Could transfecting mRNA products ever be safe? Peter McCullough thinks they could.
I don't agree.
ExcessDeathsAU made me aware of the below substack (thank you), in which Dr McCullough cites a “scoping review” written by Mathew Hamla, Theresa Lawrie (both of EBMC Squared CIC1) and Jessica Rose (independent researcher).
This is the message Dr McCullough wanted to covey:
The Halma paper points out that safe mRNA products are possible. For example, properly designed mRNA coding for normal proteins that are deficient or ones that are sufficiently humanized and not recognized by the body as foreign could indeed become part of the future pharmacopeia.
If you dig into the paper, it’s a real curate’s egg2.
The history of the development of this platform is useful and interesting, and in the discussion the authors state (correctly in my view) that:
The key to the reactivity of mRNA vaccines is the fact that they express a foreign antigen, for which the antigen-presenting cells are marked for destruction.
Indeed, I cannot see how a platform which:
instructs the body’s cells to express a foreign protein3
for an indeterminate duration
in unpredictable and highly variable quanitities
throughout potentially every organ systm
..could ever be deemed safe, let alone effective.
It was, therefore, with much surprise that I saw the abstract gives a rather different flavour, and remember, most people ONLY READ THE ABSTRACT:
I accept that the abstract ALSO fingers the plaform itself as possibly culpable. I do not, therefore, understand at all why the highlighted sentence is included.
Taken in its totality, isn’t this abstract basically saying:
If we can identify and eliminate all the things which make something unsafe it might become safe?
But isn’t that a bit facile, as it would apply to everything?
Isn’t the point here the fact that transfection was never a good idea, and also that in any event fixing the “mistakes” found is basically just tinkering around the edges?
These observations of mine, made about the covid mRNA injections, would seem to apply to the platform more generally:
(Updated 23 May 2024 at 23.00 UK time to remove “new” from the opening sentence as I had mistakenly thought the scoping review was from April 2024 when in fact it was from April 2023.)
And of World Council for Health.
British colloquialism for “good and bad in parts”.
Not being an MD or an immunologist, or really ANYTHING that could be mistaken for some type of expert in this field, I generally defer to folks like you, Jonathan. That said, the Great Covid Debacle appears to be the gift that keeps on giving. Peter's apparent stance, that "the mRNA delivery method could be made safe and effective, if we made it safe and effective," strikes me as yet another case of the do-it-harder-for-better-results paradigm employed by so many of those who carried water for the narrative.
Masks didn't work? Mask harder.
Social distancing didn't work? We did it wrong.
Closing schools didn't work? We didn't close them soon enough, or something.
Mandating vaccines didn't result in herd immunity? Just a little tweak will fix it!
The mind reels.
I understand that the mRNA "technology" is novel and thrilling. As an engineer, I sincerely do. I am also well aware of that old saying about how every problem looks like a nail when you only have a hammer. Evidently, mRNA technology is the hammer we need!
He hasn’t awakened. He’s just aware that these particular jabs are dangerous. He still believes that medicine means well