Vaccine Safety Myths - Mistakenly scapegoating the “circulating spike protein” would be like sweeping all the harm and pain from prior vaccine accidents under the carpet.
Adrian, I am extremely interested in Jessica's comment that she started researching connective tissue disorders. I have formed a stronger and stronger conviction over decades of my own research and self-treatment of Fibromyalgia, that mainstream medicine has a massive gap in its understanding of physiology on this very point. Connective tissue. I strongly recommend Dr Russell Schierling's blog (heavily shadow-banned by Google) and reaching out to him for a dialogue. I am not a subscriber to Jessica and am overwhelmed already with subscriptions and "follows".
There is a disgraceful incuriosity in "mainstream" medical science about the possibility that many "mystery syndromes" are actually quantifiable dysfunctions in biochemistry in connective tissue and the adjacent fluids. Particularly anything involving chronic pain and / or immobility. As the authors of one study, still as yet to make any impact in the mainstream, concluded "standardized tests of interstitial fluids could have major diagnostic power" - especially in cases where the professions favorite testing approaches have yielded no findings in millions and millions of people who are condemned to suffering pain and limitation under implied accusations that "it is all in their minds".
I concluded long since that when non-mainstream manual therapists can feel palpable distortions in body tissues at sites of pain, and the mainstream dismisses this as "unscientific", we have a major problem with the arrogance of ignorance. It is non-controversial that bone spurs are simply ossified connective tissue, so why is it controversial that connective tissue (eg fascia) can have a range of properties between healthy and flexible, and ossified to some extent and hence a source of immobility and "pinching" pains?
It has also been proven long since that "transportation" occurs in the interstitial fluids, hence mainstream experts being baffled when cancers jump around the body without them detecting markers in the bloodstream. Therefore, even vaccinations cannot be expected to "stay at the injection site" even if they do not get into the blood. It is astonishing that this is unknown to "experts" making life and death decisions on behalf of all humanity.
It would be no surprise to me if gaps in understanding of connective tissue disorders, are where the explanation lies for the horrific new "blood clots" which do indeed resemble connective tissue - inside blood vessels!
Interesting theory, but the best evidence so far implicates the spike protein in at least a good chunk of the adverse effects. Not only it it toxic per se in large enough quantities, but tricking the body itself into making it is a highly effective way to get the body's immune system to attack itself where cells produce the spike protein, in various organs.
There's absolutely no evidence of circulating spike implication, only on spike produced by transfected cells. There is no way it's the circulating spike. It breaks many fundamental scientific laws: Abs neutralisation, T-cell priming, bolus dynamics, protein mobility and aggregation in the tissue, synchronicity of AEs, toxicology, etc...
OK, that makes sense. Transfected spike in cells would be far worse than circulating spike. Thus mRNA and DNA/AAV jabs would be far worse than, say, Novavax.
In Hypothesis #3 you say "Adverse events have been shown to happen very quickly - deaths within 7 minutes - and often very late - 5 months after the date of vaccination" Could it be possible that some proposed spike protein pathophysiologies be initiated in the first 5 days after vaccination - when spike protein prevalence is highest - and come to fruition post 5 months after vaccinations?
So you are saying that the spike protein cannot cause micro clotting and platelet activation in of itself - and initiate an ongoing inflammatory cycle. How does it initiate a cytokine storm in infection?
Lots of scientists think the spike protein, in of itself, after the body's cells have pumped it out into the surrounding tissues, is dangerous - independent of the bodies immune response to kill the cells that have been transfected by the mRNA LNPs, and are producing the spike. Are you saying that the spike affected cells (ACE2 attached) are also got rid of by the immune system quickly? so don't have time to become a problem &/or are also a part of the bolus induced local destruction? I am editing this question as I go - apologies. Maybe I have missed that you are including the spike attached cells in the transfected group whereas I have been only seeing as the ones that have been turned into spike factories by the mRNA.
New reader here and regrettably vaccinated. Thank you for all of your articles. Question: Given the Bolus theory, if one has not received a vaccine for an extended period of time, is it likely that we are relatively in the clear?
Thank you for your comment. Hope you can help my articles become more mainstream. Don't hesitate to share.
Answer: I'd think so. People harmed often had a taste in the mouth immediately after the shot. That's a clear indicator.
For (1) the body heals in most places, except the heart. In Pr Müller's study only 0.5% of men had heart lesions. 99.5% you are ok.
(2) If the person didn't get too many headaches...it's likely the BBB is ok, and the IM went OK, and thus no bolus was created, and no leaks were created.
The endocrine disorders are usually felt quickly. The immune disorders also (shingles, ...).
The only very LT danger I can think of is Alzheimer disease when the immune system starts diminishing with age. If you didn't get headaches u should be fine.
Thanks for the response, Marc! Have shared with some loved ones already. Did your comment get cut off? It seems to end abruptly at "and if you did get headaches,". Thanks again for the engagement.
Thank you very much for this and your many other articles. I want to congratulate you on your work. You have done a wonderful job describing your bolus theory and the evidence consistent with it. I like how your theory/principle is general, extending to all vaccines and drugs intended for intramuscular injection. The principle accounts for diverse aspects of the Covid vaccines' adverse effects, such as the apparent demographic variation in adverse effects (for example, disproportionate damage to young, athletic males) and apparent variation in danger of vaccine lots ("hot lots"). I'm disappointed that other free-thinking Covid researchers aren't taking this principle more seriously. The bolus theory seems to perform better as a scientific hypothesis than any other hypothesis about Covid vaccine adverse effects.
