224 Comments

I’m not sure making fun of rubes is productive. Consider how long it took for the authorities to conclude the primary mode of transmission was aerosol. Consider that people were detained by police for being outdoors in fresh air. Or consider how long it took to admit that vaccinated people could still spread the virus. If you are going to mock people for being wrong, be prepared to look in the mirror.

Expand full comment

Also, be prepared to demonstrate empirically that they are wrong. I see a lot of hand waving on this issue but have yet to see anyone refute the studies to date demonstrating what appears to be Covid vax shedding.. I’d also like to hear a plausible explanation for the extraordinary volume of anecdotal data, which should be driving further research on this area. How do Experts explain thousands of unvaccinated women waking up with heavy unexplained bleeding when sleeping next to a freshly vaxxed partner, for example (I personally know women this happened to. Men may not realise, for most women with a regular cycle this is an unheard of, once in a lifetime event). Presumably nay sayers have an explanation - why not give it?

Midwestern Doc covered some of the shedding science here https://open.substack.com/pub/amidwesterndoctor/p/unraveling-the-mystery-of-mrna-vaccine?r=jufg5&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

Expand full comment

"the studies to date demonstrating what appears to be Covid vax shedding"

Which ones would they be....?

Expand full comment

I dont click fake links Rebekah, try searching substack for the fake study, guess what... you will not locate it. I cant find any midwestdr on substack.

Expand full comment

The ones linked in post above, which you appear to have skimmed past.

Expand full comment

Where are the real studies cause this one is pure bunk.

Expand full comment

Linked in the text, which you obviously didn't read before 'debunking' it lol.

Evidence for Aerosol Transfer

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10579981/

Re: exosomes carried on breath

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(13)00524-1/fulltext

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73243-5

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/58/2/2003024.long

Spike binding to exosomes

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.28568

There are tonnes more relevant papers linked in the text, which you didn't read. But you've obviously made up your mind already before reading anything, so I won't be investing any further effort in this conversation. All the best with your reading.

Expand full comment

Again...just psychology.

None of your links show shedding of the vaccine.

Expand full comment

No proper studies I can see, as I explain above.

Expand full comment

Sometimes mockery is required when people are too stupid to appreciate factual information or even just sarcasm.

Expand full comment

My field is special education, and I find your attitude loathsome. But more to the point, counterproductive. If you pick on people who are wrong, implying they are retarded, you better not say anything wrong, ever.

Expand full comment

I’ve not implied anyone is “retarded”, but we cannot escape the reality that there are some who lack the intelligence to comprehend certain self-evident basic scientific facts.

Expand full comment

I would also say there are a lot of people who choose to believe false facts (lies) because it fits their worldview / political persuasion / tribe.

Expand full comment

(As far as i understand so quickly:)

The second link (also in the first link) is about he spike protein in the virus, not the one for which the mrna is in the vaccines.

(which is (i think) changed on more points than only the pseudouridine point, exactly to reduce the dangerous properties that are in the viral spike).

The third link (also in the first link) doesn't say anything bad about the vaccine, on the contrary. It speaks also about the importance of longer lasting expression. A downside of natural infection even being exactly missing this! Staying longer in lymph nodes is good. It speaks of quick reduction in the blood.

The only possible negative thing in the three links is/was an unknown spoken of in the first link:

the possibilty of slightly differing protein expressions, which may or may not have negative consequences.

(Question: why would those differing expressions not occur with the viral spike?)

In the meantime the downsides of not-vaccinating are very well known.

(Esapecially when naïve and/or vulnerable. But also more and more in general, given that is getting clearer that every illness seems to add injury, stronger illness adds stonger injury, and vacxination diminishes illness.):

Having covid naturally, with all it's by average more and stronger acute and long-term side effects then when you have it vaccinated, incl. vax-side-effects.

Problem: every individual can react differently from the average, on vaacination or disease. But we/you/they only know the averages. It gives no certainty in advance, but the average is the best bet you can take, as long as there's no added information about your health (or vaccinesrisks), that may change this best bet.)

Expand full comment

It’s sooooo super contagious, yet they had to swab your brain to see if you have it?

Expand full comment

Offitt has had his entire carreer sonsored by pharma. He just lies and pretends to get more funding. In the meantime children suffer.

Expand full comment

If it weren't for stupid lies....you wouldn't have anything at all to post...

Expand full comment

"Offitt has had his entire carreer sonsored by pharma"

I did the experiment, took a 5th grader a couple of seconds to prove you are just making things up.

E.g : https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AI026251-11A1

SD's only contribution is to prove that the anti-vacc stupidly lie about ~everything.

