Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Sliding this in here in the interim:

@ianmSC
·
Back on 1/27, scientist Eric Topol said the UK variant “beast” was going to create a 4th surge & that we should enforce wearing N95 masks to stop it

After he was proven completely wrong, he tweeted yesterday: “who thinks scientists are always getting it wrong?”

https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/13950 ... 08512?s=20


This is worthy of a read as well, for those inclined:

https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/follow-th ... ce=twitter

Does that graph just show the vaccine essentially works to curb the spread of COVID?

Basically the sharp peak and drop, which is the most defined sharp peak in the whole image, starts two to three weeks after the vaccine rollout began and has continued as a trend since, for the first time since early 2020.

OK, that's an interesting theory. Now where are the hard data to back this theory up?

I already replied to this earlier, but the drops also strongly coincide with the seasonal nature of flu variants. We saw the same/similar drops last year around the same time, as flu season ends.
There's also been increases in cases after vaccination in certain regions, and many instances of those vaccinated testing positive again.
These shots do NOT "immunize". All they claim to do -- once again -- is minimize symptoms.

I don't think you know what you are talking about when you say "These shots do not immunise all they claim to do is minimise symptoms."

However why don't you show the data in graph form of previous flu seasons including the similar almost cliff like drop in death rates from early/mid winter that the graph above shows. Because there aren't any that I can find and again this leads me to think you are wrong about this.

The closest is the 2015/16 season. But at no time in the last 5 years has the flu season death rate dropped so significantly during the first weeks of the year. The earliest decline so far with the flu death rate is mid February but its usually late March. Ie into Spring, not early winter.

Therefore there is no relationship between that graph and flu deaths.

Are you putting forth the claim that the vaccines are the cause for the drop? Because there are many charts that infer the opposite. Herd immunity is a real thing, and if there's any prominent reason for the likely drop, it's the combination of herd immunity/percentage of the population that have already been infected, and also the potential benefit of lessened symptoms from a number of those vaccinated (those that didn't test positive or die after vaccination, that is), along with seasonal drops, though it's difficult to say with certainty right now as the data has largely been misleading from the start (the manner in which a "case" has been defined since the onset of covid; the manner in which "deaths" have been defined since the onset of covid, etc. -- the criteria for tallying both of these figures, and others, are unprecedented when compared to methods employed PRIOR TO 2020).

It may well be this virus has been essentially a non-factor -- i.e., countries have already largely reached herd immunity -- in most countries, for months (especially when considering the percentage of false-positive results for PCR tests with high cycle thresholds), and that any recent increases in cases and related deaths are materially due to these experimental shots.* A speculative take at this time, to be sure.

Side-bar:
*noteworthy development:
https://off-guardian.org/2021/05/18/how ... ctiveness/

How the CDC is manipulating data to prop-up “vaccine effectiveness”
New policies will artificially deflate “breakthrough infections” in the vaccinated, while the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.

It'll be months, or years, before there's clarity on this.

As far as what these shots actually claim to do, here's an excerpt direct from the FDA specific to the Pfizer shots:

https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF THE PFIZER-BIONTECHCOVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019(COVID-19)IN INDIVIDUALS 12YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER

You are being offered the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)caused by SARS-CoV-2. This Fact Sheet contains information to help you understand the risks and benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which you may receive because there is currently a pandemic of COVID-19. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine and may prevent you from getting COVID-19. There is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19.

Read this Fact Sheet for information about the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Talk to the vaccination provider if you have questions. It is your choice to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is administered as a 2-dose series, 3 weeks apart, into the muscle. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may not protect everyone. This Fact Sheet may have been updated. For the most recent Fact Sheet, please see http://www.cvdvaccine.com.

WHAT IS THE PFIZER-BIONTECHCOVID-19 VACCINE?
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19.There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19.

...

WHAT SHOULD YOU MENTION TO YOUR VACCINATION PROVIDER BEFORE YOU GET THE PFIZER-BIONTECHCOVID-19VACCINE?
Tell the vaccination provider about all of your medical conditions, including if you:
•have any allergies
•have a fever
•have a bleeding disorder or are on a blood thinner
•are immunocompromised or are on a medicine that affects your immune system
•are pregnant or plan to become pregnant
•are breastfeeding
•have received another COVID-19 vaccine
•have ever fainted in association with an injection

...
WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS IN THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine includes the following ingredients: mRNA, lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose.

...

More at link. By the way, for those that received the Pfizer shots, were you provided the above info in advance?

There is no mention of 'immunization'. No details on what the shot may actually do other than indicating it "may" prevent one from getting COVID-19.

I also recommend reading through the following piece, titled: Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis:
https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/22/syn ... -analysis/

An excerpt:

The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response.

Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.

Interestingly, Moderna describes its technology as the “software of life,” not a vaccine.

Also: the following link, shared by Stickdog in the mRNA thread, is worth reviewing as well, as it displays a number of charts across regions that suggest increases in deaths/cases in parallel with increase in vaccination:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1387 ... 12324.html

Important #COVID19 vaxxine data thread. I have avoided tweeting about the vax issue as it’s become an immensely toxic topic. But there are some extremely worrying trends emerging between CV19 cases, deaths, & vaxxine administration.