You contend that other transfecting vaccines might/would produce the same extent of serious adverse effects as the Covid vaccines, after accounting for any differences in dose. Have you calculated the rate of such effects for those prior vaccines that seemed to have similar high frequencies of serious adverse effects, even if they were withdrawn after limited use? I think it is important to know how much these rates (adverse effects/vacinees) vary across vaccines that are otherwise identical with respect to the bolus principle. If there is meaningful variation in these rates, then it implies the bolus principle does not explain everything, and that the particular ingredients of the vaccines may also be relevant. Of course, it would be critical to stratify these rates for demographically similar vacinees (such as children vs. working age adults vs. elderly).
Another test of the bolus theory/principle would be to compare rates of serious adverse effects for Covid transfecting vaccines with those for protein subunit vaccines (such as Novavax). If the rates for the latter are lower, that would be consistent with the bolus theory, it seems to me.
Many are discounting the Bolus Principle too easily with a "it can't be the only explanation", "there's got to be more to it". But nothing even remotely as robust, wide or consistent is being proposed.
My friend Steve Kirsch has been on the edge, specially since so many doctors and biologists are "circulating spike" fanatics...even if I have destroyed that theory in 12 different ways.
I really appreciate your comment, it's a very lonely battle. And I have paid a very high personal price, specially not being a biologist. My pro-bono commitment and help to the community is so far very negative from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the Bolus Theory is very solid and it has the potential to bridge the gap between vaxers and antivaxers.
Yes, I have done the analyses you suggest. If you go to my September article:
You see a deep-dive AE comparison between the SPX vaccine (transfecting) and the FLU vaccine (protein) by Enger et al that shows just that. Huge difference in clinical myopericarditis.
I have also pushed by my friend Steve Kirsch done an AE comparison between SPX and COVID vaccine, that tends to show SPX vaccines are more dangerous than COVID vaccines (with one confounder is it's done in the military to young soldiers who survive more). Will email it to u.
Comparing rates is very very tricky as there's a lot unconscious obfuscation by doctors, who have been under-reporting AEs for decades. More over what's invisible doesn't exist... NOVAVAX is a good idea, though not sure the volumes are there.
I think if we could have an exact number of attenuated viruses/virus-like particles per dose, we could have a good sense of dangerosity, because each particle has single cytotoxic capacity.
Thank you, Marc, for your responses. I had read your September article but forgot about Engler et al.'s comparison of smallpox and trivalent flu vaccines. It is good, but limited, evidence consistent with the bolus theory, as it involves only two vaccines. Your analysis of the VAERS that you sent Steve Kirsch also makes a good case that the smallpox vaccine is at least as dangerous as the Covid jabs. I think a more comprehensive analysis of all or many vaccines in VAERS might be worthwhile.
But does this not simply require comparisons between vaccinators and assessment against batch numbers to clarify if spike vs lnp be manufacturing issues justify a bolus theory. The Thai myocarditis study would indicate that the Thai vaccinators are either reallllly bad or some batches truly are problematic
I think bad injection practice or hot lots could be involved, but it's probably impossible to tell. The differences in methods between active assessment in the Thai study and passive reporting in the VAERS make it difficult to know what could account for differences in rates of adverse effects.
The rate of SPX vaccine induced clinical myopericarditis found by Enger et al (1 in 216 vaccinated) versus the VAERS shows an under-reporting of 72x, and SPX is delivered only in the military...
In the US, actually ~ 40,000 healthcare workers also received the smallpox vaccine in 2002-3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine#Anti-terrorism_preparation). I remember many of my colleagues getting it and I saw lines of hospital staff waiting to get vaccinated where I worked. Fortunately, I was old enough to have had the vaccine as a child (fortunate in the sense that I wasn't foolish enough to get vaccinated again).
After your recent video on RTE, I have read several of your articles. now Subscribed.
I had wondered about what a grand loss of ace2 sites would do in the blood stream, short and long term, and I still don't know even how much damage was done on a first jab, and what level of healing might actually occur.
Due to unexplained timelines of after effects, my thoughts are looking in a fog of ignorance with only a few spots of knowledge, here is one of them.
It's my understanding that proteins fold, and others, fold differently at different pH, I also wonder if they wouldn't fold differently with other insitu literal mm/hg pressures, and chemical or ionic pressures such as oxygen with hemoglobin vs without, and the presence or absence of glycogen, or insulin as it regulates the porosity of the cellular 'respiration' [my word].
In arteries, I read a study with notable pH changes in non athlete in a short stress tests. (Which would be nowhere near what a true athlete with a developed muscle endurance could achieve.) They achieved significant somewhat local pH change in whole blood flow. IMOP it would be far harder to test a local pH at the cellular surface in situ, unless it might be done through a computer modeling. It would be my guess at the cellular surface there may be far stronger localized pH gradient. It would make sense that as this is sourced from the cell this lower pH would also be present in the cell also.
My thoughts are, whether the mRNA segments, spike segment with or without, in whole or part still attached, might be refolded or re expressed in a more aggressive form which may not look like what the Immune system can deal with.
The spike seems to be just the hook in the middle fishing line, there's been some talk about the rest of line potentially coming from other previous Sars, AIDs virus or Ebola, beyond my knowledge.
Has there been any finding of any of the segments of the mRNA that has assumed to be transcribed into DNA, thereby allowing, copies to persist in the cell ready to be newly folded again?
I saw a article which associated hypotension with higher morbidity and wonder whether that was related to a degradation of the pericytes?
Look at the number of antibody once the spike is gone. that will give u an idea of the numbers. at the endothelial cell level there's 13,000 Abs "goal keeping". Given the strong affinity, they'd likely mop any spike bound to ACE-2 receptors. So they inevitably guard and protect the cells from the spike very effectively. If the circulating spike would be the problem, the symptoms would be systemic. They aren't.
