Lies are Unbekoming

Interview with Marc Girardot On Bolus Theory, Cancer, Autism, Vaccine Injury and plenty more...

by Unbekoming

---

I was recently contacted by Unbekoming, a fellow Substack writer and fighter, with whom I had interacted briefly a while back. A few weeks ago, he was kind enough to write a very touching article on my work:

Marc Girardot

He recently suggested we do a written interview for his own Substack “Lies are Unbekoming”, and I decided to share the article with you all. So here we go…

---

I find it fascinating to think, that a very small number of people, Girardot being one of them, decided to stand up to the Leviathan and through their work…have directly contributed to the waking up of a sizeable minority of the planet. It's frankly breathtaking what an effective thorn in the side of Empire this group has been. - Me

Marc Girardot has been on my mind recently.

I’ve been reading up on his most recent work and I find his Bolus Theory very persuasive. He is onto something, and it is very likely that Girardot will end up making a very significant contribution to our understanding of vaccine generated disease.

Bolus Theory proposes a unified explanation for the rise of Alzheimer's, Autism, Cancer, and various Endocrine disorders, presenting a coherent framework for understanding them and many other conditions.

So, I asked Marc if he would be open to an interview, and thankfully here we are.

It’s a wonderful collection of deeply considered answers to a set of questions I was curious about.

I took plenty out of this exchange and I’m sure you will too.

I would encourage you to subscribe to Marc’s Substack to stay in touch with his work, and if you can please support the work through a paid subscription.

With thanks, appreciation, and gratitude to Marc Girardot.

---

Personal Background and Career

Can you share with us your journey to date, including your educational background and the fields you have worked in?

My professional background is principally in business and consulting. My education is business and economics. I have an MBA from INSEAD. I started my career in industrial gases, went on into consulting for a few years. Spent 15 years at Cisco in a senior advisory role on Internet-related issues, consulting with the automotive industry across the world. In 2015, I ventured into entrepreneurship with the former head of BMW engineering on a moonshot aimed at reinventing automotive electronics and software. Right before COVID, having failed to convince investors, I went back to consulting and advised a competitor to BioNtech and Moderna in the anticancer space. These past 4 years, I have devoted considerable time to understanding COVID and vaccine harm.

Who have been some of your mentors or significant influences in your career?

My principal mentor is the former CEO of one of France’s most successful multinationals. He was exemplary in three areas: ethics, customer centricity and constant innovation.

Could you reflect on any challenges you have faced in your career due to your stance on controversial topics?

One of my personal discoveries these past four years has been that my thought process is different than most of my friends and colleagues. As a generalist with a very curious mind, I draw connections from many different experiences, have a systemic view of things and that brings a very different perspective. That makes me a slow thinker, though I sense something is off very quickly. So indeed, during my career, I was often off versus what my colleagues thought.

Obviously, during COVID, my personal investment and sacrifice was hardly understandable to many of my friends and loved ones who could not see the same big picture. I have not lost any of my close relationships, but it has been hard staying true to myself and fighting this uphill battle. Evidently my network has been drastically impacted, I have had to let pass significant professional and financial opportunities and have paid a tremendous personal price.

Pandemic Perspectives and PANDA Involvement

At what point did you start questioning the mainstream narrative of the pandemic?

I started questioning the pandemic narrative early on, at the end of April 2020. I realized my family and I had caught COVID the first week of 2020. After running a few simulations, I realized that the virus must have been present much earlier, and no one had been dying. I figured out a way to mathematically estimate the fatality rate and found an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.1%. Then I went on to validate that IFR on a bottom-up modelization of New York that ended within 1% of cumulated deaths and wrote my first whistleblower article.

How did your collaboration with PANDA come about, and what were your primary roles and contributions there?

For my first article, I had contacted Pr. Michael Levitt (Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry) who had come to the same conclusion as I had, but with a radically different approach. We spent some time together in Paris in September 2020, and he was the one who recommended I join Panda.

At Panda, I have played several roles. I have authored a few articles, notably one on Natural Immunity which was one of the first articles across the globe challenging the narrative that vaccine immunity was better than natural immunity. I also co-authored with Dr. Mike Yeadon, an article fighting the variant narrative that emerged rapidly when people started dying in January 2021. In fact, my epidemiological work helped me see something was wrong with the vaccines very quickly, and I was one of the first voices at Panda warning on the danger of vaccines. I have been a scientific advisor to Panda, and to Nick Hudson the founder of Panda in particular, for 3 years now.

What do you feel was your important work and insight during the pandemic?

