Makis deals with the mRNA technology gene based injection (Pfizer & Moderna), lipid-nano particle (LNP/mRNA) platform on how they impact bone marrow stem cells, affect their growth and differentiation
Makis deals with the mRNA technology gene based injection (Pfizer & Moderna), lipid-nano particle (LNP/mRNA) platform on how they impact bone marrow stem cells, affect their growth and differentiation
leading to possible turbo cancers such as leukemias, alters gene expression in bone marrow stem cells; LNP/mRNA technology is being combined with CRISPR tech for gene editing.
Insane, dialing up the Cyborg future... for those blind enough to go along with being turned into a Biological Time Bomb.. We must Wake Up as many as we can... education in the truest sense.. We Can ... Nuremberg will be Realized and this Insane type of research will be terminated.. Fuuuchi and the entire Psyop team will go on trial... let’s do our part today... the Future is NOW
Wasn't Makis and FLCCC smeared recently by oncologist and "fact checker" David Gorski? If the 20 Horsemen are ever expanded to 24 ("the dirty two dozen") then Gorski should get a saddle. See the claim below attributed to Gorski, and then the article at the following link regarding syringe aspiration, or non-aspiration, implications.:
“If it’s [mRNA COVID pseudovaccine] injected into the muscle, most of the vaccine (sic) stays in a relatively small area. It doesn’t really go very far,” Gorski told USA TODAY. “If you inject it into the bloodstream, it’s in the bloodstream – it’s going everywhere. … Nothing like what is done in real life.”
Claim linking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, cancer in mouse distorts study | Fact check
Gorski deceitfully claims that "most of the vaccine (sic) stays in a relatively small area. It doesn’t really go very far.”
There is accumulating evidence that claim is not true, or at least not in all cases.
And Gorski, unlike Democrat commenter on these stacks, "scout," possibly a bot, and unlike pro-vax commenter "Wayne E" is, as a professor of medicine, likely of at least average intelligence.
He would know the evidence that his claim is false exists.
Gorski also claims, correctly, that: “If you inject it into the bloodstream, it’s in the bloodstream – it’s going everywhere."
But then Gorski adds, falsely, that this is "Nothing like what is done in real life.”
Gorski would know this is false, but like the shills for the tobacco companies of old, he deceitfully makes the statement, to mislead the recipient of the disinformation.
Gorski, like pro-jabbers generally, deals in cherry-picking, selective citation of information, andhiding, or omission of, inconvenient evidence.
Along with a broad selection of fallacious reasoning techniques, these are among the routinely used tools of Gorski's trade.
Gorski omits to note that there has been at least a small proportion of injections which, out of many millions of injections globally and in the US, is a very large number of them, in which the "vaccines" were injected into the bloodstream.
See the excerpts from the paper at the link below.
It matters not that the authors were concerned principally about the implications of injection into the bloodstream for myocarditis.
Implications for other possible ill health outcomes were not considered.
It does not mean that there aren't any.
(Gorski appears to assume that absence of evidence, or absence of conclusive proof, is the same thing as evidence of absence.)
"This [syringe aspiration] technique was specifically developed in the past to ensure the medication is not inadvertently delivered into a blood vessel. Before the pandemic, the aspiration has generated numerous discussions and controversies, with no conclusive evidence to understand whether such a procedure is beneficial or unwarranted due to the absence of randomized clinical trials."
"Syringe aspiration when vaccinating intramuscularly was not recommended before the pandemic due to the lack of conclusive evidence that it provides any benefit. However, in vivo evidence suggests that intravenous injection of mRNA vaccine can potentially lead to [ill health outcomes] ... syringe aspiration ... represents a simple technique to decrease the risk of vaccine introduction into the vascular system and potentially decrease the risk of severe reactions to mRNA and adenoviral vaccines. We are of the opinion that this cannot be disregarded if one considers that the COVID-19 vaccines will continue to be administrated globally in the form of initial and booster doses. Therefore, the aspiration when giving mRNA and adenoviral vaccines appears to be fully in line with the precautionary principle."
