SV stands for “Simian Virus”, a virus that infects monkeys. Viruses are adept at co-opting our cells’ metabolism, redirecting the native abilities of the cell to ends that benefit only the virus. One of the tricks that SV40 uses is called a promoter. Promoters turn genes on, so they become active.
Background: (Almost) every cell in our body has the same genes. But different cells need different genes at different times. So DNA is modified with a hundred different kinds of bells and whistles that, together, assure that the needed genes are active and the rest are silent at any given time and place.
In laboratory experiments, scientists frequently want to turn on a particular gene for the purpose of learning about it. One of the standard tools that they’ve learned to use is a promoter derived from the SV40 virus. It is a particularly potent way to make sure that a particular gene turns on and stays on. They can insert the SV40 promoter into DNA next to the gene that they want to study, and the gene is reliably active, overriding a lot of other cell signals that might want to suppress expression of that gene.
SV40 promoters are also useful in manufacturing processes. When a drug company wants to make a particular sequence (DNA, RNA or protein), they grow bacteria that have been genetically engineered to have the instructions for that sequence inserted into their bacterial DNA. In order to enhance productivity, the engineers will insert an SV40 promoter next to the gene that they want to be particularly active. Then this GMO bacteria becomes an efficient factory for creating just the drug that the company wants.
| Crash course in the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology
(This is mostly true. Exceptions have been found since Francis Crick articulated the principle in the 1950s.)
Information is stored in chromosomes (DNA) in a four-letter alphabet (A,C,T,G). The shape of an A fits neatly against the shape of a T, and, similarly, a C fits snugly next to a G. So DNA exists as a double helix with every A across from a T and every C across from a G. When DNA replicates, the helix comes unzipped and each strand is able to recreate its opposite number, when all the T’s find A’s, all the A’s find T’s, all the C’s find G’s, and all the G’s find C’s.About 2% of your DNA is genes. A gene contains instructions for making a protein. A protein is also a chain, but instead of 4 different components (“nucleic acids” for DNA), protein chains are made from 20 different components (“amino acids” for proteins). A protein has unique properties depending on the way it folds in on itself. Each of the 20 amino acids has places where it can fit snugly against other amino acids, and typically a protein chain contains hundreds or even thousands of amino acids, and it folds reliably into its own unique shape. The DNA is in the cell nucleus, and at any given time some of the genes are open and ready to be transcribed (“euchromatin”), while most are locked up (“heterochromatin”). There are molecular decorations added to the DNA itself or to the spools (“histones”) around which the DNA is wound . There are also particular ways that the DNA folds — a function of the other 98% of the DNA that is “non-coding”. All this folding and decoration constitutes “epigenetic information”. Epigenetics is the process of choosing which genes are turned on and which are turned off. When a gene is turned on, the DNA opens up and an RNA chain is created next to it. The process is similar but not identical to the pairing A-T and C-G by which the DNA copies itself. After RNA is copied from a gene (then cut and pasted, because most genes are not contiguous) the RNA becomes a “messenger” that leaves the cell nucleus and goes out into the body of the cell. The “m” in mRNA stands for messenger. Messenger RNA finds a protein factory, where the RNA sequence is read and translated. Every 3-letter unit (for example ATT or GCA) calls forth a specific amino acid. The protein factory is called a ribosome, and there are millions of ribosomes in every cell. And thus, a gene made of DNA is translated into a particular protein that has 1/3 as many units as the gene had. The translation table that pairs every three-letter RNA sequence with a particular amino acid is called the “genetic code”. You and I and the platypus and oak tree and the mushroom all use the same translation table, the universal genetic code. Many philosophers of science have waxed eloquent over this discovery — all life on earth is related. |
mRNA vaccines
The way a traditional vaccine works is by offering your body an inactivated virus or maybe just a protein characteristic of that virus. Your immune system identifies the protein as not belonging, and attacks it. Subsequently there is a memory, so that if you’re later infected by that same virus, the immune system is primed to attack the invading protein that it remembers from the vaccine experience.
The way an mRNA “vaccine” works is different. Instead of putting the virus into your arm, instead of putting a protein from the virus into your arm, the “vaccine” rather includes mRNA instructions for making one of the virus’s proteins. The mRNA has to get into one of your body’s cells, where it finds a ribosome and makes that protein. Your immune system then detects that the cell is making a foreign protein and it kills the cell.
