I was recently diagnosed with TO(a)S. It explains why, for me, Darmok is the sound of vomiting after TNG exposure instead of, for others, Darmok is more of a blissful, OOB-like experience.
I was kinda thinkin' of experimenting upon a local segment of the population with the purpose of creating a replicating form of peaceful resistance among the populace. I know I need them to sign some sort of Nuremberg waiver thingee for their uninvited participation; but, I'd like to ask you about how to set things up for open source access and for data integrity. For example, would discussing the effort in this forum be acceptable? It certainly is for me. Thank you.
I was wondering what your thoughts were on this issue of potential spike protein "shedding" from the vaccinated...first, is it possible, and second, what impact might it have on the people who are around the shedders?
It's a very interesting question, although I am not sure I can offer epistemic value-add on the matter, since my normal value-add (if there is one) is being able to push back on the pandemic narrative without having to pull from outside the official story.
Here I will paraphrase a reply I made to a comment elsewhere -
The anecdotal evidence in support of "post-Covid-vaccine expression of spike protein" is strong - particularly the anecdotally observed effects on menstruation. Is it reasonable for someone experiencing infection-like or otherwise weird symptoms to provisionally act as if spike protein associated-reaction is what may be occurring (or, expression of some byproduct of the LNP envelope)? Individuals can decide for themselves.
A doctor looking into the issue could try comparing before and after (Covid-vaccination of relative) blood draws for differences in anti-SARS-CoV-2 or anti-Syncytin-1 antibody levels, if "before" blood draws for the non-vaccinated individual reporting weird symptoms are on hand. Additionally, although it's a bit of a cheeky suggestion, dogs could probably be trained to smell the stuff even without having to isolate it.
One plausible mechanism I can think of is that the mRNA script is getting into exocrine cells, including apocrine cells, or somehow prompting conversion to apocrine phenotype of other tissue, such as lungs/respiratory epithelium (that would be bad). If endocrine cells are able to successfully be accessed by the mRNA script and achieve secretion of spike (as opposed to just expressing it on the cell wall) then endocrine cells can possibly do so as well. This may be how the spike protein is sneaking across the blood-brain barrier, though I haven't done any reading on that issue.
Possible effects of free-floating spike that I can think of: Allergic sensitization, as implied by the suggestion of blood-draw comparison above, is probably the worst. There are Syncytin-1 sensitization implications for short-term fertility and pregnancy and psychological health and literally who knows what else, and generic immune competence implications - in particular, this might be relevant to ADE-like outcomes for infection with SARS-CoV-2 for family members of Covid-vaccinated who would otherwise not be at risk, if the observed uptick in childhood severe outcomes is not merely a reflection of over-aggressive placement into the ICU or of general immune competence degradation from the lockdowns.
Next-order implications like possible formation of respiratory syncytia, possible gastro-intestinal weirdness or disruption of eye / ear function, hopefully all fall under the umbrella of short term and healable. Exercise plausibly replenishes telomerase or otherwise facilitates cellular regeneration by pseudo-magical powers. And natural remedies for promoting healing would of course be in your wheelhouse, not mine.
I don't think the unvaccinated have to worry about egress to the bloodstream, but I could be totally wrong, who knows.
Thank you. This is a bit concerning, to say the least: "in particular, this might be relevant to ADE-like outcomes for infection with SARS-CoV-2 for family members of Covid-vaccinated who would otherwise not be at risk"
Absolutely - however, under the theory that severe outcomes to infection with SARS-CoV-2 were *already* a result of previously-primed IgE sensitization, which I've alluded to before (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/lurking-leviathans#footnote-anchor-10) the same therapeutics that worked before should plausibly work now.
Ok I didn't set out writing this to convince myself that the stakes of the spike protein expression issue are globally existential but that's where I ended up. So yeah... potentially very good news for manatees, salmon, etc., though.
1) Why are monoclonal antibodies promoted and those from human blood ignored? I emailed the CETF about this and they have not replied. I supplied both the FDA link to donate covid antibodies with a positive test, and the email I received from the Red Cross confirming they will no longer test blood for antibodies.
2) How can implementation of this "vaccine" be compared to any vaccination in the past, when all previous were approved for children FIRST?
3) Is everyone aware, while we all know the drug companies are not liable for any injuries, there is a disclosure in the paperwork stating the federal government is liable, i.e. every taxpayer? (Doesn't sound free to me)
I appreciate any insight. There is a lot of contradictory information and I could probably ask more but this is good for now.
