to find a good recipe for the neutralisation of circulating spikes, although hydroxychloroquine plus zinc does bind to the trimeric RBD.
Yes, I added an apoptosis theory shortly after post in reply to exactly that puzzle (the sentence beginning "Or, it could" - appropriately in the paragraph acknowledging that I am not offering an actual argument for joining in on my leap from exosome to metaplasia; it's just my leap).
But I think metaplasia at least leaves *room* for a delayed onset - the script is being read outside of the normal cellular "factory" that coronavirus codes for, so amino acid assembly in absence of tRNA and glycosylation and other steps create bottlenecks to duplicate reads; causing a slower burn (and the exosome study certainly suggests duplicate reads are occurring, even if the exosomes are from cell death). Alternately, there's just some natural buffer for spike-containing exosomes that needs to be filled before they are free-circulating. Here things get a bit circular - is this buffer anti-syncytin antibodies that are also binding to the cells? Alternately, the blot used by the authors wasn't sensitive enough to see lower levels.
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.
I left out the shoulder point. I didn't over-stress this part because I haven't created a whole "map" of possible invaded cell responses, but broadly I think epithelium is the most plastic of cell types and muscle cells not much at all (they are already fused to each other and multinucleated, etc), so even if most of the shot stays in the shoulder (iffy), the injection site won't contain the louder cancer signal.
Most plastic excluding blood cells. Reinforcing the need for a "map" to really grade everything...
That's a very good point, tolerance squares the exact same circle as exhaustion RE cancer. I'll have to revisit my comments on the Nathan Thompson video.
I am not aware of research supporting "metaplasia always..." - would be interested in seeing it, but the statement seems to exceed the limits of possible human knowledge on the prima facie level? Pathology is a very imprecise science since effects always resemble causes, etc. In the absence of an "always underlying disease X" axiom, I would presume metaplasia is like any other cellular talent that is beneficial in context, carcinogenic when misapplied. Healthy plant cells can form galls (essentially tumors) in response to external signals and genetic instructions from plasmids / viruses, etc. - an example I meant to write into the essay but forgot until now!
3 is a valid caution. But I'd rather be totally wrong about the mechanism than the risk calculation anyway. I think the three main maths for cancer are "golf balls driven blindly in all directions at pace X, and cancer only resulting if one accidentally lands in the hole (immune failure, with exercise as the biggest determinate of the size of the hole)," "the whole field becomes a hole" (immunodeficiency), and "the ball is dropped directly above the hole" (high radiation exposure, as an example). My mechanism proposes math 3.
"Always" might have been too strong of a word there, but my understanding of cancer is that it is associated with DNA damage rather than dysregulation. Dysregulation can lead to altered growth and (usually benign) tumor formation, as is the case with plant galls, but metastatic cancer requires a progressive de-differentiation of cells that has a genetic mutational basis. Could an altered cell phenotype to secrete spike lead to a de-differentiation cascade? I suppose, but I don't see any good reason a priori to expect that this would be the case.
Another hypothesis not explored here (and more likely to be involved from my perspective than spike-secretion-induced metaplasia) is simply that inflammation is itself carcinogenic, and these injections are clearly increasing inflammation - both as a consequence of immune attack on spike-bearing cells and also potentially as a result of spike-induced fibrin clot-mediated immune activation.
Immunodeficiency does not mean that the whole field becomes a hole. It just means that the holes are bigger. From this and some of your earlier comments it seems that you have somewhat of a binary perspective on this - e.g. "if the shots really knocked out the immune system then everyone would have scabies". Immunodeficiency in the context of autoimmune disease arises from tolerance-mediated downregulation of self-attack, and the effect is not a zeroing out of the innate immune response but rather a lower equilibrium meant to balance the need for immune/cancer protection with the need to maintain autoimmune-mediated tissue damage at a tolerable level.
So I guess given your options I would go with #2, but with the "bigger holes" modification.
Missing p53 would get you to "whole field," but that isn't part of the definition of immunodeficiency so I was misusing the term; I'm not in disagreement about your modification when using the term correctly (bear in mind I am not a precise word-selector!).
Widespread immune tolerance reactions lands squarely in my "perfect known unknown" box - there's no way to rate it until more (any) studies are done, so epistemically it's a 50/50. This makes it hard to productively write about. I definitely still think "shedded" spike could down-regulate unvaccinated immune competence, but it's all wait-and-see at this point.
