I like your bolus theory. My suspicion was immediately aroused upon viewing videos of vaccine injections. I was taught to pull back the plunger to check for blood in order to avoid venous injection. I saw many people who passed out shortly after some of the shots and thought that it was probably caused by venous injection. Would you expect that to happen?
Though the lack of aspiration was one if the triggers fpr me to look into inadvertent IV injection, I now understand all IM injections go IV with random speeds, concentrations, and destinations. Of course, sending a bolus down the vascular system causes many immediate symptoms, especially at dose 2 when circulation resident T cells are still very numerous.
I don't know it very well. I am not a big fan of all the electric theories. Cells have multiple repair or self-destruct mechanisms that would correct for such happening.
I think my theory makes more sense, and is more robust.
Thinking about this - normal scenario is extremely rare stem cell transfection by a naturally occurring virus. Defense strategy is stem cell rapidly replicates until the foreign material is "diluted" or degraded (I'm fuzzy on this mechanism). So even more rare (in the natural occurring scenario) is the replication strategy fails and rapid replication never subsides = cancer
So given the modern prevalence of cancer, something about the vax ingredients and/or IV delivery is particularly defeating of the replication strategy.
Now what happens if they start teaching the immune system (gene therapy) to destroy cancer cells. Will they be inadvertently also teaching it to destroy stem cells?
Rare: Viruses in nature can happen. It's hard to say how rare it is.
Defense mechanism: The evasion-by-replication works. Say you can deal 1‰ of the contaminated dose, the cell will divide 12 times making 1024 copies, and spreading the poison over 1024 ( 2^10) cells. That's how it probably works. It's in line with what Kevin McKernan has found in colon cancer cells.
Cancer: cancer isn't so much that replication never subsides. It's because you now have 1023 extra cooks in the kitchen. So when a signal for a new regenerative cells is sent out, the number of cells provided is a thousand-fold what it should be, and since during cell division contaminant tinkered with the DNA, these new cells in excess are mutated...the very definition of cancer.
Defeating of the replication strategy: No, simply it's an Achilles heal of evolution. It sort of works with infants and new borns, because the excess goes into the newly formed organs (except for blood cancers). Actually, it probably participates to the integration of new genes in the gene pool.
Immuno-oncology: You are correct that there is a risk of off-target harm with immuno-oncology. It's one of the issues with immune checkpoint blockage because they take-down the immune privilege of stem cells. Mutation targeting vaccines theoretically can work without hitting stem cells. My friend's vaccine didn't have any off-targets because the body protects stem cells...
Would an intradermal injection be more safe than an intramuscular injection?
Or is the potential for damage there for both injection methods?
In my case, what will be injected is a bolus of lidocaine for the removal of a skin spot on my overarm that my doctor would like to have a look at.
Now I'm not sure if I want to go through with the procedure if the injection could be more dangerous than the small chance that it is malignant. The spot could be a hundred different things, the doctor said, but I won't find out until I cut it out.
:-) my younger son, 26, had a "tumor" (more a cyst) in the brain last summer. And they had to do several MRIs, and he was insisting - rightly - they go easy. Thankfully it all ended up well. Thank you for this brief genuine moment.
This research is fascinating! I’m grateful you and your colleagues are thinking outside the box to determine what is causing this alarming increase in cancer, especially among the young. I’m praying for your success in determining the cause which would lead to treatment.
I thought cyto-toxic T-cells kill tumor cells. Are you saying that cyto-toxic T-cells can't kill cancer cells that originate from out of control stem cell replication as stem cells are immune privileged? Or do cyto-toxic T-cells only attack tumor cells that do not have a stem cell origin? Or do cyto-toxic T-cells kill stem cell origin cancers, but only when it's too late as the stem cells are now tumors? I am not a scientist, so I hope this isn't too painful to read.
Interesting and intriguing. This medical lay-person is even more convinced not injecting these experimental toxins is a wise choice; not to mention the injection of anything being questionable.
Beyond the obvious harms observed, I leave it to you and your scientific background associates to verify the causes.
In light of this, what do you make of Dr. Suzanne Humphries' statement to Joe Rogan that babies born to covid-jabbed mothers have no stem cells in their cord blood?