Here, I will share publicly available data for #COVID19 vaxxinations, cases, & deaths in 17 countries + #Ontario & ask questions, as per the scientific method. You are free to make up your own mind regarding the trends shown.

#Israel was the one of the first countries to start CV19 vaxxinations (19-Dec-2020). Since vaxxinations began, both CV19 cases & deaths continued to increase for ~5 weeks. It took 3 months for cases+deaths return to pre-vax levels.





CV19 vaxxinations in #Israel are also associated w/ staggering increases in death for a month, as shown via CFR:

Age specific CFR changes post-vax (1 month):

80+: 220%
70-79: 600%
60-69: 0 deaths pre-vax, 66 deaths post-vax




...

India is experiencing a significant increase in both CV19 cases & deaths these days. The graphs of CV19 cases, deaths, & share of people receiving their first vaxxine dose are virtually indistinguishable





...

If seasonality was causing an increase in the rising of CV19 cases & deaths, then these neighbouring countries would also be affected. The data so far shows that CV19 cases + deaths rise as a result of increasing vaxxinations.

But the perfect case study would be if a nation, preferably an island (isolated/no land borders), that had very little to no CV19 cases prior to vaxxinations, experienced a big jump in infections#s post-vax. Luckily, there are 3 we know of:

The Isle of Man started administering vaxxinations on 25-Jan-2021. Prior to this, there were little to no CV19 infections, but a sharp increase in cases is seen as vaxxinations began




The island of Bonaire started it’s vaxxinations on 22-Feb-2021. It too, saw a significant increase in both CV19 cases & deaths after vaxxinations began. CV19 cases & deaths were low before vaxxinations began:



Finally, the island of Seychelles, also saw a steep rise in both CV19 cases & deaths after vaxxinations started, & numbers of cases & deaths haven’t returned to pre-vax levels even after 3 months of vaxxinations:





But these trends are not only seen on island nations, which are arguably the best case studies to show effects of vaxxinations on CV19 cases & deaths. This exact same trend is also seen in Cambodia, Thailand, & Laos. So how do we explain these data if it’s not seasonality?

So a question that must be asked is:

Are vaxxines responsible for these rises in CV19 cases & deaths (3rd wave)? If they are, is there any evidence that vaxxinated people are:

a) getting CV19, and

b) being hospitalized/in ICUs?

There is actually a great deal of evidence, both anecdotal as well as in the published scientific literature, to show that vaxxinated people can get CV19. Even the #CDC has openly admitted this as well



And ICU physicians in Toronto are starting to speak up about vaxxinated people ending up in ICUs as well:





Another important question that needs answering is:

What is the mechanism behind vaxxinated people getting CV19? We unfortunately don’t know yet for sure, but there are a couple of hypotheses being discussed, which I shall address in my next thread soon.

This is worth scrolling as well:

ok folks, grab seat coffee & and have a sit down, because we need to talk about a topic that has been largely ignored by the news media & public health pundits. The seasonality of respiratory viruses
...
4/ Here is how #influenza & coronaviruses cycle throughout the year in #Ontario. You can see the exact same trend; their levels are lowest May-Oct & peak in Jan. Data is for 2013-2020

...

More at link:
https://twitter.com/Metabo_PhD/status/1 ... 27877?s=20



Interpret the above as you deem fit.

[Grizzly]

Is this the RI board, or some new fangled 'johnny come lately' blog?

[stickdog99]

.

Sliding this in here in the interim:

@ianmSC
·
Back on 1/27, scientist Eric Topol said the UK variant “beast” was going to create a 4th surge & that we should enforce wearing N95 masks to stop it

After he was proven completely wrong, he tweeted yesterday: “who thinks scientists are always getting it wrong?”

https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/13950 ... 08512?s=20


This is worthy of a read as well, for those inclined:

https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/follow-th ... ce=twitter

Does that graph just show the vaccine essentially works to curb the spread of COVID?

Basically the sharp peak and drop, which is the most defined sharp peak in the whole image, starts two to three weeks after the vaccine rollout began and has continued as a trend since, for the first time since early 2020.

OK, that's an interesting theory. Now where are the hard data to back this theory up?

What other data do you want.

BTW

In Australia we have administered 3.5 million doses of the vaccine. So far there may be 5 or 6 deaths linked to the vaccine. During the last 15 months we've had less than 30, 000 cases of COVID and 900 deaths.

What I want are data showing that the overall hospitalization and death rates of the vaccinated are better since vaccination than the overall hospitalization and death rates of the unvaccinated. And I want these data broken out for each vaccine regimen.

Can you provide me with these data? If not, why not? Why are the relevant fata always too much to ask for? Why are cherry-picked confirmation bias "data" (such as the meaningless nonsense you provided) always considered totally sufficient?

"Look, the overall COVID-19 "case" rates are down now that we decided to define them differently! Hooray for the experimental vaccines that we all already know must be totally responsible for everything wonderful!"

[stickdog99]

Hi, folks!

To be honest, I am not sure where I found this link to the transcript of a very longs interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger in front of members of the German Parliament, so this may be a repost.

But the information provided here is very frightening in terms of the lack of scientific rigor in the testing of the Pfizer vaccine.

The first point is that the BioNTech vaccine that is currently already being used is not highly purified, it contains contaminants of certain components. This is in the EMA’s Open Assessment Report, the Agency that has granted the authorisation to this vaccine. The EMA has written this report, and covers this point.

