LNP presence is not synonymous with transfection! Endothelial surface exposure is a much more logical way to assess where nanoparticles end up, consistent with observed adverse events.
Hi Marc, I appreciate your scientific insights and ideas. I definitely agree that endothelial cells, especially those in small capillary beds with relatively slow-flowing blood should be the primary target for transfection. However, based on the data that I have reviewed I suspect that transfection of other cell types may contribute, to at least some extent, to adverse events as well; especially since there are so many different types of adverse events beyond the limited few that have been publicly acknowledged at this time (and based on immunohistochemical staining of spike in post-mortem tissues, etc). It seems to me that a lot of these questions could be definitively answered by a well-designed, expertly conducted set of biodistribution studies that assess all components (i.e., LNPs and mRNAs) and derivatives (i.e., the gene product; in this case, spike) of the shots. I, for one, along with some colleagues would be very happy to conduct such a study in mice and/or other animal models. However, it is my understanding that Canada is like many other countries, meaning that independent third-party scientists are not allowed access to official vials of the shots to conduct such studies. If I am wrong, and someone can get me vials that would not break academic rules, I would love to do these studies. I would just want to be sure that I could publish the results without getting into trouble for contravening some kind of legally binding contract.
Out of interest, how does the finding of mRNA in breast milk fit into your hypothesis? Again, I was shocked that all that was looked at in those studies was mRNA. I don't understand why they wouldn't have looked for spike as well. I also don't understand why the authors didn't look for evidence of transfection of cells in breast tissue to ascertain which ones, if any, had taken up the mRNA.
mRNA-loaded LNPs sitting in tissues throughout the body plus or minus pathogen-derived proteins could be a major problem when it comes to the proposed prolific use of mRNA shots in food-producing animals. There is the potential for major negative implications should people start consuming these products in meat, milk, and/or eggs in the absence of any research.
Hey Marc long time no see, what do you think about Kevin McKernan(Anandamide)'s test about finding plasmid and dsDNA contamination in all Pfizer shots?
I highly commend both Marc and Dr. Mike for their integrity and dedication and compassion during this ongoing period of catastrophic blunders .
I have read most of Marc's well written substacks and listened to at least two of his interviews.
And the same applies to the output of the redoubtable Dr. Yeadon.
And I have read about as much as I can about the multiple layers of damage caused by the jabs.
So that would make me approximately one ( 1 ) % as knowledgeable as these two.
But it seems to me that most of which Marc writes relates to his belief that the adverse effects of the jabs are mostly caused by an improper method of injection ?
He may or may not be right about that , but is it not that the Big Picture is the major harm done by these vaxxxes is in sidelining the innate immune system of those who made the mistake of getting such jabs, and therefore these will be extremely at risk as more virulent and lethal mutants evolve,, which as Geert predicts will be inevitable and, as he also predicts will happen sooner rather than later ?
I love your perspective, and as a layperson, it makes sense. I also agree with the premise that keeping our eye on the ball of this situation is important due to the implications for all vaccines. I do wonder, though, given the fact that EUA has allowed for a complete lack of transparency, if you have any thoughts about the possibility that pharma et al have taken this opportunity to introduce batches that potentially have nothing to do with Covid and have introduced other sorts of experimentation that would never fly under other circumstances. I don’t have anything in particular in mind, but I can’t imagine there isn’t a bit of free-for-all experimentation going on, given the once in a lifetime opportunity these institutions have granted themselves. It just seems like a third set of mechanisms could be involved whose results won’t be published maybe ever.
P.S. I love when scientists I wholeheartedly trust disagree. It’s the breeding ground for the greatest epiphanies. So grateful for all of you.
There’s a very strong linkage of batch and toxicity, at least early, that would support something(s) other than bolus being culpable.
Accumulation In pharmacodynamic studies does show preferential & time dependent increases in specific concentration in certain tissues such as ovaries, not necessarily the most highly vascularised or perfused. I think that indicates additional forces beyond passive are at play.
You may well be right broadly but people have been harmed in substantial numbers. Our explanations I believe seek explanatory mechanisms.
Anecdotal evidence from my circle, but if similar AE happen with all vaccines, why would the 2nd dose of the mRNAs make people so much sicker than their first?
Did we all get a worse injection technique on our second dose? Doesn’t make logical sense to me, but I’m not in the science business.
Interetsting Marc, and makes sense on several levels.
'Something' is the reason that not everybody injected gets a bad reaction. If it were as straightforward as 'whatever content in the vials is bad' then unless some vials have no 'content' we can not know.
I think it pays to keep open minded and ask rather than circle in our chosen echo chamber.