1) I'm very much on the back foot with mAbs. Centralized treatment recommendations like the CDC protocol for SARS-CoV-2, as far as I can tell, are frequently poisoned by an assumption that anything that requires more discretion will not receive the required degree of discretion on the ground. So, blunt instruments are favored over precision strikes. Nothing really seems malevolent about this: the CDC just doesn't have any faith that the American healthcare system can follow a complicated protocol, even if a complicated protocol, *when executed correctly*, will save lives. Convalescent plasma introduces an antibody concentration variable; mAbs are set to consistent concentrations. The CDC simply doesn't trust healthcare centers to discern the impact of distinct antibody concentrations in the context of mild and severe cases; and healthcare centers don't have enough faith in themselves to diverge from the dumbed-down protocols given to them. That's my best guess at the moment.
2) Exactly. The historical record for adult "vaccination" consists of 1) First-wave smallpox inoculation, which was based on arm to arm contact and acknowledged to be quite risky, but tells us nothing about injection-based exposure 2) 20th Century experimentation on the military, with no apparent tracking of results as far as I am aware of 3) the 21st Century flu vaccine craze, which was found to prime ADE and coincided with other observations of the fundamental inefficacy of adult "vaccines" 4) the WHO smallpox campaign centered on Africa, which was followed by the rise of novel "immune evading" "delayed onset" flaviviruses/lentiviruses that were never observed to be a problem in any animal before the modern era (Marburgvirus , Ebola, HIV).
The rough impression one gets is that fussing with the immune system of children makes harms hard to detect and fussing with the immune system of adults makes harms quite visible. This is totally plausible under an understanding that the immune system is more plastic in it's definition of what is the normal pattern of self/not-self during youth. Errors in categorization of not-self appear quickly among adults; errors in categorization of self often don't appear until maturation/puberty among children. Now with the novel Covid vaccines we're doing both at once and being asked "not to pay attention to the etc." I hope that's not too Intuition-y to be of any use.
3) My understanding of the Federal compensation programs is that they are extremely hostile and stingy. Even if the programs were "generous," unless a class-action suit was applicable the claims would have to be fed one-by-one through a claims discernment system that could never reach more than, say, ~10% of recipients. So if that system is "executive appraisers + the Federal judiciary," it would never get close to the end of the backlog; almost no damages would ever be paid out.
Since it is now undeniable prevention is NOT what these treatments do, and they changed the definition of a vaccine to more accurately describe the treatment, will they change the wording for EAU also?
"FDA may issue an EUA when certain criteria are met, which includes that there are NO adequate, approved, and available alternatives. In addition, the FDA decision is based on the TOTALITY of the scientific evidence available showing that the product may be effective to PREVENT COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the KNOWN and POTENTIAL RISKS of the product. ALL of these criteria must be met to allow for the product to be used during the COVID-19 pandemic." Here's the class action lawsuit. The contractual obligations are not met, clearly.
The EUA's *almost* lend themselves perfectly to future legalistic evasion by never defining "Coronavirus disease" aka "COVID-19." What is the "disease?" Is it merely having a positive test, is it merely being symptomatic, is it lung inflammation; is it dying; is correlation with individual infection with SARS-CoV-2 even definitive, or is "COVID-19" something that can be quantified by other means, such as mail-in ballot? So not only can the bar can be moved to wherever the deflated football flops onto the ground, the football can be removed from public examination if need be.
So on the Moderna EUA, for example, the "COVID-19 vaccine" is repeatedly described as the thing that "prevents COVID-19." But despite 61 mentions of "COVID-19", there is not one explicit definition of the term.
Even the standard of "prevention" is slippery. In describing efficacy values observed during the trials, "infection" is mentioned, but only as a qualifying condition for entry into the trial. I have heard that the trials cheated and used symptomatic infection as the standard for counting "cases" of "COVID-19" prevented, but the trial protocols refer simply to infection as the efficacy standard - but as the EUA itself doesn't define the standard for "case" used in the trials, this is not of much help. "Case," like "COVID-19," can mean anything.
There is, however, one key slip in the language when referring to "cases," which inadvertently extends the definition of "COVID-19" *beyond* hospitalization:
"ModernaTX, Inc. will report to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS):
• Serious adverse events (irrespective of attribution to vaccination);
• Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in adults; and
• Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death, that are reported to
ModernaTX, Inc."
In the end, this is all probably academic. Either no one except a few scapegoats will ever be punished for this at all, in which case the Warp Speed indemnity merely defines who is and isn't eligible to become a scapegoat, or Warp Speed will be brushed aside and the Nuremberg Trials will look like a village bake sale compared to the scale of what follows.
"The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine have the same formulation and can be used in aterchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.(1)"
At the bottom/footnote
"(1) The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are LEGALLY distinct with CERTAIN differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness."
" FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which is not an FDA-approved vaccine. • The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or REFUSE Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. "
Mr. Mowrey,
I was recently diagnosed with TO(a)S. It explains why, for me, Darmok is the sound of vomiting after TNG exposure instead of, for others, Darmok is more of a blissful, OOB-like experience.
