Robert Malone, Drew Weissman, Katalin Karikó et al., you INVENTORS of mRNA technology that we know harms & kills as part of the COVID gene injection, is it time you explained the resulting deaths?
Robert Malone, Drew Weissman, Katalin Karikó et al., you INVENTORS of mRNA technology that we know harms & kills as part of the COVID gene injection, is it time you explained the resulting deaths?
I say it is time, it is time we bring you three & others into questioning, under oath, separately, all involved with mRNA technology & get the answers to safety questions that have eleuded us thus far
Yes, it’s time. My friends are dying. I can’t have a ‘I told you so attitude,’ instead I show them support and unconditional love. A friend of mine texted me this yesterday, right as he left the doctor. They diagnosed him with what they’re calling ‘Covid Cancer.’ He knows it’s the shots, he’s taken 4. He woke up yesterday, and I was the first person he reached out to. This is what he said: ‘Ok it's in my Pancreas,my stomach,my intestines what supplements do I start with?’
Paul, you completely missed the boat on this one and I’m truly surprised, given your background in the biological sciences, that you did so in such a spectacular and ahistorical fashion.
You can read more about the off-label use of cell transfection reagents on my substack page and where they came from.
As I described it earlier this year [with contemporary comments in brackets]:
A FB friend asked me, “Why did Robert Malone invent the mrna product?” referring to the viral RNA products.
My response:
He didn’t. He adapted existing transfection techniques used to introduce exogenous gene constructs into cells in stable cell lines to attempt the same in multicellular living organisms.
1. So-called mRNA therapy is only a subset of the standard lab technique of transfection of genetic material into a cell that didn’t normally have it in such a way that wouldn’t kill the cell, the only difference was that it was being done in living animals instead of cell lines grown in flasks.
2. The idea behind “mRNA therapy” transfection was to introduce into an animal with a genetic defect that couldn’t produce something it needed or not enough of it or that produced a defective version of it, either
A. copies of the normal gene that could be used by the cells to produce enough of the correct product to offset the deficit and restore a measure of health [such as the gene for insulin in those who lost the insulin-producing cells through inflammatory activity in the course of a childhood infection] or
B. copies of a gene that will make anti-sense mRNA versions of the mRNA transcribed from the defective gene to interfere with it and prevent the defective gene product from being translated by the ribosomes.
If the problem in health was being caused by the presence of the defective proteins produced from the defective gene [such as dystrophin in muscular dystrophy] then using this type of mRNA could block the production of those defective proteins and restore health or at least reduce the level of impairment.
_________
But those guys of Covid, Inc. are NOT introducing a foreign gene into cells to restore lost function or to block malfunction and restore health.
They are introducing a foreign viral RNA gene into perfectly good cells to do this:
to disrupt normal cell function in a way that is damaging to those cells,
to produce a biologically-active viral protein that is damaging to that and other cells,
to cause those cells to signal to the innate immune system that they have been taken over by a virus, and
to cause the innate immune system to attack and kill those cells.
NONE of that is being done to restore lost function,
NONE of that is being done to disrupt malfunction,
NONE of that is being done to treat disease,
EVERYTHING their viral RNA products’ primary mechanism of action does and everything it results in is disease or consequences of disease.
This means that their purpose in using these techniques is not the delivery of therapeutic agents into sick cells to cure them or even chemotherapy agents into cancer cells to kill them, but the delivery of viral RNA into healthy cells to infect them and to trigger the innate immune system to destroy them.
Of course, the companies, in the very same way that they used the word “vaccine” to make their products, that had nothing in common with viral protein vaccines, appear to be something they were not, also played up the “mRNA therapy” angle of transfection to make their products sound more like medical treatment to reinforce the false claim that they are vaccines. [Like all con artists, they play off the knowledge and beliefs of their victims to sell them something false, useless, or harmful by making it appear other than it is or just another member of an existing trusted class].
This can clearly be see by what Wikipedia did to Robert Malone after he criticized the viral RNA products.
For years he was correctly described as having pioneered the use of transfection in vivo to introduce exogenous gene products for therapeutic purposes as I described above.
His criticism [and strangely very restrained public criticism as I have been noting for a very long time] was enough for Wikipedia to scrub him from their pages, drop him into the memory hole, and replace him with a woman from Pfizer/BioInTech and attribute to her his work in this area. They did this in order to accomplish two things:
1. Give Pfizer a seemingly plausible way of describing as something medical and therapeutic their crazier-than-fuck notion of infecting healthy cells in vivo in humans by the off-label use of both transfection reagents and Malone’s specific application of transfection techniques.
2. To prevent the general public, whose idea of researching a subject is to go to Wikipedia, from looking up Robert Malone and seeing that a major critic of the viral RNA products was the guy who pioneered what the viral RNA product manufacturers claim was the basis of their products’ primary mechanism of action—because that would make them look bad.
It would lead people to wonder what is wrong in the way the manufacturers are doing it that would lead Malone to criticize their products or that he’s just trying to sabotage a wondrous new product.
So we have arrived at a point where
A. companies like Pfizer are trying to describe their products’ primary mechanism of action in such an ambiguous way that the general public will have no clue what’s actually going on and
B. people like Malone, McCullough and many others are criticizing the viral RNA products in almost every possible way EXCEPT their primary mechanism of action.
On the one hand, the companies don’t want to be identified as deliberately infecting billions of people with C19 viral RNA and bringing immunological hell down on the formerly healthy tissues and cells of their bodies after compromising through their products.
On the other hand, although Malone and others want to end the danger posed by these products, Malone is probably (and understandably) VERY reluctant, by drawing attention to the actual cause of the danger, the inevitable innate immune response to cells deliberately infected with viral protein as the result of the primary mechanism of action of the products, to suffer the risk of some morons stirring up the public by saying, “All this shit was YOUR fault for having the idea of sticking foreign genes into people.”
