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!
That highlighted passage puts the "Spike Recovery" treatments into a different light, doesn't it? On the other hand, I guess it would be hard to sell "Genome Integration" recovery kits even if you weren't trying to direct attention away from the risks of the 'platform.'
I wonder why these authors ignore the works of Katherine Watt (Bailiwick News) and Sasha Latypova (Due diligence and art). Why Tess, and why Jessica are both ignoring them? Peter had interviewed Sasha and his intro about her confirmed everything I sensed about him early on (this is easy sell out guy). Yet he is ignoring her work!
Forget the bit about "can we make it safe" ..which is bizarre
Ask him how any of this trash can induce Mucosal IgA secretory response which is required for you know..a respiratory virus..hint..it cant...but who cares..
I could also make a "what about the problems with no aspirating "..gag..
The misleading distortion of the paper’s inherent message by Dr McCullough, who ought to have known better, passing it off as almost as an apologia (or plug) for mRNA, is certainly disconcerting and damages his credibility.
In their abstract, the authors “propose that the platform [i.e. the mRNA technique itself] may be culpable”, and “inherently unsafe”, regardless of the antigen used. The proposition that future vaccines using the platform might not be harmful is valid only “If harm can be exclusively and conclusively attributed to the spike protein…”. As true scientists, they’re cautious in their statements, perhaps overly so. Yet from personal experience as individuals they know that to overtly condemn “the miracle” leads to censorship and banishment. And no hope of publication.
The paper is more than a year old, and McCullough's post almost as, which makes one wonder why so much attention is being drawn to either now. I for one will not be “boycotting” (cancelling?) either him or the authors of the study, as another substacker bayed for in March.
As I commented in another of your own recent posts, the hunting of orthodoxy among the heretics is a game of diminishing returns, I find. Increasingly.
My attention was drawn to this article, which I had set aside as anomalous, after the recent ad blitz of bird flu fear porn from The Wellness Company. Those ads said Peter McCullough, chief medical officer of TWC, had decided to put tamiflu in their kits. Tamiflu is a phony, scam product that does nothing good and has caused many adverse effects. The evidence of this has been around for a long time, including a Cochrane review report.
There is no excuse for peddling it. TWC first marketed themselves as a company that would help you get off pharma drugs and now they are pushing one of the more egregious examples of worthless drug using fear porn exactly modeled on CDC propaganda. That puts articles about "mRNA vaccine scoping reviews" that indicate mRNA tech is salvageable into an entirely different light. Dr. McCullough also penned an article defending statins. His credibility is nose diving.
This turn of phrase, "the hunting of orthodoxy among the heretics is a game of diminishing returns" is wonderfully thought-provoking. It seems that we, humans, embrace "orthodoxy" or the hunt for it, to our detriment. We want consistency in our gods, be they mystical or physical. As such, when a person who otherwise seems (or seemed) an exemplar of our favored heterodoxy embraces an ostensibly mainstream narrative, it's jarring. (Sam Harris comes to mind!) Anyway, thanks for offering your thoughts. I appreciate the nuances.
I’m not clear on exactly how early the immune system initially learns to recognize self vs. non self. However, it seems pretty effing early. Any transfection of foreign or human proteins not recognized as ‘self’ will result in potential autoimmune issues., even if the ‘self’ is deficient.
"During a September 2023 event at the European Parliament, US cardiologist Peter McCullough claimed that mRNA vaccines have caused a "wave" of severe health effects and called for them to be banned"
Calls to ban them, but still giving tacit support for further testing.
I was blown away reading Denis Noble's descriptions of how the heart's genes behave as a complex whole, with unimaginable redundancy. I had this simplfied picture that eventually we would be able to switch this one on, this one off, crisper another, onwards to a great snd healthy future ;)
And his stating that those trumpeted promises of all the benefits of mapping genomes etc, never materialised, have maybe got bogged down in reductionism.
Regardless of Mccullough's unknowns, and his sidelining of the moral issues etc. this strikes me as more of the same type hubris, seems like it's more deluded reductionism ( ignoring the exponential complexities ) married to the, ubiquitous now, transhuman believe in the march of progress.
What else have we got bogged down in, doing loops, chasing our tail. ( ok that took it too far lol )
It seems we have a divide— those who would conceive that transfection could ever be wise and those who do not.
If we consider the genetic material of a human being to be their ‘book of life’, as Bhakdi has inferred; then— it could be safe if God Himself would do it; since by His power our immune system is given the recognition ‘power’ of all non self antigens when only He could see us in our mother’s womb.