Four years ago, when Pfizer and Moderna had completed their clinical trials for mRNA vaccines and wanted to quickly ramp up production, they set up manufacturing processes with bacteria engineered to produce the RNA they needed.
Bacteria were engineered with the DNA sequence corresponding to the RNA sequence that would, in turn, make the spike protein from the virus inside your body. The bacteria are grown in a factory bioreactor, and then the bacteria are processed to isolate and purify just the RNA, in fact, just the RNA that codes for the spike protein. One step in the process is supposed to exclude DNA, but it is never 100% efficient, and, apparently, there were some vaccine batches in which much larger quantities of DNA got through.
Last year, Kevin McKernan (formerly of the Human Genome Project and now at Medicinal Genomics) analyzed the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine samples and first reported that the DNA removal had not been completely effective. Remnants of the DNA used in manufacture were contaminating the vaccines at concerning levels, including the highly toxic SV40 promoter DNA. Florida’s State Surgeon General, Joseph Ladapo, raised concerns about DNA contaminants in mRNA vaccines in a letter to the FDA and CDC in December, 2023.
As McKernan and Weinstein point out, the substitution of a new manufacturing process after the product was safety-tested was highly irregular and, arguably, fraudulent. Biology is complicated and a different manufacturing process means it’s a different drug. There were no DNA residues in the tested version of the vaccines, because they were manufactured using an entirely different process, suitable for the smaller-scale operation. McKernan tells us that when Pfizer disclosed their analysis of the manufactured “vaccines” to FDA, they listed some of the DNA traces, but omitted to mention the SV40 promoter. McKernan thinks this was deliberate.
Normally, our bodies very efficiently destroy DNA that is in the wrong place. Of course, the food we eat includes the DNA from the plant or animal, and it is routinely de-natured in our stomachs and also by enzymes in our blood. Foreign DNA is a problem that our bodies are well-equipped to deal with.
But the mRNA vaccines are designed to evade these degrading enzymes. Their particular technology is only able to work if the mRNA can make its way out of the bloodstream and into the body’s cells. So, by design, the mRNA in the vaccines is encased in a tiny globule of protective fat, called a “lipid nanoparticle”, or LNP. LNP technology not only protects the mRNA from our body’s systems that want to degrade it; the LNP also helps the RNA to slip through cell membranes so it can do the job it was designed to do.
Foreign DNA is normally not a danger to our bodies. But if it is enclosed in a LNP, then it goes right through the cell membrane. Maybe it goes right through the nuclear membrane, too — this has been debated vigorously.
The powerful promoters from the SV40 DNA are a particular problem. If they get into the cell nucleus, they cause their payload to insert into our native DNA with unpredictable results. Whatever gene they are next to becomes hyperactive. It is turned on all the time, whether the cell needs it or not. The cell can become deranged and do things it was not supposed to do.
Cancer
mRNA “vaccines” were a new technology in 2020. They work in a rather different way from other vaccines. Though they have been branded as “vaccines” for public relations, they actually fit the definition of gene therapy, and should have been regulated as such. Regulation of gene therapies is far more stringent than regulation of vaccines.
There is evidence from diverse sources that cancer rates are up, starting late 2021 and continuing through the present. State agencies that normally publish cancer data with a one-year delay are now two years behind in publishing 2022 data. Nationally, CDC also has not yet released 2022 cancer statistics. But innovative researchers are gathering statistics in other ways. The Ethical Skeptic has tracked hospital data and plugged it into his own model to estimate current cancer diagnoses. Ed Dowd tells us that sales of cancer drugs are up, and all-cause mortality is up. Perhaps you know people who have been diagnosed with cancer in the last two years. Some of these cancers develop and spread faster than cancers usually progress — “turbo cancers”. Some rare cancers have become more common.
Today, Australia is holding hearings in which scientists are testifying about their government’s response to the COVID pandemic, which was in lockstep with most other countries of the world. The testimony of Dr McKernan tells the story of increased cancer rates, and raises the question whether this can be attributed to the SV40 promoter being inserted willy-nilly into cellular DNA, turning on genes wherever it happens to insert.
