5 Filters

Three excellent videos on the Covid vaccines (+ Ivermectin)

Covid
,
#19

Oh well maybe we have got to cross purposes. Bridle’s narrative seemed to have been altered. Your Q2 was my question as well but with the onus on the other side - as I say, I think the onus should not be on people proving it is dangerous as it’s being forced onto everyone everywhere, when the original safety basis seems to have been scuppered! There should be a retreat to ‘It has to be shown safe’.

I didn’t finish the videos because of the narrow premise (there are a few directions of risk it would need to have closed down). Just as you won’t want to read the 200-page guide that Bridle wrote that Syed ignored.
I think when criticizing the specifics of what people have said or written it needs to be in writing.
It’s maybe just me but videos don’t sit well with me - I find myself looking for all the references and trying to note down precisely what was said at key points. They are really for the choir, who will readily forgive a certain level of laxity. I wish someone would start a transcript service… :upside_down_face:
We can agree to disagree!
Cheers
ED

#20

:laughing: Touche!

I call as my first, second, third, fourth…etc. witnesses all the people currently appearing on social media and the non-lamestream news outfits to describe the deaths and bad effects they or their loved-ones have suffered immediately after taking the stabs. Quite enough on their own, simple anecdotals though they are, to get the poison-stabs programme halted, in more normal times. Yet the gics behind the scam simply blank the plebs’ alarm calls and double down on their hell-for-leather stabbing campaign. Interesting…?

As you will know, P, even the lamestream commentators have to admit that reports of adverse events that actually make it to VAERS/Yellow Card/EUdraVigilance agencies are a small fraction of what’s actually happening, so of course we’re not going to trust their figures, are we? :wink: Yet even they are reporting the sort of figures that I outlined. When I spoke of thousands and millions, it’s just those agencies’ sheepish official admissions which I outline. I’m not actually sketching the probable real, much larger, disaster. And of course I don’t expect the whore media to say a word about it that they can avoid saying. They’re well in hand.

But, understanding as we do that the official agencies are not to be trusted - because of the pall of fear and windy line-toeing that the scam has cast over everything - and are reporting on the lowest side possible, then common sense suggests that the real numbers are much higher. As I said, it’s a guesstimate. But I’d put good money on it.

When ALL sources of information have to be treated with a bucket of salt, flying over the whole field, trying to suss real trends by looking for gestalten is the best tool we have, in practice. My summation in my earlier post on this thread, of where I see conclusions to be pointing, is the result of using this one actually available tool. I know we intelligentsia are all supposed to be devoted to hard evidence in the form of studies, peer-reviewed papers, well-cleansed statistics and such. But since we’re in this pretty unprecedented situation where there seems to be a big coup attempt going on, and both public and private agencies of all kinds seem to have fallen under a general cloud of untrustworthiness, then the gestalt-seeking is about all the average punter has left.

And… you know, that sort of street savvy - prone though it is to wild rumours - nevertheless usually gets a good sound picture of what’s really going on, eventually. That’s the approach on which I feel obliged to trust now. Can’t post evidence any harder than the anecdotal testimonies; but confident to put solid stakes on my bets, up to and including my life and the lives of my nearests. Cheers! :slight_smile:

#21

And - dead on cue! - comes this piece from Ed Curtin, saying most eloquently what I think too. I would be quite sparing with the word know that he uses, preferring the clumsier but more accurate form: I think I know. Other than that, complete agreement:

1 Like
#22

Hi ED

The focus was narrow because the sources for the accumulation question etc. were specifically the study from Japan. That’s what (as I’ve said in almost every post on this thread) Kirsh et al were using. I have no idea who Bridle is or what he has to do with the claim about spike proteins collecting in the ovaries. Kirsh said that, did Bridle say it too? That’s the specific claim under investigation.

Kirsh is wrong because he got the basics wrong. It’s the accumulation of lipids that were studied, not the spike protein or the mRNA. I feel like I’m repeating myself, but it’s important to get this piece right. Or maybe I’ve got it wrong, in which case I’ll happily be corrected.

On the subject of toxicity, Syed goes into great detail on what makes the spike protein toxic and why. It’s in the excellent video I posted. He gives references to the published papers he quotes, and constantly flips over to them as he describes what’s going on. I can’t imagine a better video on the subject, hence my reason for posting it. It’s like a lecture from uni.