If a mere mortal were to try (again) to transfect human cells ( break through ALL the protective barriers He put at the cell membrane ) I would expect we would find out later; that we do not possess the same power as God; nor His wisdom; nor His loving kindness; nor His mercy. We would validate for ourselves (again) that we are not God.
Very sorry to see dear colleagues go down this mental path. Tess— mistakes were not made — so let’s not make more mistakes with the same mechanisms. Let’s not make more mistakes with the same kind of human pride.
There’s some backstory to this paper. Matthew Halma related that the authors were pressured to revise the language in order to get it published. One of the authors withdrew from the paper under some sort of pressure/duress between the first version and what was eventually published. That line in the abstract you highlighted was very likely part of the language that was added later.
Going off of memory, based on what Halma said in a Q/A I witnessed, but I think when McCullough writes, “The Halma paper points out that safe mRNA products are possible,” this doesn’t really jibe with how the paper started out. It was more purely critical at the outset. The bits that were added to leave open the possibility of “hypothetical safe use of the platform” were done under some pressure to get the paper published. I believe the fourth author was a student that withdrew because of unwanted attention that the paper was garnering.
The Abstract and the Discussion sections are almost schizophrenic. Note the response to Reviewer 1, where the response is “adding a sentence…”; this was the thing I remember Halma being frustrated by.
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
He’s not going to awaken because he’s part of the prepare for the next pandemic crowd. He’s not waking up; he’s practically wearing a mask!
Yes. He was pushing statins the other month.
Today it’s a monoclonal antibody approved under EUA. He just can’t see the evil being perpetrated or the danger inherent in the system
He sees.
NO ….. I don’t know WTF is wrong with them .. sell - outs
That highlighted passage puts the "Spike Recovery" treatments into a different light, doesn't it? On the other hand, I guess it would be hard to sell "Genome Integration" recovery kits even if you weren't trying to direct attention away from the risks of the 'platform.'
Transfections are not fit for humans. To answer your question about safety, no.
Do you follow Sabrina Wallace on Nonvaxer420 channel on Rumble …
They explain science behind it all
All about AI 🤖 regenerative medicine & new darpa security/ digital id / ..
None of it is what these people are actually saying ..
Synthetic biology & transhumasim… the Jabs were step in human evolution
I wonder why these authors ignore the works of Katherine Watt (Bailiwick News) and Sasha Latypova (Due diligence and art). Why Tess, and why Jessica are both ignoring them? Peter had interviewed Sasha and his intro about her confirmed everything I sensed about him early on (this is easy sell out guy). Yet he is ignoring her work!
Peter McCullough...dear god...
Forget the bit about "can we make it safe" ..which is bizarre
Ask him how any of this trash can induce Mucosal IgA secretory response which is required for you know..a respiratory virus..hint..it cant...but who cares..
I could also make a "what about the problems with no aspirating "..gag..
The misleading distortion of the paper’s inherent message by Dr McCullough, who ought to have known better, passing it off as almost as an apologia (or plug) for mRNA, is certainly disconcerting and damages his credibility.
In their abstract, the authors “propose that the platform [i.e. the mRNA technique itself] may be culpable”, and “inherently unsafe”, regardless of the antigen used. The proposition that future vaccines using the platform might not be harmful is valid only “If harm can be exclusively and conclusively attributed to the spike protein…”. As true scientists, they’re cautious in their statements, perhaps overly so. Yet from personal experience as individuals they know that to overtly condemn “the miracle” leads to censorship and banishment. And no hope of publication.
The paper is more than a year old, and McCullough's post almost as, which makes one wonder why so much attention is being drawn to either now. I for one will not be “boycotting” (cancelling?) either him or the authors of the study, as another substacker bayed for in March.
As I commented in another of your own recent posts, the hunting of orthodoxy among the heretics is a game of diminishing returns, I find. Increasingly.
My attention was drawn to this article, which I had set aside as anomalous, after the recent ad blitz of bird flu fear porn from The Wellness Company. Those ads said Peter McCullough, chief medical officer of TWC, had decided to put tamiflu in their kits. Tamiflu is a phony, scam product that does nothing good and has caused many adverse effects. The evidence of this has been around for a long time, including a Cochrane review report.
There is no excuse for peddling it. TWC first marketed themselves as a company that would help you get off pharma drugs and now they are pushing one of the more egregious examples of worthless drug using fear porn exactly modeled on CDC propaganda. That puts articles about "mRNA vaccine scoping reviews" that indicate mRNA tech is salvageable into an entirely different light. Dr. McCullough also penned an article defending statins. His credibility is nose diving.