"Aspiration is a technique practiced to avoid accidental vaccine injection into a vessel during intramuscular administration. The appearance of blood in the syringe indicates that this is a case and shall result in another vaccination attempt. In this situation, the needle should be withdrawn, the syringe discarded, and another injection (prepared using new vaccine dose and equipment) should be given in a different location [17, 23]. The deltoid muscle is the preferred injection site for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Although the usual spot, 5–7 cm below the acromion, is relatively distant from big vessels, in some cases, the posterior circumflex humeral artery can be present in this area [24]. But even if major blood vessels in their typical locations are not in immediate proximity, anatomical variants and smaller branches can cause accidental intravessel administration of the vaccine or a part of it. While it may not represent a significant risk for various vaccines approved pre-pandemic and based on a more classical approach, it is not necessarily a case about mRNA and adenoviral vector vaccines, which administration was limited to clinical trials before the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, over 2.5 billion doses of mRNA vaccines and 2.5 billion doses of adenoviral vector vaccines were globally given to humans [3]. In turn, evidence from experiments in vivo highlights that introducing both mRNA and adenoviral vector vaccines into the blood instead of muscle can result in acute adverse events resembling those seen in post-authorization pharmacovigilance for humans given the same vaccines."
To aspirate or not to aspirate? Considerations for the COVID-19 vaccines
"The standard procedure of ‘aspiration’ for intramuscular injections was generally stopped for the covid vaccines (although some countries like Denmark reverted to the practice after serious adverse reactions were caused by lack of aspiration) [54] and therefore it is likely that approximately 2% of vaccinations went straight into the blood, potentially explaining why a small proportion of vaccine recipients suffered far worse than most [55]."
Informed consent: statement on covid policies affecting children and young adults
Approximately one in 50.jabtards have been injected with a novel mRNA anti-COVID into their bloodstream. That's an enormous number of people, both globally and in the US.
And yet, despite the implications, there is no reason to believe that Gorski has ever taken action to mitigate potential harms.
Instead, Gorski, a purported "fact checker," peddles disinformation
Is this not recklessly endangering the public?
Gorski's tactics are analogous to tobacco companies placing the onus on smokers to prove that cigarette smoking is harmful, rather than placing the onus on tobacco companies to prove that it is not.
Nobody, however, has ever been mandated to smoke cigarettes.
This arguably makes Gorski's behavior even more morally reprehensible than it would otherwise be.
Don't allow yourself to be influenced by grifters.
Here is an article about when cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking, in an analogous way to how some believe pharmaceutical companies use the likes of Gorski to push the new mRNA pseudovaccines.
When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking. Before studies showed that cigarettes caused cancer, tobacco companies recruited the medical community for their ads.
It is disgraceful that good doctors like Makis are being persecuted while others in the pro-jabs camp like Gorski are demonstrably peddling disinformation.
Yes, however, the tobacco analogy is, in my view, somewhat misleading. Natural, organic tobacco is relatively safe. This explains why NOONE got lung cancer in historical tobacco smoking - early Europeans + Indigenous Americans. Lung cancer + all other associated tobacco driven diseases appeared after they started to grow it in phosphate fertilisers. Why? Because phosphate fertilisers contain many more times uranium compared to natural soil. The monsters knew this, yet carried on using it - and the accumulation over time only increased the uranium concentration. Why is that bad? Because uranium breaks down into radon and polonium-210; the radon is not a problem, whilst the polonium most certainly is. It is a highly poisonous ionising radiation which *will* cause lung cancer. Same with food, however the radiation is not directly interacting with cells in the way tobacco smoke does (though no doubt is responsible for many cases colon cancer and other digestive diseases).
Good point. I know the evidence linking smoking of organic tobacco to many ill health outcomes is weak but most of the normies on this stack would not be able to get their heads around that fact. However, the vax pushers do use the same techniques of sophistry that Big Tobacco used and the onus is on both Big Tobacco and Big Pharma to prove that their products are safe, not on the consumer to prove that their products are unsafe as they would have us believe.
Gorski may be correct wrt. aspiration as applied to conventional vaccines. But Gorski knows, that these are not - no conventional vaccines package up their payload in LNPs. So, while it might be correct that injecting them into a vessel will cause them to immediately show up in the bloodstream, the reverse cannot be inferred. For proof look at the bio-distribution study (https://evolutionaryhealthplan.info/#_Ref82727991) where the damn things can be measured in the bloodstream at 15 mins!