Hypotension can be related to many other problems notably hormonal or cardiac.
I'm not posing a question on continuous circulation.
Your argument about an initial Bolus surge is valid, but can you have a bolus surge without an injection?
My questions are re-injury, possibly a cascade of sorts, with the implication being another bolus?
Would a second bolus due to a release in the body match an injection, probably not, but the body is already injured.
Part of my suspicion is that, the whole or part of the virus is being stored in the cell, and that when conditions change, possibly precipitated by muscle exhaustion, such as pH changes, lactic acid buildup, insulin drops/increases in injured tissue, rapid high pressure blood pressure flow, localized temperature. Could apoptosis be accelerated unloading mis-folded fragments en masse?
My concern is, once the virus it taken up, under what conditions can it be re-expressed? Could it be mis-folded in a predictably inflammatory way, re-igniting a sudden event? After a number of these events, the person, after the event has occurred, can continue on for undetermined amount of time.
Your argument reduced harm is under static conditions and reduction to absence of presence in the blood stream largely understood.
There have been a number of athletes suddenly..what wakes up the cascade of inflammation?
There are other non athletes suddenly have events also. What is the MoA? How could there be an inflammatory event if it were not circulation related?
I haven't seen a distribution map over age of died suddenly vs something else. If I were to guess, died suddenly would fall on on a younger distribution, and damages to the blood vessels would favor the elder generation.
A bolus cannot emerge from a single cell. it would require billions of virions inserted in the bloodstream at the same time, in the same location...this is a physical impossibility.
virions can indeed be stored, be dormant, and then re-emerge, but that would start a brief infection that would be stopped quickly normally.
Not sure what you call static conditions. the immune system is never static.
Protein mis-folding happens daily. I see it as a problem in 2 circumstances if it's a place difficult to access for the immune system, or if the immune system is down.
Recently, there have been interviews and articles arguing that there is significant variance in the amount of active ingredients on a lot-by-lot basis, and maybe even a vial-by-vial basis. Thus on a per dosage basis, you may get the full dose, and I may get next to none. Could that account for at least some of the variance? I seem to recall someone (Roger Sehuelt, maybe) stating that Spike was known to have some level of toxicity. Did I imagine that?
A lot of people have been stating the spike as toxic. the problem is that no one has been able to demonstrate significant quantities in line with toxicity...that's because Antibodies do their job.
Lot variance is a reality. I believe the Europe controlling entity found +-20% with a minimum at 50% of LNPs compliant with plan (ie with mRNA). So ratio vary indeed, but the concentration in IV is 2000-3000 x higher than in IM...so it would make a difference for the individual a much less severe AE if low, but he/she would still be hurt massively, and possibly die.
I love Stephanie. She is a very smart and hard-working lady. Very funny too.
We've been arguing respectfully for 18 months. And we always get past each other :-).
There's several problems with the article in my mind:
1) it over-relies on assumptive research. A lot of what is out there is hypothetical and unproven. Scientific Laws or Evolutionary Logic have a higher order in science versus unproven hypotheses. We know that we can't trust 75% of the research...Stephanie et al build a theory on very unreliable ground imho. I prefer observation, and reverse engineering from the damage to the injection to understand. I don't start from the research, nor the vaccine technology; I start from the pathology and observation.
2) If LNPs have a hard time transfecting, I'd assume exosomes too...Exosomes theory is very much assumptive to me. Stephanie is convinced it's a communication mechanism, notably through the vagal nerve. Seems to me like a very ineffective means.
Observation of post-vaccination blood shows there is today no proof of high quantities of spike post-D9, which would indicate that exosomes are remnants of apoptosised cells, more than anything else, and certainly don't transfect in any significant number.
3) All in-vitro studies are difficult to accept for me and should be taken with a ton of salt, bc they lack immune system dynamics, blood flow dynamics, pressure and body acidity, and often use "out of this world" spike concentrations and gravity...in other words they prove stuff out of context. Sometimes challenging Scientific Laws without explaining how that would/could occur.
4) Stephanie and Peter do away completely with the immune system reaction to transfected cells. G-quadruplex is only relevant in an intra-cellular analysis...The problem is all these cells are very rapidly destroyed (specially when primed), that's why mRMA and spike end up in exosomes...that's a fact. How can they harm, if they are immediately destroyed.
5) The immune system creates billions of cells every day and is fully distributed throughout the bone marrow. So long term immune suppression can only happen by damaging the bone marrow centrally, not at immune cell level. Immune cell level damage would be very transient and very partial, and again is unproven in any large quantity. Actually, AEs are related to very aggressive immune cells, more than anything else. Recovered people have more adverse events despite the fact they will inevitably have less spike and less active transfected cells. On the other hand, bone marrow being one of the largest organs in the body, it is evident that its endothelium would suffer even without IV. If the heart is always hit (as per Pr.Müller of Basel U hospital) then the bone marrow - which is 6 time bigger - should get hit 6 times more.
6) Finally, this doesn't explain why some people get hurt, and some others don't. If it's a microbiological recipe, then the same recipe would inevitably cause the same damage...and we are not seeing that. Many people still have a functional body. Many people don't get hurt. Differential analysis is key here.
Too many falsifiable hypotheses, in my mind.
My theory relies on scientific Laws (L), observations (O) and very few assumptions: Bolus dynamics exists (L),+ systematic attack by immune "antigen-infected" cells exists (L) + homogeneous vascular distribution of molecules exists (L) + IV accidents exist (O) + Vascular physiology of Deltoid means some IV is inevitable, even if partial (L), LNP transfection exists (O), Immune attacks of transfected cells exist (O), concentrated delivery of drugs by a Bolus exists (L/O)...