Thanks - I had mistakenly though the article was April this year rather than a year old. I will amend.
This turn of phrase, "the hunting of orthodoxy among the heretics is a game of diminishing returns" is wonderfully thought-provoking. It seems that we, humans, embrace "orthodoxy" or the hunt for it, to our detriment. We want consistency in our gods, be they mystical or physical. As such, when a person who otherwise seems (or seemed) an exemplar of our favored heterodoxy embraces an ostensibly mainstream narrative, it's jarring. (Sam Harris comes to mind!) Anyway, thanks for offering your thoughts. I appreciate the nuances.
You're welcome.
For new readers or those interested, McCullough published a paper with Stephanie Seneff of MIT in 2022 in the Journal of Neurological Disorders: https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/potential-mechanisms-for-human-genome-integration-of-genetic-code-from-sarscov2-mrna-vaccination-implications-for-diseas.pdf
Potential Mechanisms for Human Genome Integration of Genetic Code from SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination: Implications for Disease
More about Seneff here: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/interview-with-stephanie-seneff-phd
I’m not clear on exactly how early the immune system initially learns to recognize self vs. non self. However, it seems pretty effing early. Any transfection of foreign or human proteins not recognized as ‘self’ will result in potential autoimmune issues., even if the ‘self’ is deficient.
It occurs in utero. Very early.
This article was from April 2023.
"During a September 2023 event at the European Parliament, US cardiologist Peter McCullough claimed that mRNA vaccines have caused a "wave" of severe health effects and called for them to be banned"
Calls to ban them, but still giving tacit support for further testing.
I was blown away reading Denis Noble's descriptions of how the heart's genes behave as a complex whole, with unimaginable redundancy. I had this simplfied picture that eventually we would be able to switch this one on, this one off, crisper another, onwards to a great snd healthy future ;)
And his stating that those trumpeted promises of all the benefits of mapping genomes etc, never materialised, have maybe got bogged down in reductionism.
Regardless of Mccullough's unknowns, and his sidelining of the moral issues etc. this strikes me as more of the same type hubris, seems like it's more deluded reductionism ( ignoring the exponential complexities ) married to the, ubiquitous now, transhuman believe in the march of progress.
What else have we got bogged down in, doing loops, chasing our tail. ( ok that took it too far lol )
It seems we have a divide— those who would conceive that transfection could ever be wise and those who do not.
If we consider the genetic material of a human being to be their ‘book of life’, as Bhakdi has inferred; then— it could be safe if God Himself would do it; since by His power our immune system is given the recognition ‘power’ of all non self antigens when only He could see us in our mother’s womb.
If a mere mortal were to try (again) to transfect human cells ( break through ALL the protective barriers He put at the cell membrane ) I would expect we would find out later; that we do not possess the same power as God; nor His wisdom; nor His loving kindness; nor His mercy. We would validate for ourselves (again) that we are not God.
Very sorry to see dear colleagues go down this mental path. Tess— mistakes were not made — so let’s not make more mistakes with the same mechanisms. Let’s not make more mistakes with the same kind of human pride.
Correct approach. Possibly good products. Possibly safe. Possibly insane.
Hell may possibly freeze over. My money is on Hell.
What the hell does anyone needs this crap for what amounts to a cold.
Russian roulette is possibly fun. (unless one is possibly unlucky)
There’s some backstory to this paper. Matthew Halma related that the authors were pressured to revise the language in order to get it published. One of the authors withdrew from the paper under some sort of pressure/duress between the first version and what was eventually published. That line in the abstract you highlighted was very likely part of the language that was added later.
Interesting. Have you a link to anything about that?
Going off of memory, based on what Halma said in a Q/A I witnessed, but I think when McCullough writes, “The Halma paper points out that safe mRNA products are possible,” this doesn’t really jibe with how the paper started out. It was more purely critical at the outset. The bits that were added to leave open the possibility of “hypothetical safe use of the platform” were done under some pressure to get the paper published. I believe the fourth author was a student that withdrew because of unwanted attention that the paper was garnering.
Nothing handy. It’s been over a year, but I think memory serves. Will try to find something, but it might take a while.
You might find this helpful: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8800/6/2/17/review_report
The Abstract and the Discussion sections are almost schizophrenic. Note the response to Reviewer 1, where the response is “adding a sentence…”; this was the thing I remember Halma being frustrated by.