Sort of EXACTLY what you just did above less than an hour ago.
Yes, it’s time. My friends are dying. I can’t have a ‘I told you so attitude,’ instead I show them support and unconditional love. A friend of mine texted me this yesterday, right as he left the doctor. They diagnosed him with what they’re calling ‘Covid Cancer.’ He knows it’s the shots, he’s taken 4. He woke up yesterday, and I was the first person he reached out to. This is what he said: ‘Ok it's in my Pancreas,my stomach,my intestines what supplements do I start with?’
You know they will just lie lie lie. Oath means nothing, zero, natta to them.
Paul, you completely missed the boat on this one and I’m truly surprised, given your background in the biological sciences, that you did so in such a spectacular and ahistorical fashion.
You can read more about the off-label use of cell transfection reagents on my substack page and where they came from.
As I described it earlier this year [with contemporary comments in brackets]:
A FB friend asked me, “Why did Robert Malone invent the mrna product?” referring to the viral RNA products.
My response:
He didn’t. He adapted existing transfection techniques used to introduce exogenous gene constructs into cells in stable cell lines to attempt the same in multicellular living organisms.
1. So-called mRNA therapy is only a subset of the standard lab technique of transfection of genetic material into a cell that didn’t normally have it in such a way that wouldn’t kill the cell, the only difference was that it was being done in living animals instead of cell lines grown in flasks.
2. The idea behind “mRNA therapy” transfection was to introduce into an animal with a genetic defect that couldn’t produce something it needed or not enough of it or that produced a defective version of it, either
A. copies of the normal gene that could be used by the cells to produce enough of the correct product to offset the deficit and restore a measure of health [such as the gene for insulin in those who lost the insulin-producing cells through inflammatory activity in the course of a childhood infection] or
B. copies of a gene that will make anti-sense mRNA versions of the mRNA transcribed from the defective gene to interfere with it and prevent the defective gene product from being translated by the ribosomes.
If the problem in health was being caused by the presence of the defective proteins produced from the defective gene [such as dystrophin in muscular dystrophy] then using this type of mRNA could block the production of those defective proteins and restore health or at least reduce the level of impairment.
_________
But those guys of Covid, Inc. are NOT introducing a foreign gene into cells to restore lost function or to block malfunction and restore health.
They are introducing a foreign viral RNA gene into perfectly good cells to do this:
to disrupt normal cell function in a way that is damaging to those cells,
to produce a biologically-active viral protein that is damaging to that and other cells,
to cause those cells to signal to the innate immune system that they have been taken over by a virus, and
to cause the innate immune system to attack and kill those cells.
NONE of that is being done to restore lost function,
NONE of that is being done to disrupt malfunction,
NONE of that is being done to treat disease,
EVERYTHING their viral RNA products’ primary mechanism of action does and everything it results in is disease or consequences of disease.
This means that their purpose in using these techniques is not the delivery of therapeutic agents into sick cells to cure them or even chemotherapy agents into cancer cells to kill them, but the delivery of viral RNA into healthy cells to infect them and to trigger the innate immune system to destroy them.
Of course, the companies, in the very same way that they used the word “vaccine” to make their products, that had nothing in common with viral protein vaccines, appear to be something they were not, also played up the “mRNA therapy” angle of transfection to make their products sound more like medical treatment to reinforce the false claim that they are vaccines. [Like all con artists, they play off the knowledge and beliefs of their victims to sell them something false, useless, or harmful by making it appear other than it is or just another member of an existing trusted class].
This can clearly be see by what Wikipedia did to Robert Malone after he criticized the viral RNA products.
For years he was correctly described as having pioneered the use of transfection in vivo to introduce exogenous gene products for therapeutic purposes as I described above.
His criticism [and strangely very restrained public criticism as I have been noting for a very long time] was enough for Wikipedia to scrub him from their pages, drop him into the memory hole, and replace him with a woman from Pfizer/BioInTech and attribute to her his work in this area. They did this in order to accomplish two things:
1. Give Pfizer a seemingly plausible way of describing as something medical and therapeutic their crazier-than-fuck notion of infecting healthy cells in vivo in humans by the off-label use of both transfection reagents and Malone’s specific application of transfection techniques.
2. To prevent the general public, whose idea of researching a subject is to go to Wikipedia, from looking up Robert Malone and seeing that a major critic of the viral RNA products was the guy who pioneered what the viral RNA product manufacturers claim was the basis of their products’ primary mechanism of action—because that would make them look bad.
It would lead people to wonder what is wrong in the way the manufacturers are doing it that would lead Malone to criticize their products or that he’s just trying to sabotage a wondrous new product.
So we have arrived at a point where
A. companies like Pfizer are trying to describe their products’ primary mechanism of action in such an ambiguous way that the general public will have no clue what’s actually going on and
B. people like Malone, McCullough and many others are criticizing the viral RNA products in almost every possible way EXCEPT their primary mechanism of action.
On the one hand, the companies don’t want to be identified as deliberately infecting billions of people with C19 viral RNA and bringing immunological hell down on the formerly healthy tissues and cells of their bodies after compromising through their products.
On the other hand, although Malone and others want to end the danger posed by these products, Malone is probably (and understandably) VERY reluctant, by drawing attention to the actual cause of the danger, the inevitable innate immune response to cells deliberately infected with viral protein as the result of the primary mechanism of action of the products, to suffer the risk of some morons stirring up the public by saying, “All this shit was YOUR fault for having the idea of sticking foreign genes into people.”
Sort of EXACTLY what you just did above less than an hour ago.