Secondly, I would like to go into the first clinical study of the BioNTech vaccine, and how the quantity of vaccine to be used was determined: this has not been correctly characterised from a scientific perspective in my opinion.

Point 3 relates to the effects or risks of the LNPs, and again I will be focusing on the BioNTech vaccine, the preclinical study they conducted, everything that came out in that, and what has not been discussed in public, and also what the publications say. This is basically not the only research study [on this].

And finally if we have time I would like to talk about the long-term consequences relating to immune disease, that is an aspect that has not yet been discussed in public at all.

...

We know that normally vaccine development takes a very long time. It’s not just the clinical phase: with this vaccine, it’s set at three times two and a half years, i.e., three phases of 2.5 years each plus the evaluation phase, which makes 7 ½ years in total. And then one shouldn’t forget that the production optimisation is also important, at least a year would surely be needed for that. That hasn’t taken place at all. The vaccine is already being sold and used, but the production optimisation isn’t yet by any means completed. And there are considerable deficiencies.



One issue I would like to discuss are the deficiencies relating to the active substance: by that, I mean the modified RNA that they are synthesising. As a second issue there are deficiencies in the consistency of the various production batches: they need to always be consistent so that one always obtains the same vaccine volume and quality.

The problem that BioNTech had is that in the clinical phase the product, i.e. the RNA, was produced with completely different techniques to how it is being produced now. During the clinical phase they only needed small volumes of vaccine, they were able to use very expensive techniques that delivered highly purified end products. Now that they have entered mass production, that is no longer possible, they have had to switch to lower-cost processes, e.g. using huge quantities of DNA that functions as the substrate to be able to produce the RNA in an in-vitro transcription reaction. This is done via bacteria, via the fermentation of transformed bacteria that contain this DNA. The bacteria multiply the DNA in huge amounts, and this leads to new dangers or risks, particularly contamination. At the moment for instance the situation is that the DNA is transformed in the bacteria, it is multiplied, next the bacteria are opened and the DNA is extracted, then it is linearised via enzymes, and after that the linearised DNA undergoes in-vitro transcription to produce the RNA using various procedures. The EMA Committee made various requirements of the vaccine manufacturer, i.e. BioNTech. The applicant needs to now develop and introduce various analysis processes to ensure that the substrate is free of microbiological contaminants – they probably mean E Coli bacteria for example. There don’t seem to be any processes to ensure or monitor for that. They also need to ensure that all the buffers – those are the solvents that are used – are free of RNAses. RNAses are enzymes that degrade RNA. If there are any contaminants of these RNAse solvents, then RNA in the vaccine will be degraded and the vaccine won’t have any effect anymore. They also have to analyse how strong the activity of the enzymes is; that is very important because I explained that after that the RNA is transcribed from the DNA and then the DNA has to be eliminated, it is digested by enzymes: by DNAses. And if this DNA is not digested well enough, if residues are left, this harbours risks – I’ll come back to the risks from DNA residues, but the activity of the enzymes has to be monitored well and at the end you need to have a pure RNA without any more DNA. And that is not the case. BioNTech has admitted that there are DNA contaminants.

...

Then there are also contaminants relating to the lipids that are used for these lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). They have sometimes observed visible particles in the ready vials. They don’t know why that is. They don’t think this comes from storage. They have certain automatic monitoring systems at the manufacturers and also later in the process that check and monitor for this, but this needs to be improved, it’s not sufficient for the EMA. The doctor who handles this vial later is meant to look and see if these particles are there. If so, it is meant to be discarded. I don’t know whether that is being communicated.

...

That’s fine. So I’ll continue. There are also contaminants with regard to the lipids (30.32). There are two new lipids, they have focused on them. One is ALC-0315, that is the cationic lipid, and the other is ALC-0159, the PEGylated peptide, the PEG component. And they have found that the end product – that there are contaminants in the end product in some batches. They don’t know where this is coming from, probably from the cationic lipid. They now have to find out where the contaminants are coming from, and the EMA has therefore asked them to write a report on how the chemical synthesis functions, where they obtain it from, i.e., the manufacturer, which means conducting a quality control for the feedstock and the solvents. They have to list which steps are critical in the synthesis. And they have to do all this by the end of July 2021. So they don’t know the source of the contaminants, and the EMA Committee didn’t go into what consequences the contamination might have.

...

I’ll now come to my second point, which is determining the vaccine dose, which they were supposed to analyse in the Clinical Phase 1. There’s a Clinical Phase 1, and BioNTech has the task of not just detecting side effects, i.e. spontaneous adverse effects, but also of determining the vaccine dose. They tested three or four different vaccine dosages – 10 micrograms of RNA, 20 µg, and 20 µg respectively in two doses, and [hundertenprogramm? Inaudible] of just one injection. And then they conducted their test 34.56 and the patients were supposed to make notes in the seven-day digital diary. Basically what they found was the higher the vaccine dose – the stronger and higher the concentration of RNA – the more frequent were the side effects. Generally one can say that there were always more and stronger side effects with the second dose than with the first. Older trial participants had fewer because their immune system is already aged and is not so reactive. They naturally analysed the side effects that have been published – fever, fatigue, headaches, joint pain, myalgia, shivering, vomiting, diahorrea. Nothing more is covered in the the publication – we don’t know whether they did more. ...

