Posted on 11/04/2023 1:36:46 AM PDT by RandFan
And yet it seems that you can't admit, that the jabs, which introduce the modified mRNA directly into the blood -- muscle tissue is highly perfused-- (which means, unless it is all absorbed into other tissue before the circulation carries it into the heart, it gets exposed to the heart) -- and clinically, the spike protein has been shown by Pfizer's internal documents ("admission against interest" and not invented or twisted by an outsider) to spread throughout the body-- that means the spike protein from the jabs, which is designed to bind to the same ACE-2 receptors as the real gain-of-function engineered virus. Which means if he is seeing the heart damage from those who have received the jabs, he IS qualified (at literally a world-class level) to discuss it.
The ONLY possible hope you have to impeach him, is to show that he had anecdotal reports of symptoms, did no diagnostics, and then jumped to the conclusion that "well it must have been the dratted clot shots") and lashed out.
But he might've, you know, as an MD, had his nurse take a clinic history and just asked the patients if they've been jabbed.
Dingbat.
Why do you distrust science so much? I sense that you do not understand the scientific process and you do not have even a high school level of understanding of science.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (whew!)
Trust me on this, you do NOT want to go there.
Cretin.
—> That said I’d much rather get the virus, than turn my own body into a spike protein manufacturing plant.
+1
Please, are you unable to understand the sequence of events following vaccination?
I've explained it before.
At this point, it is up to YOU to explain why mRNA encoding spike protein in a vaccine is life-threateningly dangerous, but mRNA encoding spike protein in a SARS-CoV-2 virus is harmless and nothing to worry about. YOU have to provide the scientific references from the scientific/medical literature. YOU have to explain how and why SARS-CoV-2 virus particles which are literally covered with spike protein and distributed all over your body are innocuous.
which is designed to bind to the same ACE-2 receptors as the real gain-of-function engineered virus
And it is up to YOU to explain how and why this virus was supposedly engineered and what, specifically, the "gain-of-function" allegedly is. If there is any scientific evidence, it should be fairly straightforward to find at PubMed.gov. I'll point out that if there was any proof of virus bioengineering, every scientist in the world would have raced to be first to publish.
I do find it ironic that the conspiracy theorists who push the antivax narrative that vaccines are dangerous, blah blah blah, also claim that Covid-19 is just a mild little cold that is caused by an engineered bioweapon designed to wipe out humanity. Which is it? A deadly bioweapon or a harmless little cold?
But he might've, you know, as an MD, had his nurse take a clinic history and just asked the patients if they've been jabbed.
Let's see. I assume you are referring to Peter McCullough.
Here, look at this. Autoimmune inflammatory reactions triggered by the COVID-19 genetic vaccines in terminally differentiated tissues.
This review (not study report), which was written to imply that there are dangers with the vaccine that everyone is overlooking, lists Peter McCullough as the last author. He listed his professional affiliation as "Cardiology, Truth for Health Foundation, Tucson, AZ, USA."
Whoa, wait one minute. Truth for Health Foundation is not a medical clinic or hospital. The website appears to be a compilation of antivax tropes. No patients are seen there. No medical research is done there. He also has a personal website where he promotes a scientifically unsupported and highly questionable Covid treatment protocol and sells "supplements" which he promises will rid your body of spike protein remaining from infection or vaccines. (No scientific evidence for this, of course. Proteases in your body destroy spike protein.) There is a link and a number to schedule an appointment, but I cannot tell if he actually does see patients.
And look at this: Baylor Gets Restraining Order Against COVID Vaccine Skeptic Doc, Baylor health sues COVID-19 vaccine skeptic and demands Dallas doctor stop using its name, Lawsuit Against Dr. Peter McCullough by Baylor Scott & White Dismissed.
It looks like Baylor sued McCullough for violating an agreement to not claim any affiliation with Baylor university. He signed this when Baylor cut ties with him around the time he jumped on the antivax/misinformation bandwagon. McCullough has claimed that the dismissal of the lawsuit was a "victory for free speech." However, according to the article about the lawsuit, cases are dismissed when the parties involved reach an out-of-court settlement. As far as I can tell, McCullough is still prohibited from claiming affiliation with Baylor.
I already explained.
And what I explained, is not what your reply to me said.
So either you didn't read my writing, or you can't, follow it.
Which is why you constantly taunt people here to provide references.
Notice how long it took you to reply to my post written in the vernacular, and relying on facts accepted by both sides, but in deliberately choppy sentences so feeding it into an AI wouldn't give any useful text response.
So either "you" are a bot, or you are a high-schooler or similar, relying on AI or chatGPT to do quick lit lookups giving either enough keywords or info to feed the Internet search.
And it is up to YOU to explain how and why this virus was supposedly engineered and what, specifically, the "gain-of-function" allegedly is. If there is any scientific evidence, it should be fairly straightforward to find at PubMed.gov. I'll point out that if there was any proof of virus bioengineering, every scientist in the world would have raced to be first to publish.
This is the proof by absence logical fallacy you're attempting.