For example, his video explains why folks are likely to discover the S1 subunit of the trimer after vaccination, and why that’s not dangerous. Something that was proved in the paper you linked to above which I read this morning. He also explains the difference between the prefusion and postfusion configuration of the spike protein. A key distinction in discussing the dangers.

It’s seriously worth watching the video all the way through, and going to read the Nature papers behind it. There’s a lot of great info there.

Cheers
PP

#23

Hi RG

No doubt you realised I was taking the piss. I’m open to evidence from a variety of sources, including anecdotal. Being open to evidence wherever you find it seems like the only sensible way forward.

Cheers
PP

#24

snap @RhisiartGwilym ! I posted this just a few minutes before you I think: :wink:

cheers

#25

Several degrees superior to Curtin’s usual pretentious waffle and lacking in Bob Dylan hagiography.

Before briefly returning to the topic of this thread :wink: I much enjoyed the neologism (new to me in any case) in this paper:

Broudy, D. and Hoop, D. (2021) “Messianic Mad Men, Medicine, and the Media War on Empirical Reality: Discourse Analysis of Mainstream Covid-19 Propaganda”, International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research , 2(1), pp. 1–24. Available at: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/22 (Accessed: 20 June 2021).

They refer to the GWOP: Global War on Pathogens. It looks a good read but will have to wait for now as I’m tiptoeing through a chunkier and more technical piece from the same journal. A positive point is that it explains how the mRNA jabs are supposed to work. (The lipids are essentially a Trojan Horse and quite inert, it says here.)

Ploughing through text is still my preferred way of engaging with concepts as compared with videos. This is, as I think @PontiusPrimate put it much higher up the thread, a learning style. Not better or worse, just a different way of synthesising data.

Seneff, S. and Nigh, G. (2021) “Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19”, International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research , 2(1), pp. 38–79. Available at: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23 (Accessed: 20 June 2021).

#26

GWOP goes well with another favourite of mine, drawn from The War Against Terror. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#27

Hi PP.
Bridle is the first one mentioned, and seemingly mis-attributed by Syed. For my money Bridle looks like the source (as his group obtained the biodistribution data), and was the first one cited by Syed. Bridle did not, in anything I have read, make the claim that spike proteins were shown in the Japanese biodistribution study.

I didn’t get as far as a mention of Kirsch. I found Syed a bit stressful to spend a lot of time on, with his off-message stuff and citing people by vague reference to telephone calls. He criticizes the use of “may…” - that’s why I complained about the reversal of onus. I stand by that, because the aim of TPTB is to vaccinate as close to everybody as possible, as quickly as possible. How can it be right to only mention proven harm?

He spends time ‘proving’ what could be stated in a single line, ie that the Japan biodistribution study did not feature the vaccine spike protein, but the mRNA. Of course for a layman, you could get spike proteins anywhere the mRNA finds one of its target cells. And that was what was found in the Ogata study - spike proteins in the plasma of Moderna jabbed healthcare workers. That’s why there’s additional concern about the brain.

What’s needed now is for this to be investigated properly - not informally. Of course supporters are taking advantage of their position to downplay and suppress the message and attack the messengers.

Apart from Ogata there are studies like these three:

SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alone may cause lung damage

There was a study about Lewi bodies from the (virus) spike protein in the brains of (nonpontius :slight_smile: ) primates.

The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alters barrier function in 2D static and 3D microfluidic in-vitro models of the human blood-brain barrier, Tetyana P Buzhdygan et al.

Now these are all virus spike proteins but the notion of the benign spike protein is shown to be a myth. Before inducing billions of spike proteins in each of billions of people there needs to be a pause while the new information is studied. Especially as all of the effects predicted by alarmed doctors seem to be being reported.

I’m looking for the vaccines to be proved safe for mass rollout, not argued safe-ish. I’ll read your reply of course, but I don’t want to spend any more time on Syed. Might be unfair but for me he got off to such a bad start and I have a problem with his positioning of ‘the onus’ in safety. I didn’t mean to get so involved and we all need to watch our own time. Perhaps having a different view of the onus means we can not agree with each other!
Cheers
ED

1 Like
#28

Ha ha, yes. The authors opt for On rather than Against but are certainly on the same page.