So to summarise, the vaccine has a positive effect, but the criticism is that there is no positive correlation between the different vaccine doses, i.e., we see the same effect at 10, 20 and 30 micrograms. Despite this they want to use 30 micrograms as the vaccine dose. Although 30 micrograms has many more side effects than 10 micrograms. The benefits are the same, but the risk is different. This is not scientifically justifiable. If I were writing an application for an animal trial and I wanted to vaccinate the animals with 30 micrograms and I had to justify why 30 micrograms, why not 10, then I would never get past the door with my animal trial application if I got the same effect with 10 micrograms. There is simply no additional benefit if I increase the RNA volume in these assays.

The fact is that the clinical study Phase 1 is normally there to find out what quantity of vaccine you need; it is important to prove what the vaccine dose should be. What vaccine dose you need to get the effect you want to have, ultimately. To do that you need to conduct a statistical test across all the different vaccine doses: in science that is a clear case of [Wanneranzapf mengen test – inaudible – a volume test with a name], that is a particular test that one has to use, it tells you whether there is a positive correlation, i.e., that the effect increases with a rising vaccine dose or not, whether it falls, or whether it remains the same. They didn’t do this test, giving the excuse that there were too few data points per group, i.e., that they only had 12 trial participants per group. I wonder whether they knew from the outset why they weren’t consigning more trial participants. And second, it is an absolutely stupid excuse because any scientist would be happy to have 12 data points per group, i.e. 12 trial participants per group. It is entirely possible to draw a statistical conclusion – you can do it with 5 or 6 people, it won’t deliver such robust results, but with 12 per group you can draw a fairly good conclusion as to whether there is a correlation or not. If I look at the image – and I’ve got a trained eye – and compare the median values and the scatter of the data, I can already say that there is no correlation. Whatever test I do, it fluctuates, they all have more or less the same effect. I.e. the excuse that they didn’t want to do this test … or let’s say if they had done this test, they would have produced the evidence that 30 micrograms would be too much, they should have used 10 µg vaccine doses.

RF: But that is a particularly egregious error. If that is part of the Phase 1 trial to test out the dose that will be effective, if at the same time as you are telling us Dr. Schmidt-Krueger it doesn’t increase the efficacy: the efficacy remains the same regardless of whether 10 µg or 30 µg are used but the side effects increase, that is severe medical malpractice.

VSK: You have completely understood. That’s exactly how it is. In my opinion they intentionally didn’t use the test because they would have had the evidence and no justification any longer for\ 30 µg. And then they give the stupid excuse that they can’t do the test because they don’t have enough samples.

...

We are still talking about the volume: what I’ve covered is not the only point of criticism while we’re on this subject. In the same study they have also – well, they claim that it is important to give two doses. That may well be true, but they haven’t proved it; they haven’t tested it scientifically. What they did in this study was they gave two doses of all the quantities: 10 µg, 20 µg and 30 µg. Normally to make the assertion [translator: that it is necessary to use 2 doses], you need to have a group where you give just one dose. Normally it’s like this: you get an injection, then the body forms antibodies, it takes a while until it starts, the antibody titre rises and then it forms a saturation curve. So at some point it doesn’t go any higher: then you have reached saturation. And this goes up over time. But to find out whether the second dose has an effect you have to give the injection and find out how high the titre is after 35 days. And then do the same with the other group; after the same time, 35 days, look at how high the titre is. (47.59). And if the titre is higher, then the second dose has had an effect. If it is not higher, then the second dose has not had an effect. I assume it did have an effect because in another vaccine similar to this [Which? Would be useful to know] it did have an effect, but in that case the scientific data were generated a little shoddily – the time is sometimes missing in the data, they simply left it out so that one can’t prove whether it has had an effect or not …. But from experience I think that a second dose is likely to have an effect … but I’m sure it’s like that in a court of law: belief is not evidence or knowledge – i.e., they would have had to prove it in this clinical study with this vaccine. They didn’t do that: they are simply making the claim.

...

So there is a preclinical study. Let’s look at the basics to start with. The technology of the nanoparticles. I don’t want to completely malign it. It’s a superb technology really. But the problem is that it is still much too early for use in human beings. The toxicity is still too high, that first needs to be eliminated, then it would really be a brilliant technology. There are many scientists working on getting rid of this toxicity, research has been conducted on that for years. [Trans: for 20 years she says at the end]

It is actually used for cancer patients, but there the risk/benefit ratio is very different, I’ll come back to that. In a healthy person such as with a vaccine, I consider it disproportionate to apply this technology at the moment while this toxicity exists. Nanoparticles, these are very small particles and always damaging to cells, because the smaller the particle, the more interaction they can have with cell components, i.e., with the proteins, with other lipids, or with the DNA etc. But one needs a nanoparticle lipid envelope because one can’t just inject the RNA into people, it is broken down within 10 minutes by the nucleases that are swimming around. The cells won’t take up the RNA/DNA if it is not nicely presented via a lipid nanoparticle for example.

There are various studies in vivo on mice or rats – I don’t know which animal, I have to ask – it has been found that if one gives long-lasting LNPs to animals, via inhalation over the lungs, that you get DNA strand breaks in the lungs. And that can trigger serious lung disease or lung cancer: it has been found that lung cancer develops. And the uptake of LNPs in the spleen has been detected: DNA strands breaks were also identified there. And it has also been found that when the LNPs are transported in the blood then thromboses can occur, or haemolysis – haemolysis means the sudden dissolution of erythrocytes, i.e. red blood cells, this causes hypoxia.