Think what you're saying.
OK, I know whatever chatbot is behind your responses can't think, but *still*.
This is a bioweapon: China has locked down a city of 11 million during Chinese New Year because of it. And we know the Chicoms aren't any fan of human lives.
So coming out too strongly proving it as such, could lead to nuclear war ("weapons of mass destruction.")
To say nothing of the instant "UP YOUR EFFING *$$" to the jabs: if it got out that COVID was a bioweapon, (see also Daszak, Baric, and others:even Lord Pharaoh 0moeba outlawed gain of function in the US!), would people trust ANYTHING from the medical establishment ever again?
And there go Pfauci's and Moderna's dreams of untold wealth.
Did you hook up with Joe Isuzu? Or was he afraid of catching something from you (like spike protein)?
(Not really, the reproducibility problem is a thing, particularly in the hot and heavy publish or perish world of medicine and of pharma research. But it's the cover story everyone is sticking to.)
But more importantly, your iwn affiliation is "Hot Lips Houlihan, retired cat lady" .
Until you become an item with Joe Isuzu,anyway.
Therefore, by your own sworn rules, there is no reason to accept a single word you say about anything.
Dingbat.
VAERS is supposed to be a smoke alarm, Dingbat.
NOT something you put a soundproof pillow over.
Remind me again of how the government treated the Swine Flu Vaccine, and the number of VAERS reports before they moved on it.
You know, because Immunology and everything.
Also, explain to me why the # of reported cases of the flu (and or colds, whatevs) dropped to near Zero during the covid-1984 scare
Where can I buy your book?
bttt
What did I tell you at the beginning?
"Credentials" and "Consenus".
I don't know anything about cardiology, auto repair, or architecture. By your "reasoning," I am, therefore, the most qualified person to do your heart surgery, fix your car, and draw up blueprints for your next house.
He didn't say that.
Notice how you are inserting the lying weasel words "therefore" and "MOST qualified".
Keep it up, Dingbat. You think nobody notices.
(By your own definition, for example, your classes on "physics, biology, several kinds of chemistry, and calculus" are mostly irrelevant to anything you say.)
So by the logical contrapositive, if those classes are relevant to your work on vaccines (How is a riemann sum or the central limit theorem relevant to vaccines?), then experts in other field may well have something to offer on the debate.
Secondly, McCullough was talking primarily of retrospective observed events, in the cardiac tissue, of those who had received the jab.
So you are allowed to comment on his specialty, but he can't comment on his specialty because it makes you look bad.
Nice double standard.
In favor ONLY of jab pushers.
Again.
Note the contrast to your own earlier statement that Sort of. My PhD is in biochemistry and molecular biology. I think of this as a sort of "general practice" scientist, a field that is applicable to many different kinds of research. My career path led me into various positions related to infectious disease research and countermeasures development. It wasn't planned that way. I started work at a new facility and one of the first questions was, "How much do you know about influenza?" I answered that I used to sit next to a nurse who collected patient samples for an influenza study and that was enough for them to designate me as the influenza expert. Of course, I read a lot, I talked to a CDC physician who was familiar with influenza, and I became the expert that my boss expected me to be.
So by your own admission, "sitting next to a nurse who collected patient samples" was enough to get you designated as the influenza expert.
Was this in Malone's lab? Or was it after your shining and glorious PhD?
Because you sure like giving yourself the benefit of the doubt, and allowing anyone even remotely in favor of the death jabs every consideration, but giving "the doubt of the benefit" even to your own thesis advisor.
Incidentally, since you seem to be (in your own behalf only) a fan of first hand information and peer-review quotes, can you give a specific quote from "Bob" lately which indicates he is saying things about mRNA which he himself knows to be untrue ?
(Your quote here.
He is. He holds an MD degree with a specialization in pathology. This means that his theoretical knowledge of nucleic acid chemistry and function is probably not as deep as mine (half of my PhD was in molecular biology, which is the study of nucleic acids). But, yes, he knows enough to know that exogenous mRNA cannot modify the human DNA genome.
Did he explicitly say the mRNA was modifying the human DNA genome (in an earnest statement, something more than a slip of the tongue)? Or did he state "the shots can modify the DNA" and you, full of your usual BS, declared ex cathedra that "the shots CANNOT modify the DNA" before finding out about the plasmid contamination with the SV40 promoter segment?
Key point there, being
a) Pfizer and its lackeys "certified" that the shots didn't have DNA.
b) The test they used were sensitive to a minimum DNA fragment length of ~100 nucleotides.
c) IIRC, the SV40 is about 72 nucleotides long. But it is still a fragment of DNA, and, "not yet demonstrated by being published in a Pfizer influenced peer-review process" is not quite the same as "demonstrated conclusively to be impossible" in the way you like to pretend.
Hint: quit blowing smoke.
I nailed your ass on the 2020 SEC report, and added to that Moderna's trying to revolutionize medicine through injectable mRNA, in a trade rag dating from 2016.
That gives motive; we are now hashing out means and opportunity.
Dingbat.