So on the one side, we have only proven bricks supported by Scientific Laws, and on the other we have a lot of assumptions based on articles that are often far-fetched hypotheses (not Stephanie's fault btw, it's hard to navigate the biological manipulations) that are often not proven. As long as the team doesn't explain why some vaccinated are fine and why some aren't ? why the immune attacks are localised? Why attacks are limited to the arteries? etc... explain the falsifiable hypotheses, I won't consider it a solid theory, despite the tremendous hard work.
That's the big problem today. You can't trust the papers. If you do, you inevitably end up in a rabbit hole. You need to constantly anchor the investigation to reality, else you end up with a house-of-cards.
Thank you again Marc - for taking the time to fully explain. Very Helpful. I didn't know you had replied until now as my server put your email reply in the junk email for some reason. I have told it not too.
Hi Marc, I am still attempting to get my head around this. I just watched Peter McCullough getting interviewed on The Highwire. There was a section where they talked about persistence of both the mRNA and the spike. I understand what you are saying about the spike but have you talked about the persistence of the mRNA - as it has been genetically altered to persist. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35884842/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36156636/ They also talked about the spike protein being similar to human proteins and how this could be leading to autoimmunity. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891400/ Do you have any views on this?
Sorry I had misread your message. mRNA is even more fragile than spike. A study has found mRNA is in exosomes, and see that as dangerous. Worse case is it'll transfect an isolate cell, that will get destroyed quite quickly. To me those exosomes are simply remnants of apoptosised cells, regrouped around lipid, waiting to be processed.
Possible homologeous antibodies with human expression is a topic I have addressed in "The Death Zone". The adverse effects observed are not yet consistent with this type of pathology so far... Else it would be much more systemic, and possibly less brutal as only when expressed on the MHCs would these few peptides be visible. So you wouldn't have carpet bombing attacks..you'd have occasional pruning.
Thank you Marc, I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question. When I read 'The Death Zone' this morning I realised I had read it at the time you released it, but it had faded into a back room filing cabinet somewhere in my brain - so much information, and so many intelligent, well meaning, people with differing views. I think I get what you are saying, and will now use it as one of the main lens I use when assessing and integrating different views on the pathophysiology (and treatment protocols) of COVID and the COVID vaccines - and all vaccines for that matter.
One criticism of the idea of spike persistence is that none of these papers have shown full-length spike protein on the surface of human cells lasting months. It may just be that the spike protein is no longer produced and bits and pieces of it are flying around. The jury is out on this, but bits and pieces are the worst part of the spike protein. As covered in the sections above, the subunits are more toxic than the whole protein, and the amyloidogenic fragments produced by neutrophils might be the worst.
The standard view is that, once a human cell is producing spike protein, it will endure only as long as needed to generate an immune response. Once that happens, T cells will recognize any cell presenting spike protein on its surface and destroy it. [50]
According to this view, lasting side effects would be far more likely to be driven by dysfunctional immune responses than persistent spike protein toxicity.
However, support for both of these phenomena can be found.
Chris is a very smart guy. Hope his protocol can be helpful as frankly it will take all the best minds to figure this out.
Agree completely with this comment: : "... lasting side effects would be far more likely to be driven by dysfunctional immune responses than persistent spike protein toxicity." except it's not dysfunctional, it's a natural reaction to the localised transfection of the vaccine.
What biologists forget - or ignore - is the physics in the blood stream or tissue. As I wrote in a recent article, 99.9% of the blood stream isn't in contact with the endothelial lining at any moment in time, in the capillaries it gets to 99.5%. Bensal et al measures of Antibodies shows there's about 19,000 antibodies facing each individual endothelial cells (my calculation) , literally "goal keeping" the cell. And Abs are also in huge quantity within those 99.9% circulating in the blood stream. So as soon as antibodies are produced, the spike is neutralised, and drops 99% in less than 4 days.
The measurements that I have seen show that 60% of injected people have elevated D-dimer. This shows blood-clots. The amount of dead people with severe clots are also from 60% to even 90+%.
The immune system is also shown to be overly busy, like an inflammation right after mRNA injection. This shows that it is fighting the mRNA and the spike-proteins. But they also fight the body's own cells. This seems to happen in almost all injected patients.
Yes, it is clear that the vaccine is essentially targeting the endothelium. As such there's colossal damage occurring. D-dimers are a proof of the damage simulating a thousand cuts...and starting coagulation. The danger is when that damage is too concentrated.
Hi Marc, How does this fit into your theory? https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-immunological-mechanism-of-action
Adrian, I am extremely interested in Jessica's comment that she started researching connective tissue disorders. I have formed a stronger and stronger conviction over decades of my own research and self-treatment of Fibromyalgia, that mainstream medicine has a massive gap in its understanding of physiology on this very point. Connective tissue. I strongly recommend Dr Russell Schierling's blog (heavily shadow-banned by Google) and reaching out to him for a dialogue. I am not a subscriber to Jessica and am overwhelmed already with subscriptions and "follows".
There is a disgraceful incuriosity in "mainstream" medical science about the possibility that many "mystery syndromes" are actually quantifiable dysfunctions in biochemistry in connective tissue and the adjacent fluids. Particularly anything involving chronic pain and / or immobility. As the authors of one study, still as yet to make any impact in the mainstream, concluded "standardized tests of interstitial fluids could have major diagnostic power" - especially in cases where the professions favorite testing approaches have yielded no findings in millions and millions of people who are condemned to suffering pain and limitation under implied accusations that "it is all in their minds".