The discovery of the Bolus Theory is evidently my most important insight as it spans and explains almost all modern-day illnesses while reconciling pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers. Within the Bolus Theory, two parts are particularly disruptive discoveries:

• Endothelium Micro-perforation: The discovery that vaccines - under certain circumstances - can cause permanent micro-perforations of the blood vessels and trigger neurodegenerative diseases, endocrine disorders, intestinal disorders, obesity…

• Stem Cell Contamination and Cancer: A novel hypothesis on cancer genesis whereby it is the contamination by foreign material (vaccine particle, viruses, proteins…) that triggers cancer, and not mutations.

Vaccination Views and Bolus Theory

When and what led you to question childhood vaccination practices?

So far, my emphasis has not been against vaccination practices per se. My emphasis has been on stopping the harm done with these vaccines. And that can be achieved largely without necessarily questioning the practice.

That being said, I have always viewed vaccines as a medical intervention, and pre-COVID, I had been concerned by the multiplication of the injections and a corruption of the risk/benefit perspective.

Having worked 9,000 hours on COVID and on vaccines, I have no doubt about the existence of serious medical conditions, but I have serious doubts as to viruses being their root cause. I believe we are living in a collective dystopia whereby the possibility of accidents or malpractices has been systematically put aside.

I would add that fetuses and children are filled with stem cells, and the Bolus Theory highlights not only the risk of cancers, but also the risk of genetic disorders caused by vaccine particles penetrating stem cells.

On those grounds, I believe a complete revision of the childhood vaccine practices is required, and that mandates need to be abandoned.

Can you describe the "Bolus Theory" in plain language?

The vascular system acts like a bulletproof vest. It disseminates potential poison particles that are more toxic concentrated, presents them to our filtration system and protects our stem cells (think of them as our genetic jewels) from any harm.

The Bolus Theory outlines what happens when the disseminative protection of the vascular system is bypassed by a direct injection of vaccine, even very small.

The much higher concentration - 270,000x - has two fundamental consequences:

1. it creates a magnifying glass effect leading to the immune system carpet bombing the blood vessel walls with a variety of domino effects; and

2. it increases the probability of stem cell contamination.

Evidently Evolution has built these protections for a reason and bypassing them is a really bad idea. The Bolus Theory explains most of the modern-day illnesses and ties them to accidental intravascular injections of vaccines. Accidental intravascular injections are inevitable and likely systematic - to a degree or another - simply by the immense pressure differential between the exit of the needle and ruptured blood vessels.

Could you please flesh out an explanation regarding what you think might be happening with Down Syndrome?

Stem cells are very active and divide constantly, particularly during pregnancy and childhood. If a vaccine particle (or any other material) is inserted into a stem cell, during cell division the duplicate-chromosomes (chromatids) are accessible in the cytoplasm, the chromosome separation (during the anaphase) can be physically hindered by foreign material, and so two chromosomes can remain stuck and easily end up in the matrix stem cell…replicating over and over again.

Do you see aspiration as a key method to mitigate vaccine injuries? And if so, beyond aspiration, are there other methods or practices you recommend for reducing vaccine-related risks?

The “aspiration technique” which was invented to mitigate accidental IV injections, and is used currently in many areas of medicine, is likely relatively ineffective. Only in the rare case of a direct insertion into a large vessel can it be useful.

I have found several studies that show that despite aspiration at least 1 in 50 shots go intravascular. In other words, aspiration gives a false sense of security. Bodybuilders have a more elaborate protocol: reduce the injection frequency, aspirate, reduce the dose, dilute the dose, and inject very slowly. Most vaccines are injected in the muscle in an area with very limited immune presence, by delivering vaccines in the skin or the mucosa, the doses could probably be reduced by one hundred. Patches with slow release, mimicking ingestion, would theoretically be ideal as the possibility of a bolus should be negligible. This all requires a thorough unbiased investigation.

What kind of response and engagement have you received from the anti-vaccination community regarding your views and the Bolus Theory?

I have trouble with the term anti-vaccination community because many were not anti-vaccine, and I was not anti-vaccine pre-COVID, I actually worked for an anti-cancer vaccine company very similar to Moderna.

There is something Semmelweisian about the Bolus Theory, with an added complication that I am neither a Doctor, nor a scientist in the traditional sense. Many people have acknowledged the risk that I have highlighted, but the vast majority could not - or refused to - grasp the materiality of the Bolus Theory. The typical counter argument was: “Interesting (aka boring), but it can’t be the only cause of harm.” And then basically, they would move on as if it were non-existent and unimportant. I have heard that over and over. Either because humans need to make sense of things (there needs to be a bad guy or an intriguing story to tell…mistakes are boring and senseless), or because of cognitive dissonance (I can’t have been wrong all that time, or I can’t have harmed so many people over the years…), or because the Bolus Theory is mostly Physics (biologists and doctors are made somewhat irrelevant) or because some are religious about their fight (I took a lot of flak from people who are convinced Aluminum is to blame for autism), I can’t say I have received much support.