Expand full comment

Although airborne transmission occurs through aerosolised droplet nuclei, the primary mode of transmission is still through droplet spread, as far as I understand it. If you have evidence that aerosols are the main route, I'd be grateful to see that.

Expand full comment

Considering how long? Id say considering how short the time was. Cant just google the information! Well , you can if you want crap info.

Expand full comment

Of course, you are correct because the payload stays in the deltoid muscle and is almost immediately drained to the lymph-nodes and contained and removed so efficiently... oh snap. None of that was true.

Thanks to the lipid nanoparticles the mRNA goes absolutely everywhere in the body almost immediately and thanks to the pseudouridine the mRNA lasts quite a bit longer than we were told.

https://mindandmatter.substack.com/p/pseudouridine-mrna-vaccines-and-spike

In fact, spike production has been seen at 6 months post injection. Was that the limit of its persistence? Nope. Just the limit of their will to test for it.

Well, I guess it's a good thing that the spike protein is harmless. Oh, wait, that wasn't true either. It is the dangerous part of the virus.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

Of course, since it has no live virus, it can not replicate... but isn't it simply using the human cells to produce more of itself. Yes, so the virus is no longer needed thanks to the ongoing spike transfection.

Well, at least it's not like the human cells are producing spike protein at higher levels than the virus was when it was killing people... um... oops?

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9

but I guess we'll have to go on faith that the shedding bit isn't happening. Although I can not imagine why it wouldn't be. It has to go someplace, right?

Considering the ridiculous pile of fails ya'll have stacked up so far, you gotta be right about this. I mean, that whole broken clock ratio has got to work out for you at some point.. Also, I am certain you spent more time studying what could go wrong, than you did writing self owning articles in ignorance in a valiant attempt to belittle people who do not have your credentials nor your really big... um... brain. I mean , all they have is the scientific method, while you have a piece of paper that someone signed that says that you don't have to follow such silly rules any more.

ps. Just out of curiosity, are you a member of MENSA? I have this really bad feeling that our public health apparatchik and self proclaimed elite academic class is populated almost entirely by people who willingly sent $100 to an organization in exchange for a card worth a nickel that said they were geniuses...

Expand full comment
Jan 22·edited Jan 22

Well, if you’re scared of the small quantities of vaccine-derived spike protein that get into the systemic circulation, then the thought of having Covid (and being exposed for prolonged periods to billions of new virions (all coated in hundreds of lethal spike proteins) being churned out daily and pumped directly into the systemic circulation) must fill you with sheer terror.

And “shedding”? …seriously?

😂

Expand full comment

Wait we were told no possible way it would get into the systemic circulation. Thanks for giving another example of why not to get the death shot. Lies or incompetence? Both are bad when it comes to our health.

Expand full comment

Were you told that? Do you have a citation? Saying “unlikely” isn’t the same as “no possible way” though….

Expand full comment

Your link doesn't support your assertion....

Expand full comment

lol thanks Albus, for encouraging me to find this article for you.

Expand full comment

Not “No possible way” at all, Karen. Sorry, you lose.

Staying spike protein was “harmless” accorded with scientific knowledge at the time, and I still need convincing it is as harmful as all you antivaxers say.

Of course, if it were so deadly, you’d all be scared to death of Covid, wouldn’t you?

Expand full comment

Mike S is a paid troll. He even pretends to be a medical professional.

Expand full comment

Also, Albus and Mike S are one and the same.

Expand full comment

It is impossible to have basic literacy skills and honestly believe that lie.

Expand full comment

Poor SD....lacking a rational thought of offer....all you can do is to make up personal attacks and stupid lies.

Expand full comment

"Wait we were told no possible way it would get into the systemic circulation.

Not by an qualified scientist.

We are told that the anti-vaccs lie and count on folks being too clueless to read.

Expand full comment

Perfect reply! I will only add that going forward, I will do the opposite of what the FDA, CDC, pHarma, Offit, Albus, etc. recommend.

Expand full comment

"I will do the opposite of what the FDA, CDC, pHarma, Offit, Albus, etc. recommend."

.....Offit suggests healthy adults may not need booster shots. I take it you've made your appointment to get one?

Expand full comment

Note that he said “may not” which leaves open another opportunity to change the rules again. How many times? I lost count… if you get the shot, you won’t get the virus oops you won’t spread the virus oops you won’t be hospitalized oops you won’t die oops it only stays in your arm oops … no appointment for me.

Expand full comment

Well Offit has said about boosters: "Let’s focus on those who are most likely to benefit." He explained this was the elderly over 65 and those with vulnerabilities/comorbidities.