...

What we have here that is new with this vaccine is it’s not just proteins that are injected into us that swim in the blood and are then eliminated by the antibodies: we have here various avenues whereby toxicity/cell destruction take place. One way is via this here: the cytotoxic T-cell forces the muscle cell into apoptosis. And then we have RNA, which is fundamentally also toxic for the cell from a certain length onwards. And above all – this is particularly important – the cationic lipid, it is cationic, i.e. it has a positive charge. And that is very very toxic, we have known that for over 20 years. ...

And now I’ll get to the risk/benefit ratio. The technology is very sensible in cancer therapy. The purpose of this technology there is to kill cancer cells. We are now getting a vaccine using the same technology that is used in cancer therapy to kill cancer cells. Where cancer therapy is concerned: up to now we have only had chemotherapy or radiotherapy; they have the aim of triggering oxidative stress in the cell to encourage it to self-destruct. But up to now this has been very unspecific: healthy tissue is also irradiated and dies. With this [encapsulation] technology you can insert proteins or other substances in the nanoparticle envelope that are targeted at detecting and finding the cancer cells. There are already relatively good, successful studies, and this is why it is used in cancer therapy.

Cancer cells have a completely different pattern on their cell surface to healthy cells. They have for example a lot of transferrin receptors or folate receptors: when one inserts the ligands into LNPs, i.e. builds transferrin or folate into these LNPs, then these LNPs find the cancer cells that have the receptors for these. As a result, these LNPs target the cancer cells almost exclusively and create oxidative stress in them so that the cancer cells are killed.

...

Now I’ll address the questions Ms. Fischer asked. I’ll talk about the preclinical study that BioNTech has done, largely on mice and rats. The questions that arise before something like this comes onto the market are how long it remains in the body, divided up as follows: how long do the lipids remain, How long does the mRNA remain? How are they broken down? What is their distribution in the body? The toxicology and carcinology have to be investigated. Is there a problem related to reproduction? And does it have an influence on the environment? Because we’re becoming a GMO: does this have any impact? These are fundamental questions that the EMA always has to pose.

I will refer to this Public Assessment Report – I have to say that the raw data are lacking, they aren’t in the report, which I find disappointing.

If you can use the radioactivity as a marker, you can use a technique whereby can can see the organs and whether the lipids were in them or not to see. They injected the whole muscle and watched how the lipids spread out throughout the body, and found that these lipids were in many organs after just 15 minutes. Most were at the injection site, in this case it was the muscle, but a lot in the plasma, too. Logical because it’s transported in the plasma, but also 22% in the liver. And if you inject it into the veins then 60% of the cationic lipids can be found in the liver, and 20% of the PEG lipids. They were also found in the spleen, the adrenals, and in both sexual organs. Further organs were not described. So I assume that it spread out throughout all organs. 1.18.02 It is basically absorbed everywhere where blood flows. The description focuses most on the injection site, the plasma, and the liver.

Then they looked at how the lipids were degraded. They found evidence of the cationic lipid in the plasma for 12 days, and evidence of the PEG lipid for 6 days. So they remained for quite some time. There isn’t any more information, so I don’t know whether the lipids could be evidenced for longer or not. 50% of the PEG is degraded via excretion, i.e., it is excreted from the body. It goes into our “sewer system”, as it were. The cationic lipids are exclusively degraded in the cells, only 1% was found in the stool. This means the cells take the full hit of the toxicity. Then they analysed the half life of this cationic lipid in the liver, they say it is 3 weeks. With half life at the beginning the substance always degrades faster, and then it gets less, the curve gets flatter. This half life at the outset is already 3 weeks, which is relatively long. And how long does the elimination take? One can still find 5% of the lipid in the liver after 4 - 6 weeks – that is incredibly long, and with the PEG the half life is 1 week. So it is shorter, but because a large proportion, i.e., 50%, is excreted. That is not the case with the cationic lipid.

...

And then they looked at how fast the RNA is degraded. This is where the Luciferase comes into its own. The Luciferase can transform a substrate so that one sees it in colour, it fluoresces. You can detect it. But it’s not a very sensitive method. And they only injected 2 micrograms of RNA. 30 micrograms are being used for us. This means what you are seeing is probably a lot stronger in the case of the actual vaccine being used. So in the muscle where it was injected there was a peak after 6 hours. First the LNPs have to be taken up into the cell, the protein has to be formed, this Luciferase, and only then does the reaction take place. You see this after a max. of 6 hours, it is taken up by the cells extremely fast, and the protein is also expressed very fast. You can still see the protein after 9 days. There are publications – there is one from 2016 for example – where they say that one can see the Luciferase for 35 days, but that always depends on how stable the RNA is, and they didn’t do it with the spike RNA but just with the luminescence, and the spike RNA may very well have a different stability. So they didn’t investigate it properly for our vaccine, I would say.

In the liver they saw a peak after 6 hours, and after two days it was gone. This is because the liver has a very high metabolic rate.