I have received occasional support from PhDs in Biology who stated the Bolus Theory was the most powerful theory discovered in their lifetime. But for the time being, the only people who have supported the Bolus Theory seriously are Dr John Campbell, Dr Alexandra Henrion-Caude, Dr Jessica Rose, Kevin McKernan, Nick Hudson, the founder of Panda, along with some of my 24,000 subscribers on Substack.

How does Bolus Theory help with our understanding of autism?

Autism is an incredibly complex problem that goes beyond my competency, notably the impact of the vaccine on the dynamics of a developing brain. However, as part of my book, one day I decided to test the Bolus Theory on autism. Despite my personal interest in the human brain, I had very limited prior knowledge about autistic spectrum disorders.

If mothers stating their children had been harmed by vaccines and if my theory were right, I could come up with a list of statements/hypotheses that needed to be true for Bolus Theory to be correct. The rationale is the following: if a bolus of particles is injected directly into the vascular system, it will necessarily go and hit more than just the amygdala. Hence, people diagnosed with autism would have a higher probability of having endocrine disorders on any hormone, with both hyper and hypo secretion, of having neurodegenerative disease (Alzheimer, Parkinson, ALS…), of having hearing or vision impairments, of having gastro-intestinal disorders, of having congenital heart diseases, of having joint-skin or bone disorders, of being obese, of having cancers, of having genetic disorders. I listed forty hypotheses that needed to be true for Bolus Theory to be correct: Every single one of them came out true. That is a 1 in 1.1 trillion probability of being wrong…

The bolus helps put a perspective that autistic children are likely in pain with many other illnesses at an age when they cannot yet communicate what is happening to them, reinforcing their difficulty to socialize.

Cancer Research and Theories

How did you develop your interest and theories regarding cancer, particularly around stem cell toxicity?

Prior to COVID I had worked extensively on cancer for 18 months reading the latest research on immuno-oncology, investigating mathematical models of cancer, doing a deep dive on a Phase 1 clinical trial. So, prior to COVID, I had a good understanding of immunology and cancer.

Many friends were suggesting that vaccines might trigger genetic issues or potentially cancer. Given that cells contaminated by the vaccine are supposed to all get destroyed, and that I had no mechanism by which cancer could be triggered, I ignored that avenue of investigation. In January this year, I recalled I had read an article stating that stem cells in the bone marrow were immune privileged, in other words, untouchable. That got me thinking, what would happen if a stem cell got penetrated by a vaccine particle? How would it rid itself of this contaminant?

I started reading a lot about stem cells and cancer, and discovered that many researchers were highlighting that cancer cells have exactly the same features as stem cells: glycolysis, self-renewing, eternal, immune privileged…

Cancer theory to date states that a normal cell suffers a series of random mutations and ends up with all the traits of a stem cell. Mathematically, that is highly improbable, if not impossible. Stem cell contamination is much more probable.

And reading about oxygen therapy, I discovered that stem cells when contaminated by too much oxygen - which can be toxic for stem cells - replicate and that explains why hyperbaric oxygen therapy is so effective.

Have you encountered support or criticism from other cancer researchers, whether mainstream or dissident?

I do not think many cancer researchers know about my work. I do not consider myself a cancer researcher. I have exchanged with several experts of cancer, and no one has yet been able to falsify my hypothesis.

Could you explain your stem cell cancer theory in simple terms for those unfamiliar with the subject?

The idea is relatively simple and can happen in nature. Stem cells are our most precious genetic capital. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is the jewel that needs to be protected in the body. That is the reason it uses a different source of energy so that it is more resilient. Stem cells do one thing very well, replicate quickly, notably to provide immune cells and blood cells. My conjecture is that when contaminated by a virus, by a vaccine, or too much of a toxic product, it divides multiple times rapidly to dilute to poison. By splitting repetitively, in a few hours it can dilute by one hundred or more the poison, and statistically, preserve the genetic material.

However, this evasion-by-replication strategy versus the traditional suicide strategy of normal rank-and-file cells carries two potential drawbacks:

1. you have created a largely redundant stem cell infrastructure that will now respond excessively to cellular demands, and

2. in the division process, inevitably the contaminant will have interfered either with the process itself or with the genetic material, causing genetic issues (trisomy, deletions, translocations, integrations…), the definition of cancer.

We have evolved to avoid as much as possible stem cell penetration, and thus that suggests that most cancers today are human made…cancer has become all too common.

Current and Future Work

Tell us a bit about your upcoming book and how people will be able to buy it.

I am currently seeking a publisher for my book “The Needle’s Secret.” I hope to find one in the coming weeks.

How can people stay updated with your work and thoughts?

People can stay updated and support my work by Subscribing to my Substack “Covid Myth Buster Series” at:

---

A big thank you to Unbekoming for hosting me and for being supportive of the Bolus Theory.

A big hug from Paris.