He's also stated on YouTube, ZDogg, TWIV that he wouldn't give them in healthy young adults.

So, assuming you are a healthy young adult (under 65), can we assume you will now live up to your promise to do the opposite of what he says, and get a booster?

....no evasion, please.

Expand full comment

Asked and answered . The only thing I will evade is the death shot. Just give him a few minutes and he/they will move the goal posts again.

Expand full comment
Jan 23·edited Jan 23

No, you evaded answering.

You aren’t going to get vaxed, so you were lying.

…thought so.

Expand full comment

"The only thing I will evade is the death shot."

It is impossible to have 5th grade math skills and believe that.

Expand full comment

Even though you know it risks your life....

Expand full comment

There is a reason we have experts and must rely on them to some extent -- because non-experts don't understand the basics. For example, that Cell article you cite as showing human cells produce more spike protein after vaccination than produced after infection. It was referring to the germinal centers and all viral (I'm not sure about bacterial) agents the body finds are taken to the GCs by antigen-presenting cells so that the B cells can be generated that are specifically built to attack that antigen. Any viral proteins there are not dangerous -- they have already been neutralized by the APCs. Also, if there is any spike protein anywhere in the body on a certain day it will certainly be in the GCs (because that is where it goes). All that means is either the APCs presenting the spike protein have not all been destroyed by then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germinal_center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigen-presenting_cell

In other words, stop thinking you can understand the most complicated biological system in existence when you have no training in the field.

Expand full comment

Absolutely right. Andi West is a proponent of "epistemic trespass"...someone who knows a bit but within unrelated fields, and who pretends to know the subject in detail (which she clearly doesn't, as shown by her misinterpretation of the study published in Cell)

Expand full comment

I've already wasted more than enough time in this lifetime arguing with you , Mike. You do not argue in good faith and neither does your friend here. The Study from cell I cited had one point of interest, the longevity of the vaccine induced spike protein. The comparative points on the study were not important to the argument at hand. My statement was that the spike protein lasted for 60 days which is not something that normal mRNA does. I don't care how many tertiary points you can pull from a study, you still have not rebutted that the vaccine induced pike protein lasts way longer than they told us it would. God damn, you paid shills aren't even trying anymore are you. Argue the points someone states not the unrelated minutia of rest of the universe.

Expand full comment

Also, that first link you shared, LOL. It took me 2 minutes to find major errors: the author says the Cell studied found that the spike mRNA lasted 60 days -- that is not the case -- they were looking at the spike protein (which could have been made weeks earlier).

Also, they compare the mRNA levels in live (vaccinated) individuals with those of cadavers. Of course the live people are higher -- it isn't the virus that kills most people with COVID -- it is the immune system going haywire as it fights the virus. Also, mRNA degrades quickly, especially after death!

Expand full comment

I am just pasting my reply to your friend Mike here- The Study from cell I cited had one point of interest, the longevity of the vaccine induced spike protein. The comparative points on the study were not important to the argument at hand. My statement was that the spike protein lasted for 60 days which is not something that normal mRNA does. I don't care how many tertiary points you can pull from a study, you still have not rebutted that the vaccine induced pike protein lasts way longer than they told us it would. God damn, you paid shills aren't even trying anymore are you. Argue the points someone states not the unrelated minutia of rest of the universe.

Expand full comment

Wikipedia?

Expand full comment

Yeah it is a great place to start learning the basics (and to realize how much you don't know). It obviously isn't authoritative but is usually accurate and a great place to start because it has citations for every statement.

Expand full comment

It is a good place to start as a pointer to external sources for sure.

Expand full comment

What is the limit of viral persistence (and spike production) from natural infection though?

I saw it was around 550 days, and counting....

Expand full comment

👏👏👏

Brilliant reply.

Thanks for pointing out more than a few inconvenient facts to those that like to denigrate people with valid concerns as imbeciles.

Expand full comment

Just complete incorrect.

Expand full comment

Glad you are interested in the science.

Why don't you pick one topic you think is important and we can look at the facts.

Expand full comment

Primarily because I'm not terribly interested in going over anything with a person who believes in the science rather than in following the scientific method. That is one of the main problems of our time. Science is a process by which we ascertain things, not a thing unto itself to be revered dogmatically.

Well, since hope springs eternal, let's try it. Lets start at the beginning- the jab contents stay local to the injection site. That was one of the first claims made. Do they? Nope. Could we have known this before jabbing billions of people? Yes. Not only could we have known, we did know. How? We fully understood the biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticles. In fact, that was the reason behind their invention in the first place. Am I wrong about this?

Expand full comment

So that would be a big old no....you can't provide even one example of a scientists saying what you claim!