I would be very surprised if "shedded" spike had effects that profound, since the doses received would be comparatively very small (on the order of 100x or more less than the people doing the "shedding") and little if any of it should enter the bloodstream. If there is indeed an effect, I would expect it to be akin to an allergic reaction rather than a direct physiological disruption.
Right, allergic IgE sensitization was the (first offered) flip side in my original Forever Spike Disaster! I think a lot depends on duration of exposure; but as with everything about FSD! it's just a swirl of what-ifs at the moment and I'd rather assume the unvaccinated immune system has nothing to worry about.
*Second offered. FSD! is really one of the most poorly laid-out things I've written here, haha
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.
I think that is a productive way of putting it. Science loves to tease apart the machinery of cell signaling but it's all relativistic in the end. A cell that is suddenly engaged in a locally unique metabolic activity - producing spike - is going to start to lose fluency in the locally prevalent mix of kinases that regulate growth. A signal that would normally mean "+ 10 to growing" in that given tissue suddenly means "+100 to growing" to the cell. The same way a conductor can gesture for 10 and 100 decibels with the same arm-jerk, depending on where the players are on the score.
The key word might be coherence, in the sense of an interweaving of approach and distancing, of possibilities and necessities, of cooperation and competition that has grown over long periods of time.
If life is energy striving for equilibrium NOT to reach it for as long as possible, then context-free building instructions for proteins mean the further approach to said energetic equilibrium (vulnerability, fragility, stasis, eventually death) at the increasing loss of being able to stay away from it as energy-efficiently as possible.
The more energy the body tries to convert into coherence, or the more effort it has to make to enable/maintain sufficient coherence, the greater the risk of cancer.
The more misunderstandings arise through circumvention of the silent genes, in that only the coding genes determine protein production by building instructions, the more likely the coherent understanding between silent and coding genes will become a decoherent misunderstanding - and thus an increasing risk of cancer.
That’s really good, too - circumvention of silent genes, aka the brain of the cell, is another thing that on its own is probably pathogenic. At best the cell triggers self-desth; at worst cancer. Again the normal, but subtracted safeguard to this automatic disorder is viral destruction.
Regardless of the relationship between mRNA 'vaccinations' against SARS-CoV-2 and the possible development of cancer, the possibilities that these mRNA technologies now offer on a large scale, and which will ensure that more and more non-biological proteins are produced by our cells on demand, will inevitably increase the risk of cancer. But the really crazy thing is that this danger will then also be countered with mRNA 'vaccinations' against cancer. According to the motto: first create a problem and then offer a solution to it.
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
That’s a brilliant formulation. ‘Side effects include coincidences.’ A coincidental cancer claimed my mother’s dog-groomer (and wife of the local vet) yesterday; I have no knowledge of whether she got Covid-vaccinated but the diagnosis was shortly after the approval for 40+ year-olds. Glad your mother-in-law came out ok.
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)
Yes, shifting blame is exactly what I propose is the point of molnupiravir. And it’s not like they don’t have practice. It’s so easy to blame other recent trends in childhood illness following the exponential expansion of the vaccine schedule on “uh, pollution” - even though the human environment was plenty polluted when I grew up, and most kids were just fine. I never met anyone growing up who had the problems that seemingly half of Americans born after 1990 have, e.g. “carsickness” etc.
Peanut allergies, gluten intolerance, etc. Us humans do a lot of dumb things and then act surprised when consequences arise.
I'm not sure that Mopulnivir will be the obvious scapegoat. I think it is just another item thrown into the mix to increase plausible deniability. Ruining the control group in the trials, allowing mix and match doses at any stage of multiple products, Remdesivir and Mopulnivir- all a confetti of distractions and with so many people taking more than one of these products, combined with the symptom profile of covid-19 being broad enough to cover product related side effects- no court could ever have enough evidence to pinpoint one singular cause. They'll even go so far to say shedding person to person or in the tap water could be to blame. We will be in a time of perpetual ass covering and blame shifting. All the while, those harmed the most are medical ly bankrupted because of liability immunity. Part of me hopes that this was all by design, because if we are simply this incompetent and stupid as a species, what is left?
Whether it's by design or incompetence, I think we are effed. But it's still important to fight.
Us fighters all gathered together on the cliff's edge looking at the chaos and despair below.
Haha - it was probably a save-point on the template that was loaded to create the specific document. So, totally innocuous. Pfizer was just making sure their house was in order as far as materials for giant clinical trials, for no particular reason.