And for the authors of these papers, I mean you no ill will as I have enough publication experience under my belt to know that this language is the result of the broken peer review process distilling a consensus narrative.
"Even the most cautious vax skeptics dont believe the vax harms everyone."
I have to respectfully disagree here.
Even if catastrophic adverse events are currently rare, simple anecdotal evidence suggests to me that relatively minor adverse events (enough to qualify as "harm") are the rule rather than the exception. The majority of people that I know who took the "vaxx" did indeed have some pretty unpleasant side effects for at least a day or two after, ranging from malaise and body aches to mild paralysis. Again, speaking strictly anecdotally, this appears to be a more harmful shot than even the barrage of vaccines given to military servicemen, or the rabies prophylaxis series.
Moreover, my strong suspicion is that the catastrophic adverse events that we have read about so far represent a very small tip of the iceberg to come. (Also, they are, of course, a tiny minority of the catastrophic adverse events that have already occurred -- how many have already perished as a direct result of this injection, but slipped under the radar due to ignorant hospital staff? My guess is, it's a heck of a lot.) I believe that the "harm" caused by these shots will be the rule, rather than the exception. The long term effects won't be realized for some time yet.
This is ugly, if fascinating, and it is only going to intensify. What would be truly interesting to know is the actual statistics as to uptake. I do not trust any of the public data on "vaccination rates," and don't know how to go about ascertaining the actual numbers.
You are correct. I could have worded that better but I think its fair to say they dont yet have evidence or biomarkers that screams harm in everyone. Ie myocarditis rates vary from 1:2,000-1:10,000 depending on the study and they have been becoming more frequent with each publication, not less.
I wonder, though -- can we ever expect a meta-analysis that demonstrated, conclusively, direct harm caused by these injections to ever see the light of day in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal?
I'll just leave it here because many may not know about a recent preprint by NIH/NIAID authors proving that the spike protein indeed translocates to the nucleus and it doesn't sound like good news to anybody, let alone babies. The recent US pre-print here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.27.509633v1.full.pdf
Remember when the authors Jiang and Mei told of similar findings but were quickly pressured to retract their paper? This seems to vincicate them.
Your first criticism was my first criticism. Lactating WOMEN, I silently yelled! I am a doula and one of my clients got the jab one week after giving birth, her baby vomited repeatedly for two afterwards. She felt alarmed enough to tell me about it. For the time being, her now-toddler seems fine. Who knows what the future holds.
Does anyone have any info on LNPs or spike protein in amniotic fluid? Foetuses swallow this, and I remember reading recently about newborns with spike protein in the gut.
This is not very good kitty crack, it is EXCELLENT. perchance cut with Silvervine? Back of the napkin I had speculated, even at the "miniscule" 2nd study dose, in 6 months the baby suckles ~2 full adult doses by weight. https://twitter.com/NaybobNattering/status/1576970047817646084
If PCR were detecting vaccine in the RCTs, that would have made the vaccine look worse, not better. False positive COVID19 cases would have hurt not helped apparent vaccine efficacy.
True.. Would still undermine the trial which reinforces Mat Crawfords point, that this should tested not assumed. While my BLAST doesn't suggest its happening, there may be other mechanisms at play such as reactivation of latent viruses upon vaccination. What if latent C19 emerges after vax? Not artifact that helps their case but it does contaminate our understanding of the study. My main point, is the selective use of PCR deficits is a contradiction.
And for the authors of these papers, I mean you no ill will as I have enough publication experience under my belt to know that this language is the result of the broken peer review process distilling a consensus narrative.
"Even the most cautious vax skeptics dont believe the vax harms everyone."
I have to respectfully disagree here.
Even if catastrophic adverse events are currently rare, simple anecdotal evidence suggests to me that relatively minor adverse events (enough to qualify as "harm") are the rule rather than the exception. The majority of people that I know who took the "vaxx" did indeed have some pretty unpleasant side effects for at least a day or two after, ranging from malaise and body aches to mild paralysis. Again, speaking strictly anecdotally, this appears to be a more harmful shot than even the barrage of vaccines given to military servicemen, or the rabies prophylaxis series.
Moreover, my strong suspicion is that the catastrophic adverse events that we have read about so far represent a very small tip of the iceberg to come. (Also, they are, of course, a tiny minority of the catastrophic adverse events that have already occurred -- how many have already perished as a direct result of this injection, but slipped under the radar due to ignorant hospital staff? My guess is, it's a heck of a lot.) I believe that the "harm" caused by these shots will be the rule, rather than the exception. The long term effects won't be realized for some time yet.
This is ugly, if fascinating, and it is only going to intensify. What would be truly interesting to know is the actual statistics as to uptake. I do not trust any of the public data on "vaccination rates," and don't know how to go about ascertaining the actual numbers.
You are correct. I could have worded that better but I think its fair to say they dont yet have evidence or biomarkers that screams harm in everyone. Ie myocarditis rates vary from 1:2,000-1:10,000 depending on the study and they have been becoming more frequent with each publication, not less.
Yes, very fair.
I wonder, though -- can we ever expect a meta-analysis that demonstrated, conclusively, direct harm caused by these injections to ever see the light of day in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal?
absolutely and in retrospect I should have made that more clear.
They are RNAse resistant. That’s the whole reason why they used them... to slow their degradation.
Great work. Remember too that the LNP is a cholesterol based transfectant so will pass straight through the infant's gut
Great article!
I'll just leave it here because many may not know about a recent preprint by NIH/NIAID authors proving that the spike protein indeed translocates to the nucleus and it doesn't sound like good news to anybody, let alone babies. The recent US pre-print here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.27.509633v1.full.pdf
Remember when the authors Jiang and Mei told of similar findings but were quickly pressured to retract their paper? This seems to vincicate them.
Is it possible that the pseudouridine substitutions also contribute to durability of the mRNA in feeding infants?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35802776/
Your first criticism was my first criticism. Lactating WOMEN, I silently yelled! I am a doula and one of my clients got the jab one week after giving birth, her baby vomited repeatedly for two afterwards. She felt alarmed enough to tell me about it. For the time being, her now-toddler seems fine. Who knows what the future holds.
For two days* afterwards
Does anyone have any info on LNPs or spike protein in amniotic fluid? Foetuses swallow this, and I remember reading recently about newborns with spike protein in the gut.
This is not very good kitty crack, it is EXCELLENT. perchance cut with Silvervine? Back of the napkin I had speculated, even at the "miniscule" 2nd study dose, in 6 months the baby suckles ~2 full adult doses by weight. https://twitter.com/NaybobNattering/status/1576970047817646084
If PCR were detecting vaccine in the RCTs, that would have made the vaccine look worse, not better. False positive COVID19 cases would have hurt not helped apparent vaccine efficacy.
True.. Would still undermine the trial which reinforces Mat Crawfords point, that this should tested not assumed. While my BLAST doesn't suggest its happening, there may be other mechanisms at play such as reactivation of latent viruses upon vaccination. What if latent C19 emerges after vax? Not artifact that helps their case but it does contaminate our understanding of the study. My main point, is the selective use of PCR deficits is a contradiction.