I thought I had responded already...apologies for the delay.
Frankly, I don't understand it. If the baby didn't have stem cells, how did he/she grow into a normal-sized baby? Something is off in this study, but I don't know what. And I don't have a hypothesis to work with.
What is certain is it is lunacy to inject vaccines into pregnant women. It is particular dangerous to send a bolus which will find its way to the baby, just like it finds it's way to stem cells.
The BOLUS theory of vaccines is not an established scientific theory recognized in immunology or vaccinology, but in some circles—especially critical or skeptical of vaccination—it is used to describe an alternative model of how vaccine doses affect the body. The word "bolus" refers to a single large dose of a substance delivered at once, often used in medicine (e.g., a bolus of insulin or IV drugs).
In the context of vaccines, the "BOLUS theory" generally suggests:
Vaccines deliver a large dose (bolus) of antigen and/or adjuvant into the body all at once, typically via injection.
This method bypasses natural exposure pathways (like the mucosal membranes in the nose, throat, or gut).
The immune system is stimulated in an unnatural and potentially overwhelming way, which some claim may cause adverse effects or long-term immune dysfunction.
Critics argue that this may contribute to autoimmune conditions, allergies, or chronic inflammation.
In contrast, mainstream immunology holds that:
Vaccines provide a controlled and safe exposure to a pathogen (or part of it), allowing the immune system to develop memory without causing disease.
The dose and formulation of vaccines are carefully determined in clinical trials to ensure they are both effective and safe.
Intramuscular or subcutaneous administration is standard for many vaccines because it delivers antigens efficiently to the immune system.
Why is the BOLUS theory controversial?
It is often invoked by those skeptical of vaccine safety, especially in discussions about infant vaccination schedules, adjuvants like aluminum, or the route of administration.
It is not a peer-reviewed or widely accepted concept in immunology, and no major health body endorses it.
It often appears alongside concerns about vaccine overload, which have been repeatedly studied and not supported by evidence.
Would you like me to compare the BOLUS theory with mucosal (e.g., nasal or oral) immunization strategies, or explain how immune memory works with different delivery methods?
Note that according to Marc, what happens, and what is injected has changed over the years: and it doesn't matter what happens, or what the stuff injected is. You inject stuff: stuff happens. That's the entirity of 'theory'.
It's shameful that Marc's senseless scribblings have generated enough response to be picked up by AI.
Once again this is a fallacy. I explain clot formation perfectly by the massive destruction of the endothelium by Tcell attacks, and the corresponding imbalance between this huge demand (often followed by platelet depletion and thrombocytopenia) and the capability of the coagulation inhibitors that are overwhelmed.
After feeding an AI (llama3.1-nemotron-70B-instruct-hf) the Bogus Theory and my above comments, I asked:
Would you agree with the admittedly unkind observation "that's falling on your face with the first step, from a scientific perspective?"
AI: Yes, I agree with the observation, from a scientific perspective.
Here's why:
Fundamental Flaw: Marc Girardot's "Bolus Theory" fails to account for the most basic aspect of scientific inquiry: specificity. It cannot explain the discrepancy in clotting events between the gene-transfection-products and normal vaccines, which is a crucial distinction.
Lack of Discriminating Power: A scientific theory should be able to differentiate between similar phenomena with distinct outcomes. In this case, the "Bolus Theory" appears to be overly broad, lacking the nuance to distinguish between vaccines with varying safety profiles.
Failure to Meet the First Step of Scientific Inquiry: In the scientific method, the first step is often to observe and question a phenomenon. A good theory should then provide a plausible explanation for these observations. By failing to address the fundamental difference in clotting events between standard vaccines and the specific gene-transfection-products in question, the "Bolus Theory" indeed "falls on its face with the first step".
In conclusion:
While the observation might be unkind, it is scientifically justified. The "Bolus Theory", as presented, does indeed "fall on its face with the first step" due to its inability to explain a fundamental aspect of the phenomenon it attempts to address.
Lest the dear reader require a reminder: Marc championed his Bolus Theory as THE explanation for why THESE gene-transfection injections cause THESE clots...