Expand full comment

I'm sorry. Must have missed the earlier comment from you. Bad notifications i guess. Here is a presentation to the MA state legislature. Several MDs, PHDs, and at least one person with both state this directly. And just to clarify for the viewer , they are stating that due to being wrapped up in an lnp, the injection payload goes everywhere throughout the body.

https://rumble.com/v48l6rr-covid-19-vaccine-expert-panel-briefing-to-the-massachusetts-legislature-and.html

But hey congratulations on your premature.. umm... celebration.

Expand full comment

Thanks, it is more than 3 hours long.....could you please direct me to the relevant time points?

Expand full comment

Thanks, I still have hope too.

"Lets start at the beginning- the jab contents stay local to the injection site. "

Great, now please provide an example of scientists saying that.

Thanks,

Expand full comment

Not a single citation has an ounce of credibility. Take your agitprop bullshit elsewhere.

Expand full comment
Jan 23·edited Jan 23

Well to be fair the citations are mostly to reasonable studies, but Andi has misrepresented them.

For instance the one she claims to show spike at higher levels from vaccination than infection was actually a study on the variant specific antibody responses and germinal centres of lymphnodes, saying how good the immune response is to vaccination....but you need to go into the fine print to see they also sampled several lymph nodes with core biopsies and measured spike protein which was found for up to 6 weeks in some regional LN GCs, but not after covid infection...but Andi's interpretation of this is crazy wrong, because

1. They are levels in regional LN GCs (ie axillary, which drain lymph from the arm where the vaccine was injected)

2. The LN GCs in Covid patients showed histological obliteration (so Covid damaged the immune system, and not surprisingly they couldn't find spike in the damaged GCs)

3. Post vaccination blood levels of spike peaked within 2 days, largely disappeared in one week and were undetectable after 4 weeks..

Expand full comment

There are extremes on both sides of the vaccine debate. I just want more transparency and nuance in our leaders communications.

Expand full comment

Dr. Offit likes to present himself as someone intelligent enough to filter through the various theories presented, and report to you the “truth“. In this case, he is harping on the most crazy of the crazy in order to obfuscate legitimate criticism and concerns.

Expand full comment

It is so disappointing to see Dr Offit refuse to address valid criticism.

Expand full comment

Exactly what valid criticism?

Expand full comment

It's called: "Grasping at Straws!" I hope Dr. OFFIT REALIZES THAT HE CAN IF HE WANTED TO, BECOME A REAL HERO, by STOPPING HIS BOOK FROM COMING OUT before he gets a chance to properly debate the counter narrative he supposes

Expand full comment

I think he realizes that the anti-vaccs simply don't have a rational thought to offer.....see everything posted here in all the comments.

Do you have even one to offer?

Expand full comment

By any chance did you listen to the 1 hr podcast with Bret Weinstein on Tucker Carlson ?

Expand full comment

I did not.

By any chance did you see Mr. Carlson's legal defense in covid lawsuit? I'm paraphrasing....but his defense--excepted by the Court--was that his entire show was a joke, talking nonsense....that no reasonable person could believe had actual facts.

Dr. Weinstein--the guy that advocates medical fraud predicated on folks not being able to count?

So.....again, do you have anything to offer?

Expand full comment

Fact is the anti-vaccs haven't been able to offer any legitimate criticisms.

Expand full comment

I don’t know if shedding is a serious risk or not, but I would not dismiss it. Pfizer certainly seemed to consider it sufficient risk to advise vaccinated men to avoid sex during the study.

Equating it to other mRNA is cavalier also. Other mRNA is not stabilised through m-pseudouridine substitution, and hence considerably more fragile & short lived. Nor is it encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles.

Finally there is evidence that unvaccinated children of vaccinated parents can have vaccine induced antibodies. How does that happen?

An abundance of caution would seem like the correct approach to me, rather than the “let’s jab everyone, at risk and not at risk, previously infected or not, with a product we don’t properly understand, are not evaluating properly and with no serious QC in place” you seem to be advocating Offit.

Expand full comment

The whole point is that it is possible to 'shed' chemicals or viruses in bodily fluid. It is not possible in a hug or by being next to someone. There is no mechanism for that to happen.

Expand full comment
Jan 23·edited Jan 23

That's not why Pfizer advised against the risk of pregnancy. The National Institutes of Health recommends that contraception requirements are in place for any clinical trial participants who take part in a trial in the US. This is because of the precautionary principle, so that initial studies do not involve any risk of pregnancy, just in case of any unforseen adverse consequences.