So to summarise, both the RNA and the LNP are taken up relatively fast. And the cationic lipids remain in our bodies for a very long time. This was also interesting. There seems to have been a discussion of the EMA with BioNTech about the period that it remains in the body: how long is it in the case of human beings, they asked, because the study wasn’t done. BioNTech referred to a study from 2010, by Mamoth et al. I have not been able to find this in the publications database, and there is no list of references below the EMA report, so I don’t know whether this is true at all and whether that article exists, but they say they have used similar lipids, and when they calculate the conversion from this mouse or rat study to human beings, that cationic lipids have a half life of 20 to 30 days in human beings, and the elimination to 5%, so not really eliminated, takes 4 - 5 months. They assume 4 - 5 months, and the EMA Committee just said “That’s a long time”.

...

Dr. H: The second vaccination comes on top of that after 30 days …

VSK: Yes exactly: none of that has been investigated. Basically they haven’t conducted any kinetics with this vaccine. (1.23.12) Not on the mice either. The LNPs were the same [die Zusammenrechnung – in the calculation? Inaudible], but the RNA was different. They should really have done it with the actual vaccine. They should have marked it and then carried out the whole study again. They didn’t do that.

MT: I’d just like to ask a question. You said something was excreted from the body. Is there any danger that people who are vaccinated could be causing as a result of this, or is it excreted and then it’s gone?

VSK: That wasn’t investigated.

Dr. H: Oh God –

VSK: There’s no data on that.

MT: I reckon we’ll need to be drinking spring water from bottles from now on then …

RF: That doesn’t sound good. And what kind of consequences does that have? You’ve got apoptosis that apparently takes place throughout the body, as you have just told us: what does that lead to? 1.24.25

VSK: Yes, I can tell you that in a moment, that’s the toughest of all to hear. But I just wanted to finish talking about the elimination, they haven’t considered this at all because they haven’t done any analyses on the environmental impact of all of this – as I said, we’ve become GMOs, it is possible that modified cells are eliminated: think about the lipids, the RNA from the vaccine – We know that the lipids – the PEG at least – are being excreted. What happens to the sewage if so much is being eliminated? If so many lipids are in it? Does this cause a problem, or is it degraded? We just don’t know that. I don’t know, I’m not an expert in how it is degraded.

Dr. H: Exactly, and intentionally one has to say as a lawyer, in July 2020 EU legislation was changed: EU legislation on GMOs was declared inapplicable to the vaccines. That’s when this monstrosity began, from a legal perspective. We will be addressing this with a plea for annulment. This is opening up a horrendous abyss – unbelievable.

...

VSK: Yes, that’s a good introduction to that exact point, with all the consequences. Let’s talk about the preclinical study – about what happened to the rat (1.28.42).

In the preliminary experiment the rat was injected in the muscle with 30 micrograms of this same vaccine that is now being used. That is comparable, but three times rather than twice. At intervals of one week. And two days after the last injection, that would have been 17 days after the first, an autopsy was conducted, and the following was found. As mentioned, I don’t have any raw data, only descriptive written data. The rats had an immune response, raised lymph nodes, the spleen, cell numbers, that is all normal, increased production of lymphocytes, i.e. B and T cells in the bone marrow, production of neutralising antibodies, circulating white blood cells, cytokine release, that is all normal. But then other things followed:\ Their body temperature was 1 degree raised, that is also normal, a slight temperature, for rats too;\ but their body weight went down although they were having their normal feed … With rodents, if the body weight decreases, that is always a sign of massive stress. And then they did an autopsy. They document damage to the muscle. What they make public – swelling, oedema, reddening – is just the tip of the iceberg.\ I’ll dissect this in a moment for those who are unfamiliar with the specialist terminology: myofascial degeneration, scleropathy, encrustation accompanied by spread of this inflammation to adjacent tissue, subcutaneous inflammation, hyperplasia.\ So what does all that mean?\ Subcutaneous inflammation means the lowest layer of skin – the skin has three layers, and the bottom one is inflamed, that is the layer where the adipose cells, nerves and blood vessels are located. If these become inflamed then the adipose cells burst open, the fatty acids are released, and further accentuate the inflammation.

This results in scleropathy, i.e., the tissue hardens because increasing amounts of connective tissue are formed. This is ultimately like scar formation. The tissue is so heavily damaged …. If you cut your finger and it is superficial then the upper skin layer can regenerate, you don’t see anything afterwards. If you cut yourself too deeply and it goes through all three layers of skin then the organism can’t replicate its own structure. Then, because the cells need to be replaced, the wound has to be closed, connective tissue is formed, deposits, a scar develops. And this is the case with the muscle, it hardens due to the deposition of connective tissue. This is called fibrosis. The tissue basically loses its function at these locations, encrustations develop, this is the deposition of salts in necrotic tissue; necrotic tissue is tissue that is dying. The muscles there are dying. They talk about myofascial degeneration, this means death of the cells of the muscle fibres, which is simply replaced by connective tissue that is non-functional.

VF: Is that just local or at many locations?

