Discussion about this post

User's avatar
It doesn't take Sherlock's avatar

Hmmm. What happens when you mix DARPA $, Friday Funnies, and horse farming.......

Someone gets their own 'limited hangout' opportunity. Ability to image rehab and try and build 'plausible deniability' in case one of the potential litigations in the future actually breaks through the Deep State firewall. Beware DARPA Dudes!

Expand full comment
Gregorio Enrique Sandoval's avatar

So are you referring to those guys way over 40 years ago who discovered that, even though methods they developed in an attempt to do direct-to-cell targeting of therapeutic drugs failed because they just couldn’t get direct enough targeting, those same methods could be used in vitro to introduce exogenous genes into cells of immortal cells lines, thus opening up a whole new vista of molecular biology?

Or are you referring to later folks who thought, “Hey, if we can introduce any gene we want into immortal cell lines in vitro through these cell transfection techniques, would we be able to use them in vivo, perhaps to supply a copy of a non-mutated gene in order to restore a degree of function to a patient suffering either from the lack of the correct gene or the harmful output from a mutated gene”? These people would include Robt Malone. They didn’t invent “mRNA technology,” they just adapted in vitro cell transfection to in vivo cell transfection. They encountered the same problem that those who had developed the methods for targeted delivery of therapeutics encountered: the technique was too indiscriminate. Also, it was transient. Also, it produced the desired gene product (whatever the desired protein) but in a way that, outside the specific cells that normally produced it, was uncontrolled and not subject to the normal regulatory responses that relied on feedback to shut down the production when levels of the needed protein were great enough.

Or are you referring to the motherfucking blithering idiots of Pfizer, and later the other three, who paid zero attention to the problems encounter by the first group and by Malone, et al, and each chose one of the common cell transfection reagents:

Pfizer the nanoparticle method to introduce spike protein mRNA (even though they knew it would not be any more effective than their viral protein vaccine using the spike protein);

Moderna and Johnson&Johnson, variations on the lipid transfection method to introduce viral vectors with a spike protein gene insert from which would automatically be run off spike protein mRNA from which would automatically be translated inside the co-opted cells loads of C19 spike protein;

AstraZeneca, the adenovirus virus method to do the same thing but which they claimed would be safer because its entry would be limited to only the class of cells with the specific receptor its version of spike proteins used to gain entry.

They ALL suffered the same problems for the SAME reason:

1. The solo viral spike protein was proven years ago by Pfizer to be incapable of creating a protective adaptive immune response--and could NOT do so in anyone with an impaired adaptive immune system.

2. Got to the point of THAT ineffectiveness by means of invading healthy cells like a virus but indiscriminately, by infecting those cells with viral genes like a virus, by causing the product-compromised cells individually, after detecting the viral mRNA and viral protein inside them, to signal the innate immune system that they had been compromised by viruses and were in the replication cycle, just as happens with any virus, and leading to the innate immune system to launch innate immune inflammatory attacks on the organs containing those product-compromised cells to kill them exactly as it would virus-compromised cells,

the outcome being a SHITLOAD of immunological trouble in addition to ineffective viral antigen.

Those receiving a viral protein vaccine versión not benefitting, but not harmed.

Those receiving a viral RNA version not benefitting, even IF their adaptive immune system was in working order, but harmed by the initial compromise of the cells by the product and by the inevitable innate immune response to kill them.

Those with a messed-up adaptive immune system receiving the viral RNA products, not benefitting, but harmed by the initial compromise of the cells by the product and by the inevitable innate immune response to kill them.

Are you talking about this third group who had all the advantage of knowing from the first two the inherent danger of using a cell transfection reagent to infect healthy cells in vivo with genes of a FRICKING VIRUS?

They also invented nothing. They just employed the off-label use of a research technique that works GREAT in its proper place (in vitro in immortal cell lines) to infect people in vivo with the genes of a pathogen.

Of the four groups, the originators of what was hoped to be direct-targeting of therapeutics, those who found they could use those techniques to introduce exogenous genes into a living cell, those who, like Malone, tried to use it in a therapeutic way in vivo, and finally those who tried to use it in vivo to infect healthy cells with viral genes that they would claim

as be a “vaccination,” only the second group had great success because they did it in a way that facilitated research without messing people up.

And it was only the second group that adapted the discovery of the first group to something that actually worked wildly well.

Of the four groups, those producing viral RNA products, are the biggest failures of all.

All the above said because it continues to be very troubling that critics who know all this are STILL doing very, very badly on making all these crucial distinctions that would allow the public to judge what is going on.

Expand full comment
27 more comments...

No posts