I respect the inductive reasoning, but regarding "passive" "tissue"-resident LNPs, this part of the explanation seems incomplete:
The "vast majority of the particles stay idle for hours and end up leaking back into the blood stream via the lymphatic system." You write most "leak back into the blood stream." What is the basis for that assertion? Or is that some fundamental biology?
The so called spike protein™ is a key element or a key cover story for a key element.
As are the LNPs (which may generate what show up as s-proteins without 'transfection' occurring)
I see all trending to install 'transfection' via mRNA therapy in the minds of the Many, using shock of associating damage TO its cause. You might think this undermines its ability to become a new operating system for farming sickness in human beings, but consider pharma sells its products with terrible side effects as 'powerful drugs'.
The breakdown of the structured gel water lining endothelial cells is an electrical effect. See Gerald Pollack's work on the EZ exclusion zone negatively charged liquid crystal water adjacent to hydrophilic surfaces.
Alas insiders utilise cutting edge science for marketising or weaponising private gains such as to limit mainstream understandings to protect their insider dealing against disclosure.
Would this perhaps explain why apparently some batches were more dangerous than others? It was because of the skill or otherwise of those doing the injecting?
All of this needs to be taken in the context that nobody need to be injected in the first place and that it was done for commercial and political reasons by the very same people who created Covid 19!
Interesting to hear how this analysis match up with the Burkhardt/ Lang autopsies, that found deadly amounts of Vaccine distributed spike in the diseased bodies.
Why the need to coerce groups which have traditionally been seen as vulnerable, such as children and expecting mothers to take the Mrna product and why we're all traditional avenues actively shutdown? Here in the west I believe the only option was the "novel gene therapy" product on offer?
Valneva were hoping to produce a traditional product and the UK government pulled the funding.This was never about improving our health and has left a never ending list of unanswered questions.What happened to any risk/benefit analyses and a narative that keeps unravelling? It was a scam from day one.
Hi Marc, I appreciate your scientific insights and ideas. I definitely agree that endothelial cells, especially those in small capillary beds with relatively slow-flowing blood should be the primary target for transfection. However, based on the data that I have reviewed I suspect that transfection of other cell types may contribute, to at least some extent, to adverse events as well; especially since there are so many different types of adverse events beyond the limited few that have been publicly acknowledged at this time (and based on immunohistochemical staining of spike in post-mortem tissues, etc). It seems to me that a lot of these questions could be definitively answered by a well-designed, expertly conducted set of biodistribution studies that assess all components (i.e., LNPs and mRNAs) and derivatives (i.e., the gene product; in this case, spike) of the shots. I, for one, along with some colleagues would be very happy to conduct such a study in mice and/or other animal models. However, it is my understanding that Canada is like many other countries, meaning that independent third-party scientists are not allowed access to official vials of the shots to conduct such studies. If I am wrong, and someone can get me vials that would not break academic rules, I would love to do these studies. I would just want to be sure that I could publish the results without getting into trouble for contravening some kind of legally binding contract.
Out of interest, how does the finding of mRNA in breast milk fit into your hypothesis? Again, I was shocked that all that was looked at in those studies was mRNA. I don't understand why they wouldn't have looked for spike as well. I also don't understand why the authors didn't look for evidence of transfection of cells in breast tissue to ascertain which ones, if any, had taken up the mRNA.
mRNA-loaded LNPs sitting in tissues throughout the body plus or minus pathogen-derived proteins could be a major problem when it comes to the proposed prolific use of mRNA shots in food-producing animals. There is the potential for major negative implications should people start consuming these products in meat, milk, and/or eggs in the absence of any research.
Hey Marc long time no see, what do you think about Kevin McKernan(Anandamide)'s test about finding plasmid and dsDNA contamination in all Pfizer shots?
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/dna-contamination-in-8-vials-of-pfizer
I highly commend both Marc and Dr. Mike for their integrity and dedication and compassion during this ongoing period of catastrophic blunders .
I have read most of Marc's well written substacks and listened to at least two of his interviews.
And the same applies to the output of the redoubtable Dr. Yeadon.
And I have read about as much as I can about the multiple layers of damage caused by the jabs.
So that would make me approximately one ( 1 ) % as knowledgeable as these two.
But it seems to me that most of which Marc writes relates to his belief that the adverse effects of the jabs are mostly caused by an improper method of injection ?
He may or may not be right about that , but is it not that the Big Picture is the major harm done by these vaxxxes is in sidelining the innate immune system of those who made the mistake of getting such jabs, and therefore these will be extremely at risk as more virulent and lethal mutants evolve,, which as Geert predicts will be inevitable and, as he also predicts will happen sooner rather than later ?