"Finally there is evidence that unvaccinated children of vaccinated parents can have vaccine induced antibodies. How does that happen?"

The authors of the study indicated that antibodies produced in the respiratory tract of vaccinated parents might be exhaled and subsequently inhaled by close contacts such as children.

That isn't "shedding" of antigen, but passive transferrence of antibody.

Got that?

Expand full comment

I cannot imagine what they are "smoking" or imbibing to come up with these truly hair-brained ideas about the hazards of vaccination. That others accept these flagrantly absurd and untrue allegations is a tragedy.

Expand full comment

No, the tragedy here is that you can be so easily scared by the existence of a theory that may be untrue that you’re willing to dismiss all of the evidence that is true.

Expand full comment

The only evidence so far is that the anti-vacc fraud preys upon fools.

Expand full comment

In case anyone interested Rebekah studies say nothing negative about vaccines, actually addresses basic biology, such as infectious agents can be found in exhaled breathe. Wow! THATS crazy. The fake dr site she references is basically flood the zone with shit site. Bunch of studies some good (nature one) but most published in questionable journals.

Expand full comment

Another article shilling his new book. Offit probably thinks he chose something so ridiculous, that it couldn't possibly be true. The truth though is that we still don't know whether this is true. Although rather inconveniently for him, there are case reports that say otherwise, so it IS possible, even if rare (and as someone pointed out, why would you prevent people in the Pfizer trial from having intercourse if this couldn't possibly happen, the only answer is they didn't know or they already knew at that stage that this was at least a possibility).

It's accepted now the lipid nanoparticles go everywhere and very early on too, thanks to the Japanese biodistribution study (subsequently it seems the blood brain barrier and even possibly the placenta seem to be readily crossed), despite being told that it stayed in the arm. This in itself should be extremely concerning, but somehow it is not, (but that's for another day)... If it goes everywhere, then why not into secretions. Can you say with any amount of confidence they don't go there? I don't think so.

The utterly ridiculous choice of the spike as the replication target (because it itself has at least some toxicity, and also because it is one of the fastest mutating parts of the virus, essentially ensuring ineffectiveness and probably ADE as well), ensure that even if the lipid nanoparticles themselves weren't shed, the spike also could be, causing any number of untold reactions. Yes it has a much shorter half life than the modRNA but there's a heck of a lot more of it. Certainly there are many reports of breastfeeding mothers and those who had intercourse with those receiving the vaccine, of very unusual adverse reactions in the unvaccinated babies and partners. Without one of these mechanisms happening, it would be impossible to find any adverse reactions or antibodies to the vaccine spike in those who are unvaccinated, but you do.

Anyway, it's always worth mentioning that Offit can't even bring himself to take any more covid vaccines himself, so honestly, at this point I don't know why anyone bothers listening to him. After literally being wrong about almost everything, can you blame people for being sceptical, especially when you can't even bring yourself to take the products you're shilling for. Don't you want to save granny you hypocrite.

Expand full comment
Jan 23·edited Jan 23

It's pretty standard in clinical drug trials that people who should take measures to avoid pregnancy. Pregnant women are excluded from clinical trials for safety purposes.

The National Institutes of Health recommends that contraception requirements are in place for any clinical trial participants who take part in a trial in the US. This is because of the precautionary principle, so that initial studies do not involve the risk of pregnancy, just in case of any adverse consequences. However, post authorisation studies more than confirm the safety of the vaccine, and there was never any suggestion that spike protein could be "shed" from vaccine recipients and somehow "infect" contacts. Whoever came up with that implausible concept was indeed deluded.

Expand full comment

Hi Mike, the way I read it was that they were to avoid intercourse. Pregnancy of course should be avoided at all costs, but in this case, again they did not have remotely enough time to confirm safety before recommending to pregnant women and those trying to get pregnant. Again, complete insanity, especially when even the slightest hint that cross-generational issues such as transfection might be possible were not yet determined... As for how the media portray shedding and infection from said shedding, of course the infection makes no sense, but that doesn't make the shedding part any less possible. As I said, I see no evidence that lipid nanoparticles aren't in secretions, quite the opposite in fact. I see enough evidence that both spike and lipid nanoparticles can be excreted in certain bodily fluids or exhaled, and therefore so can the vaccine and the resultant spike. This isn't even the end of it, antibodies, both before and after birth, do make it into the babies from the mother. If due to frameshifting, or junk DNA producing god knows what, weird antibodies could make it to the baby, and even this is potentially extremely harmful. For you to repeat again the completely unfounded mantra that the technology is more than proved to be safe is utterly incomprehensible especially as more almost monthly, there are even more issues uncovered for which we don't have an answer.