History
In the 1950s, the first polio vaccines were developed using cells derived from monkey kidneys. Some of these vaccines were later discovered to be contaminated with SV40. This has been a scandal and a cover-up over the intervening decades. [ref]
It is not disputed that SV40 is a potent carcinogen in vitro and in lab animals [ref]. There is direct and indirect evidence that SV40 causes cancer in humans [review article]. There also has been a great deal of denial and cover-up [review article] [CDC assurances].
SV40 was weaponized by American (and, presumably, foreign) military researchers. Jack Kruse claims that it was used in assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, and that Jack Ruby was murdered with SV40.
Whether or not SV40 is a reliable enough carcinogen to be used in CIA assassinations is something we are not permitted to know. But the fact that the SV40 promoter poses dangers when it is a contaminant in widely-distributed “vaccine” products is a topic that urgently demands research. The fact that no government agency (and certainly no biotech company) is interested in this research is a legitimate source for suspicion.
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is a 200-year-old morality tale about the boy who learned just enough about a magical technology to turn it on, but didn’t understand enough to use it safely.
Discover more from Josh Mitteldorf
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think you are right about the idea that aging is a programmed response but I hope you are wrong about this! The one undeniable thing that COVID has made clear is the hubris of humanity. It’s not like we weren’t warned that something like COVID would happen if we continued the destruction of our environment. We also seem to forget the Law of Unintended Consequences on our worship of technology. The sad thing is that as a society we don’t seem to have learned anything from the whole sad process. Witness our march towards another epidemic, this time of H5N1 bird flu with up to a 50% mortality rate.
Peter –
It’s my belief that COVID came from a lab, and not from “destruction of the environment.” Of course, I wouldn’t argue with you about destruction of the environment, but the genome of SARS-CoV-2 has signs of being a bioweapon. So it’s a different kind of hubris in my story.
H5N1 will not be a threat to humans unless it is modified in bioweapons research. They are hinting to us that this is their intention.
The fact that a lot of news is devoted to a disease that killed 2 humans so far is concerning.
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/the-fake-bird-flu-h5n1-epizootic
Meanwhile, we have epidemics of obesity and environmental cancers and poverty-related diseases that are causing millions of deaths. Why aren’t these epidemics making the headlines?
All excellent points, Josh.
Hope you had a pleasant holiday and will be having an exceptional New Year.
Perspective on H5N1: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/former-fda-commissioner-david-kessler-bird-flu-fear-what-he-gets-wrong/
Covid had nothing to do with the environment… and we learned a lot! Not to trust the government… there has been a big awakening.
Thank you for your article. I panicked a little and started doing further research on this topic.
I came across this article in the Associated Press that addresses the SV40 in mRNA COVID vaccine phenomenon.
As you say it might be a cover up but this article put me a little at ease and now I will continue to dive deeper.
As always, thank you for your important and eye opening articles!
I generally agree with most of what you have said here, but I worry about scaring people away from gene therapies more than they already are. You are correct that the mRNA and DNA vaccines are basically gene therapies, but I don’t think that means we need to be particularly scared of them.
While a gene therapy can wreak havoc on an individual cell, you generally cannot kill a human by compromising a single (or even a small sampling of) cells. To kill a human you have to either try really hard to break something very specific in a very specific way, or break a huge volume of stuff at the same time. The body (when young and healthy) is incredibly good at dealing with individual cells behaving badly and live viruses cause individual cells to run amuck and are dealt with by a young/healthy immune system just fine.
I think the important question isn’t whether X is correlated with cancer, but rather is X correlated with cancer in young/healthy people? The answer is almost always no, in which case the problem we should be focusing on isn’t “protect ourselves from X” but rather “make bodies be young and healthy”. Once we achieve that, then the body will be able to deal with X just fine.
you’re missing that these “vaccines” / this gene therapy / these bioweapons produce a mobile circulating factory of spike proteins which appear to attack that which appears to be heavily responsible for why those young bodies handle all the illnesses so well – the immune system – whatever compilation of matter, energy, and vibration that ultimately turns out to be composed of. Oh and yes this by design – not by omission or accident. These “vaccines” were also not created by Pfizer or ModRNA – they were created by DARPA, in labs at Fort Derrick, Winnipeg, and Wuhan, amongst others, likely Ukraine (possibly the lesser know Chynna, Ukraine even.