#29

That, much more eloquently than I managed @Evvy_dense, sums up my impression of Dr Bean. His criticism of “may” in the paper he was fact checking, while so blithely asserting competing truth-claims as self-evidently factual, is exactly the arrogance I see bundled up in the whole Technocratic schtick.

Reminds me of one of those fervent Manchester City fans from Crawley, “we” this, “we” that, as though “his” team (it tends to be a he, but not invariably) vouchsafes his personal worth. Brand loyalty really, this Scientism… but with much much much more at stake.

Politics Of Envy Declaration Of Interest: fan of Portsmouth FC. Me and lost causes go back a LONG way :wink:

2 Likes
#30

Sure thing P! Pee freely given! :laughing:

1 Like
#31

Hi ED

This is not right. As I’ve said before it’s the lipid nanoparticles.

This is not quite right either.

Yes I agree. But the videos I shared were based on actual published papers in Nature. So further research is happening, I guess

Yes. But as Syed points out in the video I posted (and as I’ve said already a few times) there is a big difference between the spike protein in its natural form and that produced by the vaccine. Details in the videos :wink:

The natural spike protein or the one from the vaccine? As the videos I’ve posted above explain, the two aren’t the same.

I can understand if you don’t like Syed’s presentation of the data. Perhaps you could do as Karen did and read the papers that he based his videos on. There’s good info there, I promise!

Cheers
PP

EDIT: PS I’ve only just noticed you changed the huffpo link to a trialsite one! That makes a lot more sense now :wink: - I’ve also finally seen the name “Bridle” in the link. It’s all startign to come together for me! Thanks. I’ll have a read…

EDIT 2: Having read the trialsite article (which Syed talks about in one of the above videos) I can say that the Japan study the article talks about is almost certainly the one that Syed uses, and therefore the conclusions are almost certainly wrong in the way that Syed actually discusses. The Japan biodistribution study seems to be looking only at the lipid nanoparticles, and not what happens to the spike protein or the mRNA. I feel like Syed’s discussion of this article is totally on-point. Just as a single example, this quote from the trialsite article:

“Instead, the Japanese data showed that the infamous spike protein of the coronavirus gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination and then accumulated in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands, and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.”

is false. It was the lipid nanoparticles ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 that were studied. Not the spike protein, not the mRNA. To be fair it doesn’t look like Bridle said this, rather the authors of the trialsite news article.

#32

Yeah I said I’d added to the confusion, I wasn’t joking!

“The mRNA — or messenger RNA — is what tells the body to manufacture the spike protein. The lipid nanoparticles are like the “boxes” the mRNA is shipped in, according to Malone. “If you find lipid nanoparticles in an organ or tissue, that tells you the drug got to that location,” Malone explained.”

It’s just not plausible that Robert Malone has mistaken the lipid part or the mRNA for the spike protein itself. Nor Bridle either. Other bods on the internet, yes.
I did look briefly up two of the studies when I watched more of Syed but they seemed to have a very narrow focus. I remember thinking that they weren’t about to assure me of the safety of a wide range of risks, that experts are saying they see playing out. Didn’t save the links.

I’m not ignoring evidence but based on what I’ve seen I’m not investing time in him to look for what he’s saying. He should have spent less time showing us his paintings and on his ad homs.
If that’s disappointing, you’re welcome to post the links and your thoughts. No promises.
I only came in because Syed was seemingly overlooking the Ogata study and implying Bridle was making a very basic error and possibly serving him up to the well-publicized smear of the factcheckers, who as noted, created a domain with his name for that purpose.

1 Like
#33

Lol! Wonder if I have any POEDOI. Would explain a lot!

1 Like
#34

Hi @PontiusPrimate , I hesitate to get between you and @Evvy_dense but I came across this very simplified post on Child Defender dated 17th June 2021 showing a clip from the Weinstein Malone Kirsch discussion with extracted text:

" The biodistribution study obtained by Bridle showed lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine did not stay in the deltoid muscle where they were injected as the vaccine’s developers claimed would happen, but circulated throughout the body and accumulated in large concentrations in organs and tissues, including the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and — in “quite high concentrations” — in the ovaries.