I concluded long since that when non-mainstream manual therapists can feel palpable distortions in body tissues at sites of pain, and the mainstream dismisses this as "unscientific", we have a major problem with the arrogance of ignorance. It is non-controversial that bone spurs are simply ossified connective tissue, so why is it controversial that connective tissue (eg fascia) can have a range of properties between healthy and flexible, and ossified to some extent and hence a source of immobility and "pinching" pains?
It has also been proven long since that "transportation" occurs in the interstitial fluids, hence mainstream experts being baffled when cancers jump around the body without them detecting markers in the bloodstream. Therefore, even vaccinations cannot be expected to "stay at the injection site" even if they do not get into the blood. It is astonishing that this is unknown to "experts" making life and death decisions on behalf of all humanity.
It would be no surprise to me if gaps in understanding of connective tissue disorders, are where the explanation lies for the horrific new "blood clots" which do indeed resemble connective tissue - inside blood vessels!
Interesting theory, but the best evidence so far implicates the spike protein in at least a good chunk of the adverse effects. Not only it it toxic per se in large enough quantities, but tricking the body itself into making it is a highly effective way to get the body's immune system to attack itself where cells produce the spike protein, in various organs.
There's absolutely no evidence of circulating spike implication, only on spike produced by transfected cells. There is no way it's the circulating spike. It breaks many fundamental scientific laws: Abs neutralisation, T-cell priming, bolus dynamics, protein mobility and aggregation in the tissue, synchronicity of AEs, toxicology, etc...
OK, that makes sense. Transfected spike in cells would be far worse than circulating spike. Thus mRNA and DNA/AAV jabs would be far worse than, say, Novavax.
In Hypothesis #3 you say "Adverse events have been shown to happen very quickly - deaths within 7 minutes - and often very late - 5 months after the date of vaccination" Could it be possible that some proposed spike protein pathophysiologies be initiated in the first 5 days after vaccination - when spike protein prevalence is highest - and come to fruition post 5 months after vaccinations?
Yes and no. In principle, the deleterious effect of spike following cell death could take time.
However, they could not aggregate in the arteries to become toxic. And If th e concentration would be high enough then the problem would be systemic.
So you are saying that the spike protein cannot cause micro clotting and platelet activation in of itself - and initiate an ongoing inflammatory cycle. How does it initiate a cytokine storm in infection?
Theres' no circulating spike in the infection to start, only virions.
Simply the virions conquer the entire body. And so the immune system scuttles infected cells everywhere.
Hi Marc,
Lots of scientists think the spike protein, in of itself, after the body's cells have pumped it out into the surrounding tissues, is dangerous - independent of the bodies immune response to kill the cells that have been transfected by the mRNA LNPs, and are producing the spike. Are you saying that the spike affected cells (ACE2 attached) are also got rid of by the immune system quickly? so don't have time to become a problem &/or are also a part of the bolus induced local destruction? I am editing this question as I go - apologies. Maybe I have missed that you are including the spike attached cells in the transfected group whereas I have been only seeing as the ones that have been turned into spike factories by the mRNA.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61910a2d98732d54b73ef8fc/t/638f34348dca010eadd0f4ef/1670329398788/EvidentiaryDocument_COVID19NationalLevelHarm_01122022.pdf Start at line 1079 . One interesting point raised is the raised ACE2 receptor prevalence in those with comorbidities - see at line 1101 - 1.3.3 Vaccine-Induced Spike Proteins Drive an Array of Pathogenesis Mechanisms that
Trigger Pathologies and Exacerbate Comorbidities
To my knowledge, there is no direct tissue damage. It' s mostly necrosis due to coagulation.
I have yet to see circulating spike or. Spike on the receptors. Most of the spike IDed are intracellular (produced for me).
The Abs do the work and stop spike damage else the problems would be systemic (everywhere) and for everybody.
Something special happens to this e who have an AE. Circulating spike at D5 of Jab1 (except for Recovered) happens to every body.
But I am confident hardly no spike is produced and circulation after that. So why the accidents at Jab 2, 3, 4, 5?
Can't be the spike. There's 12 ways to disprove the
Circulating spike theory.
Hi Marc,
New reader here and regrettably vaccinated. Thank you for all of your articles. Question: Given the Bolus theory, if one has not received a vaccine for an extended period of time, is it likely that we are relatively in the clear?
Thank you
Cowboy
Thank you for your comment. Hope you can help my articles become more mainstream. Don't hesitate to share.
Answer: I'd think so. People harmed often had a taste in the mouth immediately after the shot. That's a clear indicator.
For (1) the body heals in most places, except the heart. In Pr Müller's study only 0.5% of men had heart lesions. 99.5% you are ok.
(2) If the person didn't get too many headaches...it's likely the BBB is ok, and the IM went OK, and thus no bolus was created, and no leaks were created.
The endocrine disorders are usually felt quickly. The immune disorders also (shingles, ...).
The only very LT danger I can think of is Alzheimer disease when the immune system starts diminishing with age. If you didn't get headaches u should be fine.
Thanks for the response, Marc! Have shared with some loved ones already. Did your comment get cut off? It seems to end abruptly at "and if you did get headaches,". Thanks again for the engagement.
Marc,
Thank you very much for this and your many other articles. I want to congratulate you on your work. You have done a wonderful job describing your bolus theory and the evidence consistent with it. I like how your theory/principle is general, extending to all vaccines and drugs intended for intramuscular injection. The principle accounts for diverse aspects of the Covid vaccines' adverse effects, such as the apparent demographic variation in adverse effects (for example, disproportionate damage to young, athletic males) and apparent variation in danger of vaccine lots ("hot lots"). I'm disappointed that other free-thinking Covid researchers aren't taking this principle more seriously. The bolus theory seems to perform better as a scientific hypothesis than any other hypothesis about Covid vaccine adverse effects.