PS — thanks for the well put together (for laymen especially) and well researched article. Jack Kruse can be way out there but more often than not he’s been proven right with his way out there theories. #blackswan
Micah:
Gene therapies are appropriate for people in dire straits, for example with a genetic defect or an incurable cancer. But if you give a gene therapy to literally billions of healthy people, you know that some of them are going to die, and many more people will become sick, who weren’t sick before. In the case of mRNA vaccines, it is clear IMO that many more people were injured by the vaccine than were helped.
VAERS is a CDC/FDA website that takes submissions from doctors who think their patient might have been injured by a vaccine. Submissions to VAERS rose by a hundred fold the month that the mRNA COVID vaccines came out.
VAERS reporting became mandatory with the COVID vaccines.
Motorcycle accident a week after the COVID shot? VAERS.
Data from previous vaccines and COVID vaccines simply cannot be compared.
We had a man in a hospital in his early 40s diagnosed with the last stage of lymphoma He was dead just in 6 month. That guy owned judo, karate school and was instructor himself. Young, healthy guy, had family with two little kids. Cancer can start with uncontrolled division of one cell failed for apoptosis. Epigenetic changes, check points in cell cycle that don’t work,cloning cells.all that lead to cancer. Not just that, of course. In any age.
Josh, yours is one of the only sources of information on these issues I have seen anywhere, so thank you.
I also recommend Dr John Campbell’s channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGIAFr1MsBc – just 12 hours ago a post on exactly this, DNA “vaccines” and the cancer link. There is an alarming rise in multiple organ cancers in Australia, never seen before it reports.
According to the ICD information space diagnostics (this is information from the information field of the Universe) Genes are controlled by the control programs of the Soul of a person. SV 40 are cancer viruses, which, when their number in a cell is 225, cause cancer. Such viruses are easily suppressed by hydrogen-containing substances, for example, water or malic acid, which, according to ICD technology, have an increase in magnetic field strength to 111 111 A/m by information (word) activation. For many years I have been using malic acid informationally activated by me to treat all types of cancer. The treatment is always successful and takes 1-3 days.
Ermakov,
Do you do blood letting/donation?
Where do you think the longevity or healthspan treatments are going?
Oh my
Here’s the FDA response:
https://www.fda.gov/media/174875/download
If there were a carcinogenic contaminant in the vaccines, we would expect to see elevated rare cancers *only* in people who took the vaccine.
We’re not seeing that. We’re seeing slightly elevated rates of rare cancers *for everyone*.
If anything, what the data suggests is simply that COVID is carcinogenic. Which sucks, but is unsurprising – especially given “long COVID”, which seems to involve persistent brain inflammation. Hence, more frequent rare brain cancers. No surprise there.
No, we saw people denied care at the same time to have increased incidence, but those who have been injected are definitely at increased risk.
The other interesting thing that I’ve seen reported is that nicotine counteracts a lot of the binding sites for covid, which is why smokers had better outcomes back in the cov-scam days.
Definitely at increased risk! Wow, great, so I assume you are talking about a study in which there were easily enough participants to satisfy statistical significance, and in which possible confounders were systematically eliminated, and this process was fully documented!
Where can I read about it? What journal was it published in?
Charles you are being obtuse.
You know that cancers can take years to manifest, in a human, and by then a connection to causation can be difficult to definitively pinpoint.
That is why scientists use roundworms and fruit flies
Scientists study roundworms and fruit flies because their short lifespans make it easier to study aging and genetics:
Fruit flies are a popular model for aging studies because their short lifespan allows scientists to quickly track the effects of treatments. Fruit flies also have many cellular aging features similar to humans, and scientists can easily turn genes on and off.
Roundworms are commonly used in aging studies because they have a short average lifespan of two to three weeks. Roundworms are also cheap to maintain, can be frozen and revived, and their transparent bodies make it easy to observe cells. However, their simple bodies limit their use as a model of human physiology and disease.
Everything you’ve said is correct Heather.
However, I’m not trying to be obtuse.
Here’s the thing: everyone reading this likely accepts that double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies are the only way we can really know if a given treatment is effective.
So, if all such studies are thrown out the window, because the journals are “corrupt” in some way, then what?
How do you reconcile distrust in scientific journals with a clear understanding of the scientific method?