Dr. Bahkdi reckons this is due to transcytosis, whereby the muscle cells pick up the LNPs and shuttle them out the other side, until they reach a vessel.
Disclaimers aside, I want to open this article with a confession. This article was titled using the acronym mRNA but that was intentionally misleading. For purposes of this article - mRNA actually stands for modRNA which is different from mRNA. mRNA is messenger RNA and is found all over in life. modRNA is laboratory modified RNA that has been synthetically created for a purpose. It can be more durable, and have substantially greater impact than a true mRNA and can do many other things.
Why does this matter? Well let’s start with the COVID “vaccines”. Because mRNA is a weak particle and breaks down easily with a relatively lower risk of messing with your genetics than other gene therapy products (like modRNA) that is what is always talked about in the jabs. The problem is that it is a lie. Here is the FDA label for the Pfizer jab:
With that in mind let’s talk about modRNA (or worse - saRNA). Rather than taking my word for what this is let me share this explanation from Pfizer you can find at https://www.pfizer.com/science/innovation/mrna-technology until they change it (which will likely happen shortly after I publish this):
Understand that, at core, mRNA, modRNA, saRNA, etc. - these are all gene therapies and all about genetic manipulation. To suggest that this is high risk is an understatement. We have no idea what we are doing and yet we continue forward trying to control these genes.
I want to apologize but I do not want there to be any doubt that modRNA is all about gene editing so I have to point to some ugly “sciency” stuff. Let me start with this abstract from an article titled “Genome Engineering for Stem Cell Transplantation” you can find at https://doi.org/10.6002/ect.mesot2018.l34 (link to the full article is there as well). Here it is:
Even in the case of genetic deficiency, if the body has learned to recognize self from non-self, then the only way to supply the deficient protein is to supply it externally. Forcing the body to make it (even if it is needed) sets the immune system off to destroy cells that are manufacturing it. It seems he only way to avoid this is to reset the entire immune system. Given how little we know about that, it seems cavalier to entice that idea.
Insane, dialing up the Cyborg future... for those blind enough to go along with being turned into a Biological Time Bomb.. We must Wake Up as many as we can... education in the truest sense.. We Can ... Nuremberg will be Realized and this Insane type of research will be terminated.. Fuuuchi and the entire Psyop team will go on trial... let’s do our part today... the Future is NOW
Wasn't Makis and FLCCC smeared recently by oncologist and "fact checker" David Gorski? If the 20 Horsemen are ever expanded to 24 ("the dirty two dozen") then Gorski should get a saddle. See the claim below attributed to Gorski, and then the article at the following link regarding syringe aspiration, or non-aspiration, implications.:
“If it’s [mRNA COVID pseudovaccine] injected into the muscle, most of the vaccine (sic) stays in a relatively small area. It doesn’t really go very far,” Gorski told USA TODAY. “If you inject it into the bloodstream, it’s in the bloodstream – it’s going everywhere. … Nothing like what is done in real life.”
Claim linking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, cancer in mouse distorts study | Fact check
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/08/30/post-falsely-links-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-mouse-cancer-fact-check/70702575007/
Gorski deceitfully claims that "most of the vaccine (sic) stays in a relatively small area. It doesn’t really go very far.”
There is accumulating evidence that claim is not true, or at least not in all cases.
And Gorski, unlike Democrat commenter on these stacks, "scout," possibly a bot, and unlike pro-vax commenter "Wayne E" is, as a professor of medicine, likely of at least average intelligence.
He would know the evidence that his claim is false exists.
Gorski also claims, correctly, that: “If you inject it into the bloodstream, it’s in the bloodstream – it’s going everywhere."
But then Gorski adds, falsely, that this is "Nothing like what is done in real life.”
Gorski would know this is false, but like the shills for the tobacco companies of old, he deceitfully makes the statement, to mislead the recipient of the disinformation.
Gorski, like pro-jabbers generally, deals in cherry-picking, selective citation of information, andhiding, or omission of, inconvenient evidence.
Along with a broad selection of fallacious reasoning techniques, these are among the routinely used tools of Gorski's trade.