You contend that other transfecting vaccines might/would produce the same extent of serious adverse effects as the Covid vaccines, after accounting for any differences in dose. Have you calculated the rate of such effects for those prior vaccines that seemed to have similar high frequencies of serious adverse effects, even if they were withdrawn after limited use? I think it is important to know how much these rates (adverse effects/vacinees) vary across vaccines that are otherwise identical with respect to the bolus principle. If there is meaningful variation in these rates, then it implies the bolus principle does not explain everything, and that the particular ingredients of the vaccines may also be relevant. Of course, it would be critical to stratify these rates for demographically similar vacinees (such as children vs. working age adults vs. elderly).
Another test of the bolus theory/principle would be to compare rates of serious adverse effects for Covid transfecting vaccines with those for protein subunit vaccines (such as Novavax). If the rates for the latter are lower, that would be consistent with the bolus theory, it seems to me.
Please share it widely.
Many are discounting the Bolus Principle too easily with a "it can't be the only explanation", "there's got to be more to it". But nothing even remotely as robust, wide or consistent is being proposed.
My friend Steve Kirsch has been on the edge, specially since so many doctors and biologists are "circulating spike" fanatics...even if I have destroyed that theory in 12 different ways.
Thank you Devon,
I really appreciate your comment, it's a very lonely battle. And I have paid a very high personal price, specially not being a biologist. My pro-bono commitment and help to the community is so far very negative from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the Bolus Theory is very solid and it has the potential to bridge the gap between vaxers and antivaxers.
Yes, I have done the analyses you suggest. If you go to my September article:
https://covidmythbuster.substack.com/p/when-and-how-can-vaccine-particles
You see a deep-dive AE comparison between the SPX vaccine (transfecting) and the FLU vaccine (protein) by Enger et al that shows just that. Huge difference in clinical myopericarditis.
I have also pushed by my friend Steve Kirsch done an AE comparison between SPX and COVID vaccine, that tends to show SPX vaccines are more dangerous than COVID vaccines (with one confounder is it's done in the military to young soldiers who survive more). Will email it to u.
Comparing rates is very very tricky as there's a lot unconscious obfuscation by doctors, who have been under-reporting AEs for decades. More over what's invisible doesn't exist... NOVAVAX is a good idea, though not sure the volumes are there.
I think if we could have an exact number of attenuated viruses/virus-like particles per dose, we could have a good sense of dangerosity, because each particle has single cytotoxic capacity.
Thank you, Marc, for your responses. I had read your September article but forgot about Engler et al.'s comparison of smallpox and trivalent flu vaccines. It is good, but limited, evidence consistent with the bolus theory, as it involves only two vaccines. Your analysis of the VAERS that you sent Steve Kirsch also makes a good case that the smallpox vaccine is at least as dangerous as the Covid jabs. I think a more comprehensive analysis of all or many vaccines in VAERS might be worthwhile.
But does this not simply require comparisons between vaccinators and assessment against batch numbers to clarify if spike vs lnp be manufacturing issues justify a bolus theory. The Thai myocarditis study would indicate that the Thai vaccinators are either reallllly bad or some batches truly are problematic
I think bad injection practice or hot lots could be involved, but it's probably impossible to tell. The differences in methods between active assessment in the Thai study and passive reporting in the VAERS make it difficult to know what could account for differences in rates of adverse effects.
The rate of SPX vaccine induced clinical myopericarditis found by Enger et al (1 in 216 vaccinated) versus the VAERS shows an under-reporting of 72x, and SPX is delivered only in the military...
In the US, actually ~ 40,000 healthcare workers also received the smallpox vaccine in 2002-3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine#Anti-terrorism_preparation). I remember many of my colleagues getting it and I saw lines of hospital staff waiting to get vaccinated where I worked. Fortunately, I was old enough to have had the vaccine as a child (fortunate in the sense that I wasn't foolish enough to get vaccinated again).
The meek shall..
I'm grateful for the time you have taken to consider so many peoples thoughts, including my own.
Humility is the hallmark of finding Wisdom and understanding. Gratitude and Thankfulness
I am not sure about the humility.
Taking on this mammoth craze was very arrogant of me, and I am paying the price.
But I have the St Bernard mindset in me. Trying to help people, even if the most part are absolutely not interested in being helped ;-).
Thanks Marc,
After your recent video on RTE, I have read several of your articles. now Subscribed.
I had wondered about what a grand loss of ace2 sites would do in the blood stream, short and long term, and I still don't know even how much damage was done on a first jab, and what level of healing might actually occur.
Due to unexplained timelines of after effects, my thoughts are looking in a fog of ignorance with only a few spots of knowledge, here is one of them.
It's my understanding that proteins fold, and others, fold differently at different pH, I also wonder if they wouldn't fold differently with other insitu literal mm/hg pressures, and chemical or ionic pressures such as oxygen with hemoglobin vs without, and the presence or absence of glycogen, or insulin as it regulates the porosity of the cellular 'respiration' [my word].
In arteries, I read a study with notable pH changes in non athlete in a short stress tests. (Which would be nowhere near what a true athlete with a developed muscle endurance could achieve.) They achieved significant somewhat local pH change in whole blood flow. IMOP it would be far harder to test a local pH at the cellular surface in situ, unless it might be done through a computer modeling. It would be my guess at the cellular surface there may be far stronger localized pH gradient. It would make sense that as this is sourced from the cell this lower pH would also be present in the cell also.
My thoughts are, whether the mRNA segments, spike segment with or without, in whole or part still attached, might be refolded or re expressed in a more aggressive form which may not look like what the Immune system can deal with.
The spike seems to be just the hook in the middle fishing line, there's been some talk about the rest of line potentially coming from other previous Sars, AIDs virus or Ebola, beyond my knowledge.