VSK: At that location it’s only local, only in the muscle. You can see this entire process from the blood parameters that were measured: they noted for example a 72% increase in alpha-2-macroglobulin, this means the increase is part of the immune response due to inflammation, but you also get an increase in alpha-1-acylmycoprotein [trans: I think, was hard to hear], that is formed when there is a particularly strong injury in the tissues, caused by inflammation or infection, in this case from the vaccination, and an increase in fibrinogen…. That is a sign, when that is elevated in the blood, of inflammation of the blood vessels, it is basically responsible for blood coagulation. I have said that the blood vessels are in the bottom layer – the blood vessels are damaged, and this is probably why fibrinogen is formed, to reseal the blood vessels. I wonder, with the elderly in care homes, they are often on anti-clotting medication as a prophylaxis:: is it possible that their coagulation doesn’t work properly? – You need coagulation: maybe it doesn’t function correctly? Can this have consequences if the blood vessels are heavily damaged due to this vaccination?

RF: We will see all of that very quickly, I fear.

Dr. H: The side effects, i.e. the correlation with other medications, was not examined at all. This can expressly be seen from the appendices to the EU Implementation Decision for both vaccines. I find what you are now telling us absolutely criminal.

VSK: So that’s what happens locally, at the site of the muscle.\ We have heard that a great deal goes to the liver, and that is a bit more serious. This leads to hepatocellular periportal vacuolisation. (1.34.30). On the day of the autopsy, where they found it, and probably a lot earlier, because it gets into the liver relatively fast and then that takes place relatively quickly. So what does that mean? Hepatocellular means relating to the cells of the liver. Periportal means the liver cells near the portal vein. That is the place where the blood enters the liver. I.e., this damage will not be caused by anything else in the rat. If the rats drank alcohol, ok, then this damage would also occur, but it would be across the entire liver. But this is something which is entering via the blood flow, and only in the proximity of this vein, and there one particularly sees the damage. And they are so damaged that they are vacuolising: that is always an indication that the liver cells are dying. I’m loathe to use the word poisons, but the liver is trying to sequester away the substance that is damaging to it; it doesn’t manage, and the the cationic lipids are the perpetrator, BioNTech admits that themselves, that’s in the report, it’s the cationic lipids. The liver tries to eliminate these cationic lipids, to metabolise them, but doesn’t manage because there are too many of them. The volume is too great. So it tries to ferret them away in an area of the cell, and that is when vacuoles arise in the cell: water streams in, it’s simply an area where they no longer do any harm. But when these vacuoles arise then the function of the liver cell is massively disrupted, many of them die, they lose their function. They self-destruct, commit apoptosis. So that’s what happens in the liver.

...

To summarise, one can say that the liver is massively damaged, and the liver cells are dying.\ \ They did say that after the autopsy, three weeks later, the liver had regenerated. But the EMA didn’t discuss what the situation might be with people who have a liver disorder, who don’t have this regenerative capacity. What of those who have hepatitis or an alcoholic liver or whatever? Who had been living an unhealthy lifestyle? If something comes ontop of that, you can very quickly get organ failure. This shouldn’t be forgotten, it needs to be discussed, but it’s being completely swept under the carpet.

So why exactly is the liver being damaged? It’s because the liver is the organ that takes up the most lipoproteins. And why does it take up the most? Because one of its functions is to break down cholesterol; I’ve explained that the nanoparticles are bound to ApoE proteins. These make their way directly back to the liver where the cholesterol is broken down, and that’s why the liver comes into contact with a huge amount of this.

RF: I just have to reiterate: how can they be vaccinating against this backdrop?

VSK: That’s not the whole story. You get inflammation of the perineural tissue of the iscias nerve, the strongest nerve in the body. And then inflammation in the extracapsular tissue was found, I don’t know exactly what capsules they mean, they didn’t specify that, but I assume that’s the joint capsules. What about people with arthritis for example? And then this is particularly important, very dangerous: they found a moderate to strong reduction in red blood cells and reticulocytes in the bloodcount. That accounts for the hypoxia. They are massively damaged by the lipid nanoparticles. Why is that? Because it is exactly these red blood cells that are used as a cell model for oxidative stress, they are particularly sensitive to oxidative stress. Because they carry the haemoglobin. All cells that carry oxygen are always sensitive to oxidative stress. And when the LNPs get into them and cause this massive oxidative stress, they die very quickly. So the rats would have to be suffering from hypoxia or at least they found that they had less haemoglobin because obviously that is gone when the cell is gone, and lower haematocrit. These are very clear signs of hypoxia, and I have to say this needs to be looked at very critically, because what about people with cardiac disorders for example. A cardiac muscle, for instance, if it is undersupplied with oxygen, this can very quickly turn into a heart attack. And as far as I know there is someone who had a heart attack after vaccination. I’m not saying that person died of it, but one should at least look into it.

...

VSK: I am extremely critical of the EMA Committee: there is no discussion at all about the consequences that can arise from side effects. They just nodded it all through. They just said ok, that’s how it is … Perhaps they did say something, but it hasn’t been noted down in writing. I also find it very poor that they didn’t investigate any of these things that they found were not investigated in human beings in the clinical study. Blood samples were taken in the studies, so why not? It would be easy enough to measure all these blood parameters such as erythrocytes, all the enzymes, all the other substances. One can do biopsies of muscles – none of this was done. Either it wasn’t done because they were afraid of what would come out and would have to explain it, or they did it and are keeping silent about it. They knew of all the observations on the rats … and we have no data at all on how this is with human beings. They could have generated that. We have a right to know.

RF: Absolutely. That is the reason why Dr. Peter Doshi says he wants to see the raw data. It will come out one way or another.