"The dose and formulation of vaccines are carefully determined in clinical trials to ensure they are both effective and safe."
Uh... NOT. There are no placebo controlled clinical trials so both the vaccine and the control group get injections. And they don't run them long enough, and lie about their data.
AI will always give you the consensus, except if you feed it precise infos.
By the way, Timothy, Bolus Theory doesn't apply only to vaccines...it's applicable to anesthetics, epinephrine, vitamins, steroids, toxins, venom...even viruses. ;-)
- a big inoculum is sent down your vascular system and reaches the brain. The immune system attacks the concentrated area in the same way it does for a vaccine, you become demented, or much later you have AD or PD.
- the inoculum stays in the wound, slowly creeps into the body, the viruses are disseminated, fever kicks in, little to no concentrated immune attacks take place, and life goes on....you live even though you've been bitten by a rabid fox...
I like your bolus theory. My suspicion was immediately aroused upon viewing videos of vaccine injections. I was taught to pull back the plunger to check for blood in order to avoid venous injection. I saw many people who passed out shortly after some of the shots and thought that it was probably caused by venous injection. Would you expect that to happen?
Though the lack of aspiration was one if the triggers fpr me to look into inadvertent IV injection, I now understand all IM injections go IV with random speeds, concentrations, and destinations. Of course, sending a bolus down the vascular system causes many immediate symptoms, especially at dose 2 when circulation resident T cells are still very numerous.
Hey Marc, what do you think about Michael Levin’s work on system-
connection-failure cancer theory?
I don't know it very well. I am not a big fan of all the electric theories. Cells have multiple repair or self-destruct mechanisms that would correct for such happening.
I think my theory makes more sense, and is more robust.
Maybe vaccines cause disruption in cells communication?
Dr Kevin McCairn is currently investigating the clots. They're amyloid fibrin.
You can give the 'bogus theory' a rest now, Marc.
https://makismd.substack.com/p/news-3-decades-wiped-from-life-expectancy?publication_id=1385328&post_id=162513560&isFreemail=false&r=koezg&triedRedirect=true
Thinking about this - normal scenario is extremely rare stem cell transfection by a naturally occurring virus. Defense strategy is stem cell rapidly replicates until the foreign material is "diluted" or degraded (I'm fuzzy on this mechanism). So even more rare (in the natural occurring scenario) is the replication strategy fails and rapid replication never subsides = cancer
So given the modern prevalence of cancer, something about the vax ingredients and/or IV delivery is particularly defeating of the replication strategy.
Now what happens if they start teaching the immune system (gene therapy) to destroy cancer cells. Will they be inadvertently also teaching it to destroy stem cells?
Rare: Viruses in nature can happen. It's hard to say how rare it is.
Defense mechanism: The evasion-by-replication works. Say you can deal 1‰ of the contaminated dose, the cell will divide 12 times making 1024 copies, and spreading the poison over 1024 ( 2^10) cells. That's how it probably works. It's in line with what Kevin McKernan has found in colon cancer cells.
Cancer: cancer isn't so much that replication never subsides. It's because you now have 1023 extra cooks in the kitchen. So when a signal for a new regenerative cells is sent out, the number of cells provided is a thousand-fold what it should be, and since during cell division contaminant tinkered with the DNA, these new cells in excess are mutated...the very definition of cancer.
Defeating of the replication strategy: No, simply it's an Achilles heal of evolution. It sort of works with infants and new borns, because the excess goes into the newly formed organs (except for blood cancers). Actually, it probably participates to the integration of new genes in the gene pool.
Immuno-oncology: You are correct that there is a risk of off-target harm with immuno-oncology. It's one of the issues with immune checkpoint blockage because they take-down the immune privilege of stem cells. Mutation targeting vaccines theoretically can work without hitting stem cells. My friend's vaccine didn't have any off-targets because the body protects stem cells...
Would an intradermal injection be more safe than an intramuscular injection?
Or is the potential for damage there for both injection methods?
In my case, what will be injected is a bolus of lidocaine for the removal of a skin spot on my overarm that my doctor would like to have a look at.
Now I'm not sure if I want to go through with the procedure if the injection could be more dangerous than the small chance that it is malignant. The spot could be a hundred different things, the doctor said, but I won't find out until I cut it out.