Expand full comment
Jan 24·edited Jan 24

You say there is evidence both spike proteins and LNPs can be found in secretions, exhaled and then get into other human contacts.

Can you post links to that evidence please?

It’s ok to float biologically implausible hypotheses, they are sometimes useful to science by aiding the process of elimination. But to claim your hypotheses have evidence to support them is scientifically dishonest.

Expand full comment

No matter how small the numbers may be, almost all organs see the LNP, even skin or salivary glands. If even those tiny numbers can affect the heart, which you can't possibly dispute now, then these may have an affect in these other areas. The numbers are in almost all cases still rising after 48h so we can't say for sure what happens after looking at this alone https://www.docdroid.net/xq0Z8B0/pfizer-report-japanese-government-pdf#page=17

Even Lancet has recently published this

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(23)00366-3/fulltext

They say it's not inducing any immunity, but the LNPs are transferred including vaccine, so the possibility is certainly there, and it's sad (but not surprising) to see the search result right next to fact checks that say no vaccine is in breastmilk. Antibodies are of course also transferred, so problematic self immunity and even potentially prion like random proteins could be transferred (although this is still speculation on my part).

There are also many early patents and papers showing that LNPs seem to accumulate or even target certain concerning organs such as bone marrow and sexual organs, making transfection of those more likely and the resulting problematic proteins and even the LNPs themselves might make it out of the body.

Expand full comment

LNPs affect the heart? I can't dispute that?...

Well I do dispute that..

Please cite studies showing that (1) they are delivered to the heart following IM injection of mRNA vaccines (in humans) and that (2) they have a deleterious effect on heart function.

PS: Transference of antibodies is the equivalent of passive immunity...it will benefit those exposed, rather than cause harm.

Expand full comment

That's a very niche thing you've focused on... I've proven LNP and vax is secreted. As for the heart thing. I don't need studies, the biodistribution link I posted shows it goes to the heart. On top of this, the myocarditis that is accepted as a side effect of the vax by everybody now, is obviously due to the vax getting into heart muscle via LNPs, although I suppose you could still argue that the spike is causing it so no LNPs need to go there, either way, it's not good and it's directly affecting heart muscle so I don't know what more you want me to prove.

PS: There is such a thing as bad immunity (eg IgG4, autoimmuninty) so no, not universally good either...

Expand full comment

Not really "niche"...I've drilled down to the crucial claim, namely that vaccine LNPs damage the heart. You haven't shown that. All you've done is show a few ifs and maybes but I'm sorry, you only get a chain of causation if you demonstrate valid links in the chain, which you haven't.

As I stated, CLINICAL studies show heart damage is far more frequent with Covid than vaccination.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full#h11

Expand full comment

PS

See how the anti-vacc fraud works?

First they lie.

Then folks like you refuse to read the words and see their lies.

Expand full comment

Silence?

What could you say? Beyond the fact that the anti-vaccs lie about ~everything.

Expand full comment

"why would you prevent people in the Pfizer trial from having intercourse if this couldn't possibly happen"

Why didn't you read the Pfizer protocol and see that they didn't try and prevent anyone from having sex?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_protocol.pdf

Expand full comment

How come you didn’t address the studies on Covid vaccine shedding? Your argument would be more convincing if you were to refute the publicly available evidence. I don’t think readers have much appetite to simply taking Experts’ word for it these days. https://open.substack.com/pub/amidwesterndoctor/p/unraveling-the-mystery-of-mrna-vaccine?r=jufg5&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

Expand full comment

What a load of absolute bollocks.

...Detecting vaccinated people because they smell of rotting flesh from "shedding"...Total BS, with anecdote after anecdote and no evidence.

Expand full comment

Ah so you didn’t read the linked scientific studies. Let me know if you do.

Expand full comment

I have. They are all anecdotal and hypothetical nonsense, dressed up to simulate "studies".

The closest thing to a real study was the one which found anti-spike antibodies in some unvaccinated children, and the hypothesis was that antibodies against spike in vaccinated parents might be produced within the respiratory tract and exhaled, only to be inhaled by close contacts like their kids. That isn't shedding of spike proteins...it's more akin to passive immunisation. But then the author of the word salad on substack wouyldn't know that, because he's ignorant about spike proteins, viruses and immunity.

Expand full comment

You should spend some time researching the psychology of denial.

Expand full comment

It is just psychology.

Instead of listening to qualified scientists....you reference some kook's substack.

At the start your link couldn't get the definition of gene therapy correct and at the end asserts the vaccines are contained with DNA--that is a complete fabrication.

Your link is complete crap.