VSK: The one thing they did do was measure the lymphocyte level, and found that subjects suffer from lymphopenia within 1 - 3 days, i.e., a fall in the number of lymphocytes, but there are varying opinions on that in publications. There are one or two publications that say lymphopenia can occur after a vaccination, they do show it – but they don’t know why it happens. One publication thinks the lymphocytes simply transmigrate from the blood into tissue and that there are fewer in the blood. But that is not proven, it is just as likely that that cationic lipids attack the lymphocytes in the blood. No investigations were conducted to show why this lymphopenia occurs in human beings. That’s the only parameter that they looked at.

VF: Was this the case with the rat too?

VSK: Yes

...

[Grizzly]

Yeet! Sus if true...



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-death-threat

[Belligerent Savant]

.

This is beating a dead horse at this point.. except I suspect there remain a few, even here in a forum formerly known as a hangout for critical thinkers, that continue to cling to the fallacy that masks are of ANY benefit, at all, in curbing viral transmission.



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 1.full.pdf

Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment
Damian D. Guerra and Daniel J. Guerra
Department of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States of America
Authentic Biochemistry, VerEvMed, Clarkston, Washington, United States of America

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion ... 83aea.html

[Grizzly]

Senate Cheers After Passing Rand Paul's Amendment Banning Gain-Of-Function Research In China

[liminalOyster]

.

This is beating a dead horse at this point.. except I suspect there remain a few, even here in a forum formerly known as a hangout for critical thinkers, that continue to cling to the fallacy that masks are of ANY benefit, at all, in curbing viral transmission.



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 1.full.pdf

Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment
Damian D. Guerra and Daniel J. Guerra
Department of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States of America
Authentic Biochemistry, VerEvMed, Clarkston, Washington, United States of America

This is a non peer-reviewed preprint. Quick skim says it's extremely unlikely to pass peer review as is given the poor differentiation of mask type and the manner in which it tries to control for compliance during mandate.

[Belligerent Savant]

.


Yes, but there are dozens of clinical studies on this topic that have been released in the past year echoing these findings (a number of which have been shared here over the past year), not to mention commentary from doctors, nurses and scientists (those not vying for attention or afraid of getting censored/losing their positions); this is another more recent release.

But beyond that: masks have never been effective in curbing viral transmission. Especially not the masks worn by most users. Especially not in outdoor or indoor settings that aren't explicitly prepared for hospital/surgical environments*. It's been a blatantly psychological measure.

*

Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot “socially distance” from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask).

The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics.
...
Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide re-breathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance.

Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER re-use surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks.

https://principia-scientific.com/surgeo ... wear-them/

There's a reason both Fauci and the WHO made this clear back in late March 2020.

Fauci indicated in a 60 Minutes interview in March 2020:

“Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI

The WHO made a similar statement around the same time on its Twitter account:

“If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly.”

https://twitter.com/WHOWPRO/status/1243 ... 77024?s=20

Guidance was changed -- not because of any "new" data: the virus particles didn't suddenly change shape or means of transfer after March 2020, of course -- to implement large-scale 'control' mechanisms: the visual of masks being worn indoors and outside signal that the virus is still out there - beware! - and can only be mitigated with a highly experimental shot.

This last point should be abundantly clear by now. Note that NO govt, bureaucratic or news media entity ever mentions naturally acquired antibodies/previously infected persons as qualifying for mask removal. They are explicitly and transparently pushing these experimental shots, egregiously, while suppressing any mention of alternative treatments (and excluding any indication of acquired antibody effectiveness). This has clearly been one of the key agendas from the onset.

Is anyone here disputing the bolded bit at this point?

[Grizzly]

https://en-volve.com/2021/05/14/cdc-quietly-admits-the-death-toll-from-covid-vaccines-is-greater-than-every-vaccine-in-the-last-20-years-combined/

FUCKERS...

Addendum

30 people died from swine flu vaccines, which were immediately halted. We have had over 4000 deaths and no one seems concerned. For a virus with similarly low lethality in most people.

[stickdog99]

Senate Cheers After Passing Rand Paul's Amendment Banning Gain-Of-Function Research In China

LOL at just banning funding for gain of function research in China. If you are going to create deadly Franlenviruses, you better buy American from now on!

[stickdog99]

.

Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion ... 83aea.html

To me, the complete and total lack of rigorous testing of cheap preventatives and treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and even Vitamin D and quercetin is telling.

No, only experimental, largely untested, never before used mRNA "vaccines" can save you! No need to test to see what works better or what is safer. No reason whatsoever to gather data as to which interventions have the best cost and risk versus benefit profiles. Step right up and get those life-saving mRNA instructions to manufacture your own spike proteins. Or else!

[Grizzly]

^^^

Right?
Why would you shut down the investigation


NO ONE IS MORE CYNICAL THAN I AM. I hate all these jackles just the same. Just because I post some of them sure the FUCK doesn't mean I ALLY with them...

[Grizzly]

Next politician I hear say this, (for the children!) needs popped in the mouth... (red or blue)

‘Their Tank Is Empty’: Children’s Hospital Colorado Declares A State Of Emergency Over Kids’ Mental Health
https://www.cpr.org/2021/05/25/covid-mental-health-childrens-hospital-colorado/

Sickened.