Yes. That got my foot in the door. But in order to stay there, I actually had to become an influenza expert. I became that expert because I read many papers and attended meetings on influenza virology and vaccine development, and I could consult a CDC doctor who knew a lot of influenza experts over at the CDC. Lots of people consulted me about influenza, and I won a pretty nice award for my work in that position.
My supervisor knew that I was smart enough to become that expert. He had my CV (resume for doctors) in front of him and knew what I could do.
Secondly, McCullough was talking primarily of retrospective observed events, in the cardiac tissue, of those who had received the jab.
No. He never did that. He is not a pathologist who is trained to look at tissue sections and figure out what is going on. His "retrospective studies" consist of looking through medical records and published case reports in order to try to piece together a narrative that fits his agenda.
A study of cardiac tissue collected at autopsy is not a retrospective study. It is a case report. By definition, a retrospective study only looks at medical records and published studies.
I think what you are actually referring to was a review (linked below) that McCullough and co-authors wrote. This review, like the retrospective "study" which tried to "prove" medical benefit for Covid patients from hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, was pieced together to support a narrative. Reviews are not written to describe research that the authors personally conducted. They are sourced from studies that OTHER scientists did. They are meant to provide an overview of the current status of research and knowledge in a given field.
McCullough did not personally conduct any autopsies or examine cardiac biopsy tissue for this review. Autoimmune inflammatory reactions triggered by the COVID-19 genetic vaccines in terminally differentiated tissues. In order to support the narrative, he referred to four other papers. One of these only described biopsies (taken from living people). The other three referred to a total of seven autopsies of people who died following Covid vaccination. They were not definitive "proof" that vaccine killed anyone. One of the papers describes a 14 year old Japanese girl who died, a case which antivax propaganda creators love to tout as "proof" that vaccines will kill you. However, it turned out during autopsy that the girl had pneumonia. I would hypothesize that her immune system was already quite actively fighting the pneumonia, and that vaccination at that time tipped her over into a fatal cytokine storm.
Let's assume that the other six of those seven autopsies represented a person who died from a Covid vaccination. That is 6 deaths out of 220,756,604 people who have received at least two shots. That comes out to one death per 36.79 million people. That is way lower than your risk of dying from any cause. At age 50, you have a 0.5% chance of dying within the next year. This makes your chance of dying within any given six week period one in 1,738. By age 80, your risk of dying in that same time frame is one in 149.
Odds of dying in the US: Age, gender and more.
The reason I choose a six week time frame is because vaccine side effects occur within six weeks. Most occur within the first day or so. In addition, if you catch Covid, the overall risk of dying is 1%; this risk increases the older you are. The risk assessment is in deciding whether a one in 36.79 million risk from the vaccine is higher or lower than your risk of dying from any cause or from Covid. Since it is significantly lower and the vaccine has been shown to decrease risk of serious outcome from Covid, I'll choose to get the vaccine.
BTW, if you want to criticize my analysis of the McCullough review, read it in its entirety first and make sure you understand it sufficiently to point out where I am wrong. Otherwise, don't bother.
So, again, by YOUR rules, you have no room to comment. As for the award, the Feds hand them out to pretty much anyone who can fog a mirror, especially when they are a member of the preferred victim- group-of-the-week. Bye, Dingbat.
Hey everyone,I think we found Dingbat!
Oh wait, too young and good-looking. ...never mind
poor *stiff*
I *hate* autocorrect.
HAHAHA!!
https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/27/17/5405
This is scientific evidence that nattokinase will degrade spike protein.
In vitro, but it does work.
"Nattokinase has the same conserved amino acids, Ser-His-Asp (Asp32, His64, and Ser221), which are members of the subtilisin family of serine proteases [6,18]. The crystal structure of nattokinase is nearly identical to that of subtilisin E from B. subtilis DB104 [19]. This result is consistent with that of a previous report that nattokinase is a serine protease."
Change "no scientific evidence" to "well, that doesn't count because REASONS. Also Calculus!™. Did I tell you I used to be an influenza expert from sitting next to a nurse?"
You've got to learn to stop overstating your case.
Get stuffed, Dingbat.
but sadly, even here on fr, we have sheeple....
the good news I see is clearly the deep state didn't get as many deaths as they wanted, even though they got quite a few....
IMO there were poison shots, and non poisonous shots....perhaps Trumps pushing the vaxx had something to do with the fact that he knew that the White hats had destroyed a large portion of the poisonous shots.....Evergreen and all....
.
Just say “No to the Covid/Flu Mandaters at all levels!:
Cutting through the Mist of the Managerial State!
JOHN CARTER NOVEMBER 18, 2023
Use disobedience to claw back whatever personal agency and responsibility, you can in your own life, train yourself not to take these people seriously, encourage others to do the same!
If enough people do this, eventually it will become so prohibitively expensive to manage the population that the strangling vines of this parasitic organism we call the managerial state can be hacked back to something manageable.
https://brownstone.org/articles/cutting-through-the-mist-of-the-managerial-state/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.