Expand full comment

And as previously discussed, when public health agencies treat good and decent citizens this deceitfully and cruelly, there will be consequences.

https://x.com/annmforti/status/1686567649453441025?s=46&t=N6Yk0Teky5Qc1acSgwZgEw

Expand full comment

Paul, if you are serious about gaining public trust then you have to deal with the reality of what our government agencies have done.

By the FDA not responding to what happened to Maddie De Garay they only further that distrust .

https://x.com/annmforti/status/1749192755966857488?s=46&t=N6Yk0Teky5Qc1acSgwZgEw

Expand full comment

Does that mean there is zero evidence of a vaccine injury?

Expand full comment

It has been clearly explained to the De Garay's why the vaccine didn't cause the child's medical problems.

If that is not true, where is the evidence?

Expand full comment

Just looked up school website.

Florida of course

Student and faculty diversity not obvious

Expand full comment

“The center for countering digital hate” a.k.a. the center for countering speech I don’t like...

when you kept loved ones from being with their families/friends as they were being murdered with protocols in hospitals, you created your so-called SNL skits. That’s just one of many examples! I am not an advocate of Mike Adams. I’m trying to use the Bible for discernment of current events and thus had to stop listening to his noise a long time ago.

Your new book seems to be loaded with you picking out and poking at as much sensationalized topics from the “anti-vax” side as you can find. But you and yours created all of this!

Expand full comment

"when you kept loved ones from being with their families/friends as they were being murdered with protocols in hospitals,"

Anti-vaccs are big on asserting criminal acts....but they just won't make their claims in Court under oath....where perjury applies.

Expand full comment

I did not assert anything. It is a fact that hospital protocols included isolating patients. The hospitals were incentivized to use treatment protocols that were proven harmful. No court needed to see this.

Expand full comment

"I did not assert anything."

Yes you did. You asserted that people were being murdered.

But that is a really, really stupid lie. Which is why you won't make your claim under oath....you know you would go to jail for perjury.

Expand full comment

Vaccine acquired paralytic polio was once considered ridiculously implausible as well.

Expand full comment

Was it? You of course have a citation stating that "factoid", I assume. Can we see it?

...All live viral vaccines carry a tiny risk of causing a version of the disease they are trying to prevent...that's a given. I sincerely doubt that Sabin decreed his vaccine as being exempt from this phenomenon.

Expand full comment

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236293/

I stand corrected the Scientific community was well aware of the potential to acquire paralytic polio from the vaccine.

I cannot say the public was fully informed of the potential.

Expand full comment

As if that has anything to do with the millions of people who aren’t contracted polio due to the vaccine? Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up

Expand full comment

The science is always settled until it isn’t. that is the point.

Expand full comment

No shit? Well, only the stupid don’t play with house money when it’s laying on the table. Of course there are terrible reactions and even death associated to many vaccines. Considering they are single digit if not single decimals of the total who would suffer without them, only a fool would be anti-VAX. Improving the vaccine should be the goal. Christ, vaccinations and orthopedics are about the only two things Western medicine is doing right. If you are anti-VAX, healthcare just isn’t your niche.

Expand full comment

It is an extreme act of ignorance to pretend the mRNA clot shot is anything similar to any of the other vaccines that have been used for the last 100 years, or to pretend the risk from Covid is anything similar to polio. If you’re anti-critical thinking, maybe acting like a flaming ahole is just your niche. Sit down and STFU.

Expand full comment

Yes, it's silly to assume the risks from Covid are similar to polio, because the risks from Covid are far greater.

Expand full comment

Your ignorance is astounding.

Expand full comment

The “vaccine” was never tested to see if it stoped transmission of the virus. The 95% effective was at reducing hospitalization which means you created asymptomatic carriers of the virus. They were absolutely correct in using caution since transmission is possible in the vaccinated. To ridicule them for using caution is cowardly. I am ashamed for you Paul.

Expand full comment

You clearly don’t know the difference between viral transmission and acquisition of the “lethal” spike proteins through the ridiculously implausible concept of “shedding”.

I am ashamed for you Ammon.

Expand full comment

Total bullshit. There were asymptomatic carriers long before the vaccine

Expand full comment

Yes, and there were more after the vaccine.

Expand full comment

The vaccine doesn't cause asymptomatic carriage. The only reason there are "more" asymptomatic covid cases since the vaccine is that:

1. Almost everyone has had the vaccine, so you see this happen, in the same way you still see people die despite wearing seatbelts.

2. Some of those who didn't have the vaccine are probably dead, rather than being just asymptomatic cases.

Expand full comment

Total bullshit. People who have received all of their mRNA boosters are MORE likely to contract the disease and spread it to others. It’s not “caused” by the jab, but the jab has negative efficacy in this regard.