The mRNA — or messenger RNA — is what tells the body to manufacture the spike protein. The lipid nanoparticles are like the “boxes” the mRNA is shipped in, according to Malone. “If you find lipid nanoparticles in an organ or tissue, that tells you the drug got to that location,” Malone explained."

The sentence I emboldened would seem to bridge the gap between you and E_d and maybe this stems from the point made by Mr Bean that the lipids are just the discarded packages without explaining why so much “packaging” was found in the ovaries! If the drug got to the ovaries that means the vaccine spike proteins did as well, doesn’t it?

cheers

PS Sorry @Evvy_dense - you’ve just quoted the same thing from a different source - I leave my post up as it shows a bit of the discussion.

1 Like
#35

Hi @KarenEliot , I just read/skimmed the Seneff/Nigh paper - anyone who read this could not possibly consider taking the jab! This is a complete nightmare scenario for humanity !
" Conclusion
Experimental mRNA vaccines have been heralded as having the potential for great benefits, but they also harbor the possibility of potentially tragic and even catastrophic unforeseen consequences."

Strangely the paper doesn’t say outright - “stop covid vaccination immediately” - it just seems to accept the horse has bolted and recommends governments take more care next time and in the meantime advises everyone to take vitamins A,C,D,K2 and eat organic foods.

I look forward to the other paper tomorrow, if I can get to sleep tonight!

cheers

1 Like
#36

Morning ED and CJ1

Thanks for this:

I’ve been thinking about this a fair bit and I think I finally understand the source of the confusion.

The lipid nanoparticles deliver the mRNA payload into a cell. They break open inside the cell and release the mRNA. They then get expelled from the cell, leaving the mRNA behind.

The question is where do they go then?

There are two options as far as I can see:

  • (1) they stay with the cell they just came out of, or
  • (2) they gradually make their way into the bloodstream where they are processed and (hopefully) excreted.

If (1) is true, then I can understand that you can use the distribution of the lipid particles as a proxy for the distribution of mRNA. This seems to be Malone’s position, and why it appears that he’s confusing the lipid nanoparticles, and the mRNA. You only find the lipids where the mRNA was delivered.

If, on the other hand, (2) is true, then you cannot use them as a proxy for the distribution of mRNA. They travel around the body after delivering the mRNA payload. In this situation, Malone’s statement is plain wrong, the distribution of the lipid is not the same as that of the mRNA.

I guess the question now is which option is more likely?

I’m going to put that question directly to Syed, if I can reach him. This will clarify things. I’ll let you know what he says!

Cheers
PP

Edit. It’s also possible that the LNPs travel around the body before hooking up with a cell and delivering a payload. Anyway. I’ve posed the questions to Dr Syed. I’ll post back any responses I get from him!

2 Likes
#37

Yes I think that is a key issue. The spread appears to be via the lymphatic system, but not clear whether it’s the full Trojan Horses or merely the shells (appalling mixing of metaphor). In theory the ‘payload’ stays in or near the injection site.

1 Like
#38

Good question PP. It may indicate that none of the experts really explain what you need to know before you can believe them! It’s easy for experts to advance one side or the other simply by withholding key facts.

Are you assuming there is a quick delivery and unloading. You are right not to use the post office as a basis then! Though ironically, this might be a better analogy - why should there not be a delay and if there is why would the lipids not move around meantime.

So is there not an option 3) - the lipids do some travelling before any mRNA is unloaded.
PP perhaps you can add this to your option on behalf of the Society of Expert Amateur Denialists :slightly_smiling_face:

Related question.

Which cells does the vaccine deliver to - are there target cell types, if so how does the vaccine content find the right cells. Or is the load (meant to be) delivered near where the vaccine is injected.

How quickly do the lipids release the mRNA? I think it’s a couple of days or more as that was one of the functions of the lipid coating. If so then there’s no reason to think that all the mRNA goes into cells near the site if the lipids are spreading more widely.

On cross purposes, to me this is already unsafe enough for one person (me) to refuse the vaccine. Assurances of this or that might make the risk less obvious, but seeing as how the vaccine wasn’t meant to travel in the first place, and wasn’t meant to contain anything dangerous (you just get a few little old spike proteins), it can hardly be described as is cut and dried science.

Is it possible that the mRNA is selective and doesn’t induce spike proteins at the sites where the lipids end up.

Finally - why did Pfizer not check for spike proteins at the sites they examined for lipids?