Has there been any finding of any of the segments of the mRNA that has assumed to be transcribed into DNA, thereby allowing, copies to persist in the cell ready to be newly folded again?
I saw a article which associated hypotension with higher morbidity and wonder whether that was related to a degradation of the pericytes?
Look at the number of antibody once the spike is gone. that will give u an idea of the numbers. at the endothelial cell level there's 13,000 Abs "goal keeping". Given the strong affinity, they'd likely mop any spike bound to ACE-2 receptors. So they inevitably guard and protect the cells from the spike very effectively. If the circulating spike would be the problem, the symptoms would be systemic. They aren't.
Hypotension can be related to many other problems notably hormonal or cardiac.
I'm not posing a question on continuous circulation.
Your argument about an initial Bolus surge is valid, but can you have a bolus surge without an injection?
My questions are re-injury, possibly a cascade of sorts, with the implication being another bolus?
Would a second bolus due to a release in the body match an injection, probably not, but the body is already injured.
Part of my suspicion is that, the whole or part of the virus is being stored in the cell, and that when conditions change, possibly precipitated by muscle exhaustion, such as pH changes, lactic acid buildup, insulin drops/increases in injured tissue, rapid high pressure blood pressure flow, localized temperature. Could apoptosis be accelerated unloading mis-folded fragments en masse?
My concern is, once the virus it taken up, under what conditions can it be re-expressed? Could it be mis-folded in a predictably inflammatory way, re-igniting a sudden event? After a number of these events, the person, after the event has occurred, can continue on for undetermined amount of time.
Your argument reduced harm is under static conditions and reduction to absence of presence in the blood stream largely understood.
There have been a number of athletes suddenly..what wakes up the cascade of inflammation?
There are other non athletes suddenly have events also. What is the MoA? How could there be an inflammatory event if it were not circulation related?
I haven't seen a distribution map over age of died suddenly vs something else. If I were to guess, died suddenly would fall on on a younger distribution, and damages to the blood vessels would favor the elder generation.
A bolus cannot emerge from a single cell. it would require billions of virions inserted in the bloodstream at the same time, in the same location...this is a physical impossibility.
virions can indeed be stored, be dormant, and then re-emerge, but that would start a brief infection that would be stopped quickly normally.
Not sure what you call static conditions. the immune system is never static.
Protein mis-folding happens daily. I see it as a problem in 2 circumstances if it's a place difficult to access for the immune system, or if the immune system is down.
Recently, there have been interviews and articles arguing that there is significant variance in the amount of active ingredients on a lot-by-lot basis, and maybe even a vial-by-vial basis. Thus on a per dosage basis, you may get the full dose, and I may get next to none. Could that account for at least some of the variance? I seem to recall someone (Roger Sehuelt, maybe) stating that Spike was known to have some level of toxicity. Did I imagine that?
A lot of people have been stating the spike as toxic. the problem is that no one has been able to demonstrate significant quantities in line with toxicity...that's because Antibodies do their job.
Lot variance is a reality. I believe the Europe controlling entity found +-20% with a minimum at 50% of LNPs compliant with plan (ie with mRNA). So ratio vary indeed, but the concentration in IV is 2000-3000 x higher than in IM...so it would make a difference for the individual a much less severe AE if low, but he/she would still be hurt massively, and possibly die.
Hi Again,
What do you think about this paper? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/ Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs
I love Stephanie. She is a very smart and hard-working lady. Very funny too.
We've been arguing respectfully for 18 months. And we always get past each other :-).
There's several problems with the article in my mind:
1) it over-relies on assumptive research. A lot of what is out there is hypothetical and unproven. Scientific Laws or Evolutionary Logic have a higher order in science versus unproven hypotheses. We know that we can't trust 75% of the research...Stephanie et al build a theory on very unreliable ground imho. I prefer observation, and reverse engineering from the damage to the injection to understand. I don't start from the research, nor the vaccine technology; I start from the pathology and observation.
2) If LNPs have a hard time transfecting, I'd assume exosomes too...Exosomes theory is very much assumptive to me. Stephanie is convinced it's a communication mechanism, notably through the vagal nerve. Seems to me like a very ineffective means.
Observation of post-vaccination blood shows there is today no proof of high quantities of spike post-D9, which would indicate that exosomes are remnants of apoptosised cells, more than anything else, and certainly don't transfect in any significant number.
3) All in-vitro studies are difficult to accept for me and should be taken with a ton of salt, bc they lack immune system dynamics, blood flow dynamics, pressure and body acidity, and often use "out of this world" spike concentrations and gravity...in other words they prove stuff out of context. Sometimes challenging Scientific Laws without explaining how that would/could occur.
4) Stephanie and Peter do away completely with the immune system reaction to transfected cells. G-quadruplex is only relevant in an intra-cellular analysis...The problem is all these cells are very rapidly destroyed (specially when primed), that's why mRMA and spike end up in exosomes...that's a fact. How can they harm, if they are immediately destroyed.
5) The immune system creates billions of cells every day and is fully distributed throughout the bone marrow. So long term immune suppression can only happen by damaging the bone marrow centrally, not at immune cell level. Immune cell level damage would be very transient and very partial, and again is unproven in any large quantity. Actually, AEs are related to very aggressive immune cells, more than anything else. Recovered people have more adverse events despite the fact they will inevitably have less spike and less active transfected cells. On the other hand, bone marrow being one of the largest organs in the body, it is evident that its endothelium would suffer even without IV. If the heart is always hit (as per Pr.Müller of Basel U hospital) then the bone marrow - which is 6 time bigger - should get hit 6 times more.