Expand full comment

Citation needed.

Expand full comment

Show me a post-Delta citation that the vaccine reduces transmission.

Expand full comment

"The “vaccine” was never tested to see if it stoped transmission of the virus. "

Yes it was.

E.g. " Vaccine effectiveness against transmission of alpha, delta and omicron SARS-COV-2-infection, Belgian contact tracing, 2021–2022

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073587/#:~:text=The%20combined%20effect%20(reduced%20risk,vaccines%20outperformed%20viral%2Dvector%20vaccines.

There are other examples.

Fact is the anti-vaccs almost never get the most basic facts correct.

Expand full comment

Albus, 01001001 00100000 01100110 01101001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 01110010 01110010 01101111 01100111 01100001 01101110 01100011 01100101 00100000 00100000 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101000 00100000 01101000 01100101 01101100 01110000 01100110 01110101 01101100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100001 01101101 01110101 01110011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110011 01101001 01101110 01100011 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110010 01100101 01101000 01100101 01101110 01110011 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110011 01110101 01100010 01101010 01100101 01100011 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101100 01100001 01100011 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01110011 01110100 00101110 00100000 01000101 01110110 01100101 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101111 01110101 01100111 01101000 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110111 01101111 01101110 11100010 10000000 10011001 01110100 00100000 01100110 01110101 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110010 01100101 01101000 01100101 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00101100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01101110 01101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110100 01101001 01101110 01110101 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100100 01101111 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100100 01101111 00101110

Expand full comment

Posting in binary code is “predicating people are too stupid to read” really that’s your argument? The binary code was specifically for you.

People are smart enough to read it and figure it out.

You obviously didn’t understand its content. Or you couldn’t read it.

Expand full comment

1. You have once again you have replied to yourself....apparently correctly making comments is just too difficult for you.

2. You continue to deflect from the fact your claim:

"The “vaccine” was never tested to see if it stoped transmission of the virus. "

Is still a still a lie predicated on folks being too stupid to read.

3. You are welcome: I will keep doing what I do--I post the links so everyone can see that then anti-vaccs stupidity lie about ~everything.

Speaking of stupidity....it was staggeringly foolish of you to think posting in binary would make it difficult to read....apparently...intellectually you just can't do any better.

Expand full comment

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-CCaJLR1zhQ

It may have been tested after but that is irrelevant and to try and explain that to you is an exercise in futility.

Expand full comment

Wow....in a matter of life and death and you think lying about the basic facts is irrelevant!

Thanks for the link....putting aside the fact that the timing of the testing is irrelevant with respect to how it performs in the real world....

You are still stuck with the fact that the entire argument is predicated on folks not understanding what a vaccine is.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-222761909-1963936815&term_occur=999&term_src=

You keep getting all pissy because you just keep arguing BS.

Expand full comment

I think you are just ashamed because once again the anti-vaccs are proven to lie....counting on folks to be too stupid to read.

Expand full comment

Great comeback you obviously won the argument.

Expand full comment

Posting a lie predicated on folks being too stupid to read isn't arguing.....it is just lying.

Expand full comment

Perhaps you and Paul should have informed the School in October 2021 that the study you referred to done in 2021-2022 and published in 2023 would look at transmission since the Pfizer trials were not designed to look at Transmission.

And why didn’t you or Paul inform them in October 2021 why a brand new MRNA vaccine could not possibly shed

Expand full comment

I have never met anyone more intellectually challenged on comprehension of a simple observation than you. I would explain it to you, but you clearly cannot understand what I was clearly trying to convey.

Expand full comment

You replied to yourself!

Demonstrating exactly how intellectually challenged you are...clearly, you just can't do any better.

Expand full comment

In theory, you could have some integrity and admit the simple fact that the anti-vaccs lie when they claim:

""The “vaccine” was never tested to see if it stoped transmission of the virus. "

But.....apparently you just don't have any!

Expand full comment

I have never met anyone more intellectually challenged on comprehension of a simple observation than you. I would explain it to you, but you clearly cannot understand what I was clearly trying to convey.

There you go it’s proper now.

Expand full comment

I do understand.

You posted a really, really stupid anti-vacc lie and you don't care that you were caught.

No big deal to you.....your anti-vaccs are only killing people...but other folks do care.

Expand full comment

all based upon the assumption that there was some sort of "deadly Plague" in the form of "COVID"

however, what if the whole fiasco was a total HOAX?

Expand full comment

And what if we are all in the Matrix, and reality is just a HOAX, huh?

Expand full comment