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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Hi Marc, How does this fit into your theory? https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-immunological-mechanism-of-action
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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
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?
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)
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.
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