Gorski omits to note that there has been at least a small proportion of injections which, out of many millions of injections globally and in the US, is a very large number of them, in which the "vaccines" were injected into the bloodstream.
See the excerpts from the paper at the link below.
It matters not that the authors were concerned principally about the implications of injection into the bloodstream for myocarditis.
Implications for other possible ill health outcomes were not considered.
It does not mean that there aren't any.
(Gorski appears to assume that absence of evidence, or absence of conclusive proof, is the same thing as evidence of absence.)
"This [syringe aspiration] technique was specifically developed in the past to ensure the medication is not inadvertently delivered into a blood vessel. Before the pandemic, the aspiration has generated numerous discussions and controversies, with no conclusive evidence to understand whether such a procedure is beneficial or unwarranted due to the absence of randomized clinical trials."
"Syringe aspiration when vaccinating intramuscularly was not recommended before the pandemic due to the lack of conclusive evidence that it provides any benefit. However, in vivo evidence suggests that intravenous injection of mRNA vaccine can potentially lead to [ill health outcomes] ... syringe aspiration ... represents a simple technique to decrease the risk of vaccine introduction into the vascular system and potentially decrease the risk of severe reactions to mRNA and adenoviral vaccines. We are of the opinion that this cannot be disregarded if one considers that the COVID-19 vaccines will continue to be administrated globally in the form of initial and booster doses. Therefore, the aspiration when giving mRNA and adenoviral vaccines appears to be fully in line with the precautionary principle."
"Aspiration is a technique practiced to avoid accidental vaccine injection into a vessel during intramuscular administration. The appearance of blood in the syringe indicates that this is a case and shall result in another vaccination attempt. In this situation, the needle should be withdrawn, the syringe discarded, and another injection (prepared using new vaccine dose and equipment) should be given in a different location [17, 23]. The deltoid muscle is the preferred injection site for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Although the usual spot, 5–7 cm below the acromion, is relatively distant from big vessels, in some cases, the posterior circumflex humeral artery can be present in this area [24]. But even if major blood vessels in their typical locations are not in immediate proximity, anatomical variants and smaller branches can cause accidental intravessel administration of the vaccine or a part of it. While it may not represent a significant risk for various vaccines approved pre-pandemic and based on a more classical approach, it is not necessarily a case about mRNA and adenoviral vector vaccines, which administration was limited to clinical trials before the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, over 2.5 billion doses of mRNA vaccines and 2.5 billion doses of adenoviral vector vaccines were globally given to humans [3]. In turn, evidence from experiments in vivo highlights that introducing both mRNA and adenoviral vector vaccines into the blood instead of muscle can result in acute adverse events resembling those seen in post-authorization pharmacovigilance for humans given the same vaccines."
To aspirate or not to aspirate? Considerations for the COVID-19 vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8941363/
Professor Norman Fenton has noted:
"The standard procedure of ‘aspiration’ for intramuscular injections was generally stopped for the covid vaccines (although some countries like Denmark reverted to the practice after serious adverse reactions were caused by lack of aspiration) [54] and therefore it is likely that approximately 2% of vaccinations went straight into the blood, potentially explaining why a small proportion of vaccine recipients suffered far worse than most [55]."
Informed consent: statement on covid policies affecting children and young adults
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/informed-consent-statement-on-covid?utm_campaign=email-post&r=1gmx8e&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Approximately one in 50.jabtards have been injected with a novel mRNA anti-COVID into their bloodstream. That's an enormous number of people, both globally and in the US.
And yet, despite the implications, there is no reason to believe that Gorski has ever taken action to mitigate potential harms.
Instead, Gorski, a purported "fact checker," peddles disinformation
Is this not recklessly endangering the public?
Gorski's tactics are analogous to tobacco companies placing the onus on smokers to prove that cigarette smoking is harmful, rather than placing the onus on tobacco companies to prove that it is not.
Nobody, however, has ever been mandated to smoke cigarettes.
This arguably makes Gorski's behavior even more morally reprehensible than it would otherwise be.
Don't allow yourself to be influenced by grifters.
Here is an article about when cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking, in an analogous way to how some believe pharmaceutical companies use the likes of Gorski to push the new mRNA pseudovaccines.