Thank you for all answers.
You might find this interesting reading, as it sheds light on melanoma, etc
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dermatologys-disastrous-war-against
Subcutaneous is worse than IM. Not sure about intradermal. Done slowly it should be fine. Anesthetics are not as bad as the vaccine.
Thank you.
I will tell the injector to do the injection slowly.
:-) my younger son, 26, had a "tumor" (more a cyst) in the brain last summer. And they had to do several MRIs, and he was insisting - rightly - they go easy. Thankfully it all ended up well. Thank you for this brief genuine moment.
This research is fascinating! I’m grateful you and your colleagues are thinking outside the box to determine what is causing this alarming increase in cancer, especially among the young. I’m praying for your success in determining the cause which would lead to treatment.
Thank you for your kind words.
Sadly I am alone, though the work of other is indeed indispensable to find the truth.
But I have determined the cause: the contamination of stem cells.
I thought cyto-toxic T-cells kill tumor cells. Are you saying that cyto-toxic T-cells can't kill cancer cells that originate from out of control stem cell replication as stem cells are immune privileged? Or do cyto-toxic T-cells only attack tumor cells that do not have a stem cell origin? Or do cyto-toxic T-cells kill stem cell origin cancers, but only when it's too late as the stem cells are now tumors? I am not a scientist, so I hope this isn't too painful to read.
Respectfully, the term cytotoxic T-cells makes no sense.
T-cells don't go on a killing spree because they can or because that's all they do. They don't kill cells for the sake of it.
T-cells are disciplined/specialized, they spot and kill contaminated cells.
However, they are forbidden to kill royalty...royalty and counts are protected bc they are too precious.
Interesting and intriguing. This medical lay-person is even more convinced not injecting these experimental toxins is a wise choice; not to mention the injection of anything being questionable.
Beyond the obvious harms observed, I leave it to you and your scientific background associates to verify the causes.
In light of this, what do you make of Dr. Suzanne Humphries' statement to Joe Rogan that babies born to covid-jabbed mothers have no stem cells in their cord blood?
I thought I had responded already...apologies for the delay.
Frankly, I don't understand it. If the baby didn't have stem cells, how did he/she grow into a normal-sized baby? Something is off in this study, but I don't know what. And I don't have a hypothesis to work with.
What is certain is it is lunacy to inject vaccines into pregnant women. It is particular dangerous to send a bolus which will find its way to the baby, just like it finds it's way to stem cells.
thanks for Sharing Marc
Hot damn. The stem cell connection would explain so much.
I think I’d be expecting to see a spike in bone marrow cancer and leukemia.
Traces of spike... yes. But not loads of them.
What about BioShield?
What do you mean exactly by BioShield?
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong
Which one?
Yes, I got that, but Dr Soon-Shiong has multiple therapies, with varying deliveries.
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-patrick-soon
Tucker interview
You said:
What is the BOLUS theory of vaccines?
ChatGPT said:
The BOLUS theory of vaccines is not an established scientific theory recognized in immunology or vaccinology, but in some circles—especially critical or skeptical of vaccination—it is used to describe an alternative model of how vaccine doses affect the body. The word "bolus" refers to a single large dose of a substance delivered at once, often used in medicine (e.g., a bolus of insulin or IV drugs).
In the context of vaccines, the "BOLUS theory" generally suggests:
Vaccines deliver a large dose (bolus) of antigen and/or adjuvant into the body all at once, typically via injection.
This method bypasses natural exposure pathways (like the mucosal membranes in the nose, throat, or gut).
The immune system is stimulated in an unnatural and potentially overwhelming way, which some claim may cause adverse effects or long-term immune dysfunction.
Critics argue that this may contribute to autoimmune conditions, allergies, or chronic inflammation.
In contrast, mainstream immunology holds that:
Vaccines provide a controlled and safe exposure to a pathogen (or part of it), allowing the immune system to develop memory without causing disease.
The dose and formulation of vaccines are carefully determined in clinical trials to ensure they are both effective and safe.
Intramuscular or subcutaneous administration is standard for many vaccines because it delivers antigens efficiently to the immune system.