6) Finally, this doesn't explain why some people get hurt, and some others don't. If it's a microbiological recipe, then the same recipe would inevitably cause the same damage...and we are not seeing that. Many people still have a functional body. Many people don't get hurt. Differential analysis is key here.
Too many falsifiable hypotheses, in my mind.
My theory relies on scientific Laws (L), observations (O) and very few assumptions: Bolus dynamics exists (L),+ systematic attack by immune "antigen-infected" cells exists (L) + homogeneous vascular distribution of molecules exists (L) + IV accidents exist (O) + Vascular physiology of Deltoid means some IV is inevitable, even if partial (L), LNP transfection exists (O), Immune attacks of transfected cells exist (O), concentrated delivery of drugs by a Bolus exists (L/O)...
So on the one side, we have only proven bricks supported by Scientific Laws, and on the other we have a lot of assumptions based on articles that are often far-fetched hypotheses (not Stephanie's fault btw, it's hard to navigate the biological manipulations) that are often not proven. As long as the team doesn't explain why some vaccinated are fine and why some aren't ? why the immune attacks are localised? Why attacks are limited to the arteries? etc... explain the falsifiable hypotheses, I won't consider it a solid theory, despite the tremendous hard work.
That's the big problem today. You can't trust the papers. If you do, you inevitably end up in a rabbit hole. You need to constantly anchor the investigation to reality, else you end up with a house-of-cards.
Thank you again Marc - for taking the time to fully explain. Very Helpful. I didn't know you had replied until now as my server put your email reply in the junk email for some reason. I have told it not too.
Hi Marc, I am still attempting to get my head around this. I just watched Peter McCullough getting interviewed on The Highwire. There was a section where they talked about persistence of both the mRNA and the spike. I understand what you are saying about the spike but have you talked about the persistence of the mRNA - as it has been genetically altered to persist. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35884842/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36156636/ They also talked about the spike protein being similar to human proteins and how this could be leading to autoimmunity. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35891400/ Do you have any views on this?
Sorry I had misread your message. mRNA is even more fragile than spike. A study has found mRNA is in exosomes, and see that as dangerous. Worse case is it'll transfect an isolate cell, that will get destroyed quite quickly. To me those exosomes are simply remnants of apoptosised cells, regrouped around lipid, waiting to be processed.
Possible homologeous antibodies with human expression is a topic I have addressed in "The Death Zone". The adverse effects observed are not yet consistent with this type of pathology so far... Else it would be much more systemic, and possibly less brutal as only when expressed on the MHCs would these few peptides be visible. So you wouldn't have carpet bombing attacks..you'd have occasional pruning.
Thank you Marc, I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question. When I read 'The Death Zone' this morning I realised I had read it at the time you released it, but it had faded into a back room filing cabinet somewhere in my brain - so much information, and so many intelligent, well meaning, people with differing views. I think I get what you are saying, and will now use it as one of the main lens I use when assessing and integrating different views on the pathophysiology (and treatment protocols) of COVID and the COVID vaccines - and all vaccines for that matter.
not sure if you've seen this, but it adds support to your theory that spike is not the cause of vaccine injury:
[Lack of evidence of significant homology of SARS-CoV-2 spike sequences to myocarditis-associated antigens](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(21)00601-0/fulltext)
Thanks for the headsup
From
https://chrismasterjohnphd.substack.com/p/covid-vaccine-side-effects-what-causes
One criticism of the idea of spike persistence is that none of these papers have shown full-length spike protein on the surface of human cells lasting months. It may just be that the spike protein is no longer produced and bits and pieces of it are flying around. The jury is out on this, but bits and pieces are the worst part of the spike protein. As covered in the sections above, the subunits are more toxic than the whole protein, and the amyloidogenic fragments produced by neutrophils might be the worst.
The standard view is that, once a human cell is producing spike protein, it will endure only as long as needed to generate an immune response. Once that happens, T cells will recognize any cell presenting spike protein on its surface and destroy it. [50]
According to this view, lasting side effects would be far more likely to be driven by dysfunctional immune responses than persistent spike protein toxicity.
However, support for both of these phenomena can be found.
Thanks for these comments.
Chris is a very smart guy. Hope his protocol can be helpful as frankly it will take all the best minds to figure this out.
Agree completely with this comment: : "... lasting side effects would be far more likely to be driven by dysfunctional immune responses than persistent spike protein toxicity." except it's not dysfunctional, it's a natural reaction to the localised transfection of the vaccine.
What biologists forget - or ignore - is the physics in the blood stream or tissue. As I wrote in a recent article, 99.9% of the blood stream isn't in contact with the endothelial lining at any moment in time, in the capillaries it gets to 99.5%. Bensal et al measures of Antibodies shows there's about 19,000 antibodies facing each individual endothelial cells (my calculation) , literally "goal keeping" the cell. And Abs are also in huge quantity within those 99.9% circulating in the blood stream. So as soon as antibodies are produced, the spike is neutralised, and drops 99% in less than 4 days.
https://chrismasterjohnphd.substack.com/p/the-spike-protein-as-a-pore-forming
The measurements that I have seen show that 60% of injected people have elevated D-dimer. This shows blood-clots. The amount of dead people with severe clots are also from 60% to even 90+%.
The immune system is also shown to be overly busy, like an inflammation right after mRNA injection. This shows that it is fighting the mRNA and the spike-proteins. But they also fight the body's own cells. This seems to happen in almost all injected patients.
Here is my full analysis. https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/the-experimental-injections-are-not?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Yes, it is clear that the vaccine is essentially targeting the endothelium. As such there's colossal damage occurring. D-dimers are a proof of the damage simulating a thousand cuts...and starting coagulation. The danger is when that damage is too concentrated.