When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking. Before studies showed that cigarettes caused cancer, tobacco companies recruited the medical community for their ads.
https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement
It is disgraceful that good doctors like Makis are being persecuted while others in the pro-jabs camp like Gorski are demonstrably peddling disinformation.
Yes, however, the tobacco analogy is, in my view, somewhat misleading. Natural, organic tobacco is relatively safe. This explains why NOONE got lung cancer in historical tobacco smoking - early Europeans + Indigenous Americans. Lung cancer + all other associated tobacco driven diseases appeared after they started to grow it in phosphate fertilisers. Why? Because phosphate fertilisers contain many more times uranium compared to natural soil. The monsters knew this, yet carried on using it - and the accumulation over time only increased the uranium concentration. Why is that bad? Because uranium breaks down into radon and polonium-210; the radon is not a problem, whilst the polonium most certainly is. It is a highly poisonous ionising radiation which *will* cause lung cancer. Same with food, however the radiation is not directly interacting with cells in the way tobacco smoke does (though no doubt is responsible for many cases colon cancer and other digestive diseases).
https://evolutionaryhealthplan.info/#phosphatefertilisers
Good point. I know the evidence linking smoking of organic tobacco to many ill health outcomes is weak but most of the normies on this stack would not be able to get their heads around that fact. However, the vax pushers do use the same techniques of sophistry that Big Tobacco used and the onus is on both Big Tobacco and Big Pharma to prove that their products are safe, not on the consumer to prove that their products are unsafe as they would have us believe.
Gorski may be correct wrt. aspiration as applied to conventional vaccines. But Gorski knows, that these are not - no conventional vaccines package up their payload in LNPs. So, while it might be correct that injecting them into a vessel will cause them to immediately show up in the bloodstream, the reverse cannot be inferred. For proof look at the bio-distribution study (https://evolutionaryhealthplan.info/#_Ref82727991) where the damn things can be measured in the bloodstream at 15 mins!
Dr. Bahkdi reckons this is due to transcytosis, whereby the muscle cells pick up the LNPs and shuttle them out the other side, until they reach a vessel.
Murder, pure and simple.
The jabs were a "resounding success" for their intended purposes:
(1) murdering and maiming many people
(2) MASSIVE profits at taxpayer's expense.
https://tomrenz.substack.com/p/mrna-and-why-it-matters?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fmod-RNA&utm_medium=reader2.
Disclaimers aside, I want to open this article with a confession. This article was titled using the acronym mRNA but that was intentionally misleading. For purposes of this article - mRNA actually stands for modRNA which is different from mRNA. mRNA is messenger RNA and is found all over in life. modRNA is laboratory modified RNA that has been synthetically created for a purpose. It can be more durable, and have substantially greater impact than a true mRNA and can do many other things.
Why does this matter? Well let’s start with the COVID “vaccines”. Because mRNA is a weak particle and breaks down easily with a relatively lower risk of messing with your genetics than other gene therapy products (like modRNA) that is what is always talked about in the jabs. The problem is that it is a lie. Here is the FDA label for the Pfizer jab:
With that in mind let’s talk about modRNA (or worse - saRNA). Rather than taking my word for what this is let me share this explanation from Pfizer you can find at https://www.pfizer.com/science/innovation/mrna-technology until they change it (which will likely happen shortly after I publish this):
Understand that, at core, mRNA, modRNA, saRNA, etc. - these are all gene therapies and all about genetic manipulation. To suggest that this is high risk is an understatement. We have no idea what we are doing and yet we continue forward trying to control these genes.
I want to apologize but I do not want there to be any doubt that modRNA is all about gene editing so I have to point to some ugly “sciency” stuff. Let me start with this abstract from an article titled “Genome Engineering for Stem Cell Transplantation” you can find at https://doi.org/10.6002/ect.mesot2018.l34 (link to the full article is there as well). Here it is:
we know the mRNA technology is bad news.
Even in the case of genetic deficiency, if the body has learned to recognize self from non-self, then the only way to supply the deficient protein is to supply it externally. Forcing the body to make it (even if it is needed) sets the immune system off to destroy cells that are manufacturing it. It seems he only way to avoid this is to reset the entire immune system. Given how little we know about that, it seems cavalier to entice that idea.