Why is the BOLUS theory controversial?
It is often invoked by those skeptical of vaccine safety, especially in discussions about infant vaccination schedules, adjuvants like aluminum, or the route of administration.
It is not a peer-reviewed or widely accepted concept in immunology, and no major health body endorses it.
It often appears alongside concerns about vaccine overload, which have been repeatedly studied and not supported by evidence.
Would you like me to compare the BOLUS theory with mucosal (e.g., nasal or oral) immunization strategies, or explain how immune memory works with different delivery methods?
I'll summarize the 'bolus theory' for you:
"You inject stuff, and stuff happens."
Note that according to Marc, what happens, and what is injected has changed over the years: and it doesn't matter what happens, or what the stuff injected is. You inject stuff: stuff happens. That's the entirity of 'theory'.
It's shameful that Marc's senseless scribblings have generated enough response to be picked up by AI.
Perry, You clearly haven't read anything from me.
My book is 277 pages...of detailed explanation.
But you'd need to read and be honest to do that.
Very few of Marc's readers ever realized that Marc's theory fails to explain why the clot shots caused clots, whereas others do not.
That's falling on your face with your first step, from a scientific perspective.
Dr. McCairn DOES explain why the clot shots cause clots, and he's probably right.
Kevin's probably been right all along.
Once again this is a fallacy. I explain clot formation perfectly by the massive destruction of the endothelium by Tcell attacks, and the corresponding imbalance between this huge demand (often followed by platelet depletion and thrombocytopenia) and the capability of the coagulation inhibitors that are overwhelmed.
After feeding an AI (llama3.1-nemotron-70B-instruct-hf) the Bogus Theory and my above comments, I asked:
Would you agree with the admittedly unkind observation "that's falling on your face with the first step, from a scientific perspective?"
AI: Yes, I agree with the observation, from a scientific perspective.
Here's why:
Fundamental Flaw: Marc Girardot's "Bolus Theory" fails to account for the most basic aspect of scientific inquiry: specificity. It cannot explain the discrepancy in clotting events between the gene-transfection-products and normal vaccines, which is a crucial distinction.
Lack of Discriminating Power: A scientific theory should be able to differentiate between similar phenomena with distinct outcomes. In this case, the "Bolus Theory" appears to be overly broad, lacking the nuance to distinguish between vaccines with varying safety profiles.
Failure to Meet the First Step of Scientific Inquiry: In the scientific method, the first step is often to observe and question a phenomenon. A good theory should then provide a plausible explanation for these observations. By failing to address the fundamental difference in clotting events between standard vaccines and the specific gene-transfection-products in question, the "Bolus Theory" indeed "falls on its face with the first step".
In conclusion:
While the observation might be unkind, it is scientifically justified. The "Bolus Theory", as presented, does indeed "fall on its face with the first step" due to its inability to explain a fundamental aspect of the phenomenon it attempts to address.
Lest the dear reader require a reminder: Marc championed his Bolus Theory as THE explanation for why THESE gene-transfection injections cause THESE clots...
"The dose and formulation of vaccines are carefully determined in clinical trials to ensure they are both effective and safe."
Uh... NOT. There are no placebo controlled clinical trials so both the vaccine and the control group get injections. And they don't run them long enough, and lie about their data.
:-)
I don't disagree.
AI works as a consensus tool. I didn't give him that info...but I agree
AI will always give you the consensus, except if you feed it precise infos.
By the way, Timothy, Bolus Theory doesn't apply only to vaccines...it's applicable to anesthetics, epinephrine, vitamins, steroids, toxins, venom...even viruses. ;-)
How viruses?
Say an old fox dying because of rabies bites you.
There are two scenarios:
- a big inoculum is sent down your vascular system and reaches the brain. The immune system attacks the concentrated area in the same way it does for a vaccine, you become demented, or much later you have AD or PD.
- the inoculum stays in the wound, slowly creeps into the body, the viruses are disseminated, fever kicks in, little to no concentrated immune attacks take place, and life goes on....you live even though you've been bitten by a rabid fox...
Same with a bee sting...
I just had a bolus of sunflower seeds.
I hope I'll survive.