Marc,
I love your perspective, and as a layperson, it makes sense. I also agree with the premise that keeping our eye on the ball of this situation is important due to the implications for all vaccines. I do wonder, though, given the fact that EUA has allowed for a complete lack of transparency, if you have any thoughts about the possibility that pharma et al have taken this opportunity to introduce batches that potentially have nothing to do with Covid and have introduced other sorts of experimentation that would never fly under other circumstances. I don’t have anything in particular in mind, but I can’t imagine there isn’t a bit of free-for-all experimentation going on, given the once in a lifetime opportunity these institutions have granted themselves. It just seems like a third set of mechanisms could be involved whose results won’t be published maybe ever.
P.S. I love when scientists I wholeheartedly trust disagree. It’s the breeding ground for the greatest epiphanies. So grateful for all of you.
Thank you to both Marc and Mike for rich discussion. We appreciate both perspectives, thanks
Marc,
There’s a very strong linkage of batch and toxicity, at least early, that would support something(s) other than bolus being culpable.
Accumulation In pharmacodynamic studies does show preferential & time dependent increases in specific concentration in certain tissues such as ovaries, not necessarily the most highly vascularised or perfused. I think that indicates additional forces beyond passive are at play.
You may well be right broadly but people have been harmed in substantial numbers. Our explanations I believe seek explanatory mechanisms.
Anecdotal evidence from my circle, but if similar AE happen with all vaccines, why would the 2nd dose of the mRNAs make people so much sicker than their first?
Did we all get a worse injection technique on our second dose? Doesn’t make logical sense to me, but I’m not in the science business.
Marc, You will do for me! Thank you!!
Interetsting Marc, and makes sense on several levels.
'Something' is the reason that not everybody injected gets a bad reaction. If it were as straightforward as 'whatever content in the vials is bad' then unless some vials have no 'content' we can not know.
I think it pays to keep open minded and ask rather than circle in our chosen echo chamber.
Let's hope you are right eh...
Thank you.
I respect the inductive reasoning, but regarding "passive" "tissue"-resident LNPs, this part of the explanation seems incomplete:
The "vast majority of the particles stay idle for hours and end up leaking back into the blood stream via the lymphatic system." You write most "leak back into the blood stream." What is the basis for that assertion? Or is that some fundamental biology?
I thought that we don't actually know the contents of the vials nor is it legal in most places to look.
So trying to narrow down the mechanisms of harm to only one of an unknown # of variables seems near impossible.
Or am I incorrect about vial contents and they have been independently verified?
So you haven't yet looked at the blood sludge resulting from the decrease of zeta potential to a loss of colloidal suspension.
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/why-does-every-vaccine-often-cause
The so called spike protein™ is a key element or a key cover story for a key element.
As are the LNPs (which may generate what show up as s-proteins without 'transfection' occurring)
I see all trending to install 'transfection' via mRNA therapy in the minds of the Many, using shock of associating damage TO its cause. You might think this undermines its ability to become a new operating system for farming sickness in human beings, but consider pharma sells its products with terrible side effects as 'powerful drugs'.
The breakdown of the structured gel water lining endothelial cells is an electrical effect. See Gerald Pollack's work on the EZ exclusion zone negatively charged liquid crystal water adjacent to hydrophilic surfaces.
Alas insiders utilise cutting edge science for marketising or weaponising private gains such as to limit mainstream understandings to protect their insider dealing against disclosure.
"I have come to that conclusion a long time ago: in normal conditions, the Pfizer vaccine cannot harm"
"in normal conditions"? "normal"? as in the "normal" fantasy world of "safe and effective".
The reality, in the "as used condition", is vaccine injury, more vaccine injury, and more vaccine injury"
Would this perhaps explain why apparently some batches were more dangerous than others? It was because of the skill or otherwise of those doing the injecting?
All of this needs to be taken in the context that nobody need to be injected in the first place and that it was done for commercial and political reasons by the very same people who created Covid 19!
Interesting to hear how this analysis match up with the Burkhardt/ Lang autopsies, that found deadly amounts of Vaccine distributed spike in the diseased bodies.
Why the need to coerce groups which have traditionally been seen as vulnerable, such as children and expecting mothers to take the Mrna product and why we're all traditional avenues actively shutdown? Here in the west I believe the only option was the "novel gene therapy" product on offer?
Valneva were hoping to produce a traditional product and the UK government pulled the funding.This was never about improving our health and has left a never ending list of unanswered questions.What happened to any risk/benefit analyses and a narative that keeps unravelling? It was a scam from day one.