I was kinda thinkin' of experimenting upon a local segment of the population with the purpose of creating a replicating form of peaceful resistance among the populace. I know I need them to sign some sort of Nuremberg waiver thingee for their uninvited participation; but, I'd like to ask you about how to set things up for open source access and for data integrity. For example, would discussing the effort in this forum be acceptable? It certainly is for me. Thank you.
I was wondering what your thoughts were on this issue of potential spike protein "shedding" from the vaccinated...first, is it possible, and second, what impact might it have on the people who are around the shedders?
It's a very interesting question, although I am not sure I can offer epistemic value-add on the matter, since my normal value-add (if there is one) is being able to push back on the pandemic narrative without having to pull from outside the official story.
Here I will paraphrase a reply I made to a comment elsewhere -
The anecdotal evidence in support of "post-Covid-vaccine expression of spike protein" is strong - particularly the anecdotally observed effects on menstruation. Is it reasonable for someone experiencing infection-like or otherwise weird symptoms to provisionally act as if spike protein associated-reaction is what may be occurring (or, expression of some byproduct of the LNP envelope)? Individuals can decide for themselves.
A doctor looking into the issue could try comparing before and after (Covid-vaccination of relative) blood draws for differences in anti-SARS-CoV-2 or anti-Syncytin-1 antibody levels, if "before" blood draws for the non-vaccinated individual reporting weird symptoms are on hand. Additionally, although it's a bit of a cheeky suggestion, dogs could probably be trained to smell the stuff even without having to isolate it.
One plausible mechanism I can think of is that the mRNA script is getting into exocrine cells, including apocrine cells, or somehow prompting conversion to apocrine phenotype of other tissue, such as lungs/respiratory epithelium (that would be bad). If endocrine cells are able to successfully be accessed by the mRNA script and achieve secretion of spike (as opposed to just expressing it on the cell wall) then endocrine cells can possibly do so as well. This may be how the spike protein is sneaking across the blood-brain barrier, though I haven't done any reading on that issue.
Possible effects of free-floating spike that I can think of: Allergic sensitization, as implied by the suggestion of blood-draw comparison above, is probably the worst. There are Syncytin-1 sensitization implications for short-term fertility and pregnancy and psychological health and literally who knows what else, and generic immune competence implications - in particular, this might be relevant to ADE-like outcomes for infection with SARS-CoV-2 for family members of Covid-vaccinated who would otherwise not be at risk, if the observed uptick in childhood severe outcomes is not merely a reflection of over-aggressive placement into the ICU or of general immune competence degradation from the lockdowns.
Next-order implications like possible formation of respiratory syncytia, possible gastro-intestinal weirdness or disruption of eye / ear function, hopefully all fall under the umbrella of short term and healable. Exercise plausibly replenishes telomerase or otherwise facilitates cellular regeneration by pseudo-magical powers. And natural remedies for promoting healing would of course be in your wheelhouse, not mine.
I don't think the unvaccinated have to worry about egress to the bloodstream, but I could be totally wrong, who knows.
Thank you. This is a bit concerning, to say the least: "in particular, this might be relevant to ADE-like outcomes for infection with SARS-CoV-2 for family members of Covid-vaccinated who would otherwise not be at risk"
Absolutely - however, under the theory that severe outcomes to infection with SARS-CoV-2 were *already* a result of previously-primed IgE sensitization, which I've alluded to before (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/lurking-leviathans#footnote-anchor-10) the same therapeutics that worked before should plausibly work now.
Ok I didn't set out writing this to convince myself that the stakes of the spike protein expression issue are globally existential but that's where I ended up. So yeah... potentially very good news for manatees, salmon, etc., though.
*If exocrine cells...
Hi Brian,
I have some questions:
1) Why are monoclonal antibodies promoted and those from human blood ignored? I emailed the CETF about this and they have not replied. I supplied both the FDA link to donate covid antibodies with a positive test, and the email I received from the Red Cross confirming they will no longer test blood for antibodies.
2) How can implementation of this "vaccine" be compared to any vaccination in the past, when all previous were approved for children FIRST?
3) Is everyone aware, while we all know the drug companies are not liable for any injuries, there is a disclosure in the paperwork stating the federal government is liable, i.e. every taxpayer? (Doesn't sound free to me)
I appreciate any insight. There is a lot of contradictory information and I could probably ask more but this is good for now.
Hi Jane/inaname
1) I'm very much on the back foot with mAbs. Centralized treatment recommendations like the CDC protocol for SARS-CoV-2, as far as I can tell, are frequently poisoned by an assumption that anything that requires more discretion will not receive the required degree of discretion on the ground. So, blunt instruments are favored over precision strikes. Nothing really seems malevolent about this: the CDC just doesn't have any faith that the American healthcare system can follow a complicated protocol, even if a complicated protocol, *when executed correctly*, will save lives. Convalescent plasma introduces an antibody concentration variable; mAbs are set to consistent concentrations. The CDC simply doesn't trust healthcare centers to discern the impact of distinct antibody concentrations in the context of mild and severe cases; and healthcare centers don't have enough faith in themselves to diverge from the dumbed-down protocols given to them. That's my best guess at the moment.
2) Exactly. The historical record for adult "vaccination" consists of 1) First-wave smallpox inoculation, which was based on arm to arm contact and acknowledged to be quite risky, but tells us nothing about injection-based exposure 2) 20th Century experimentation on the military, with no apparent tracking of results as far as I am aware of 3) the 21st Century flu vaccine craze, which was found to prime ADE and coincided with other observations of the fundamental inefficacy of adult "vaccines" 4) the WHO smallpox campaign centered on Africa, which was followed by the rise of novel "immune evading" "delayed onset" flaviviruses/lentiviruses that were never observed to be a problem in any animal before the modern era (Marburgvirus , Ebola, HIV).
The rough impression one gets is that fussing with the immune system of children makes harms hard to detect and fussing with the immune system of adults makes harms quite visible. This is totally plausible under an understanding that the immune system is more plastic in it's definition of what is the normal pattern of self/not-self during youth. Errors in categorization of not-self appear quickly among adults; errors in categorization of self often don't appear until maturation/puberty among children. Now with the novel Covid vaccines we're doing both at once and being asked "not to pay attention to the etc." I hope that's not too Intuition-y to be of any use.
3) My understanding of the Federal compensation programs is that they are extremely hostile and stingy. Even if the programs were "generous," unless a class-action suit was applicable the claims would have to be fed one-by-one through a claims discernment system that could never reach more than, say, ~10% of recipients. So if that system is "executive appraisers + the Federal judiciary," it would never get close to the end of the backlog; almost no damages would ever be paid out.
Thanks Brian for the thoughtful response. I went back and reviewed the disclosures for the well, I'm going to just start calling them treatments. Here's the link if you want to read or download the PDFs, https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines#authorized-vaccines
Since it is now undeniable prevention is NOT what these treatments do, and they changed the definition of a vaccine to more accurately describe the treatment, will they change the wording for EAU also?
"FDA may issue an EUA when certain criteria are met, which includes that there are NO adequate, approved, and available alternatives. In addition, the FDA decision is based on the TOTALITY of the scientific evidence available showing that the product may be effective to PREVENT COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the KNOWN and POTENTIAL RISKS of the product. ALL of these criteria must be met to allow for the product to be used during the COVID-19 pandemic." Here's the class action lawsuit. The contractual obligations are not met, clearly.
The EUA's *almost* lend themselves perfectly to future legalistic evasion by never defining "Coronavirus disease" aka "COVID-19." What is the "disease?" Is it merely having a positive test, is it merely being symptomatic, is it lung inflammation; is it dying; is correlation with individual infection with SARS-CoV-2 even definitive, or is "COVID-19" something that can be quantified by other means, such as mail-in ballot? So not only can the bar can be moved to wherever the deflated football flops onto the ground, the football can be removed from public examination if need be.
So on the Moderna EUA, for example, the "COVID-19 vaccine" is repeatedly described as the thing that "prevents COVID-19." But despite 61 mentions of "COVID-19", there is not one explicit definition of the term.
Even the standard of "prevention" is slippery. In describing efficacy values observed during the trials, "infection" is mentioned, but only as a qualifying condition for entry into the trial. I have heard that the trials cheated and used symptomatic infection as the standard for counting "cases" of "COVID-19" prevented, but the trial protocols refer simply to infection as the efficacy standard - but as the EUA itself doesn't define the standard for "case" used in the trials, this is not of much help. "Case," like "COVID-19," can mean anything.
There is, however, one key slip in the language when referring to "cases," which inadvertently extends the definition of "COVID-19" *beyond* hospitalization:
"ModernaTX, Inc. will report to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS):
• Serious adverse events (irrespective of attribution to vaccination);
• Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in adults; and
• Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death, that are reported to
ModernaTX, Inc."
In the end, this is all probably academic. Either no one except a few scapegoats will ever be punished for this at all, in which case the Warp Speed indemnity merely defines who is and isn't eligible to become a scapegoat, or Warp Speed will be brushed aside and the Nuremberg Trials will look like a village bake sale compared to the scale of what follows.
From the Pfizer fact sheet for providers:
At the top in bold:
"The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine have the same formulation and can be used in aterchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.(1)"
At the bottom/footnote
"(1) The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are LEGALLY distinct with CERTAIN differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness."
" FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which is not an FDA-approved vaccine. • The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or REFUSE Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. "