Because it seems to me that, as far as the people distrusting the journals, they are not looking for other sources of real scientific certainty. Instead, they are just believing whatever it is that they want to believe.
And in that, I believe they are completely lost. Lost to science, lost to rationality.
Charles wrote:
[“Here’s the thing: everyone reading this likely accepts that double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies are the only way we can really know if a given treatment is effective.”]
Charles: Those type of studies can take years to be conducted properly in humans.
So why would you trust the opinion of someone like Dr. Fauci or even the CDC or FDA. Fauci repeatedly lied to the public, changing his opinions regarding masking and natural immunity, several times.
No large cross-sectional long term studies have yet been conducted on recipients of the COVID-19 therapies. Not having immediate health issues presently does not guarantee none will surface 20 years from now, or adversely affect large swaths of the recipients’ offspring.
There is however a mountain of ever-growing anecdotal evidence from reputable professionals of gene therapy harm.
Also, you quote the Lancet and other medical journals. The Lancet, and Journals such as JAMA and New England Journal of medicine, have long been known to be easily influenced by politics.
Research in general in all its aspects has long been recognized to be influenced by politics. Hence, the rightful reason for distrust.
That is why often opposing credible voices do not speak out strongly. They are typically protecting their careers due to highly financed political influences that crush their voices or threaten to derail their life-long careers.
If you trusted the gene therapy falsely labeled a vaccine. So be it.
Still, no one should ever be forced to accept any medical treatment, vaccine, or therapy.
If a vaccine or therapy is effective, then those who are willing to take it are protected. Period.
The USA is not an Auschwitz camp in which a Dr. Mengele clone gets to force people to submit to medical therapies or vaccines in general.
Side effects from all medical therapies and medications frequently do not surface for many years. Sometimes definitive connections are never recognized.
For example, Diethylstilbestrol (DES). Even though research revealed that DES was not effective in 1953, doctors continued to prescribe it. Then, in 1971, the FDA issued a Drug Bulletin warning physicians that DES caused a rare form of vaginal cancer in girls exposed to DES while in the womb.
Those suffering from complications caused by DES were able to secure a landmark product liability case in 1980. As part of the settlement, the Supreme Court of California ordered all DES manufacturers to pay a settlement proportionate to their share of the drug’s market while it was being sold.
Sadly, humans forced to take the mRNA gene therapy, masquerading as an effective vaccine, or their effected families, will have very limited legal recourse against mRNA or vaccine manufacturers.
Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
A little-known government program provides benefits to people who can prove they suffered serious injury from a vaccine.
That program rarely pays, covering just 29 claims over the last decade.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.
It is very difficult to win a lawsuit against the U.S. government if you have an unfortunate reaction to a forced vaccine? That pertains to both the state and federal levels.
“You can’t easily successfully sue the FDA for approving or disapproving a drug,” said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law. “That’s part of its sovereign immunity.”
The federal government granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their gene therap, or vaccines.
“It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney.
Heather you are assuming that I believe all sorts of things which I do not.
I don’t “believe”. I have instead a best understanding *so far*.
And that is science in a nutshell. When you instead take anecdotal evidence and draw unwarranted conclusions, that’s not science. And – I’m not saying you in particular – but many people who do this are just feeding their egos.
The egoless, correct, scientific approach is to say “I’m not sure, we don’t have the data yet”.
I don’t care one way or another about Fauci, but, I find it bizarre when people confidently call him a liar. To me, the simpler and more obvious explanation that he didn’t *lie*, he just *learned*. Re: masks: Fauci had good reason to think they were useless, because most viruses aren’t transmitted through the air. Then we found out COVID is the rare virus that is. And so then masks make sense.
“Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity”, or, in this case, just not knowing enough.
Similarly with pharma immunity for vaccine injury. So many people treat this as some insidious thing. It’s so simple and dead obvious why this is done, and it’s not even new: look, a pharma company is liable if they market a treatment and they don’t sufficiently warn people about side effects.
For a vaccine, the government is planning to *mandate* this treatment in order to get to herd immunity. *Everyone realizes* there will be vaccine injuries. It’s obvious. So should the pharma company that developed the vaccine be liable for vaccine injuries, when that pharma company has *zero control* over whether people take the vaccine or not?
Obviously not! As a businessman, I wouldn’t accept liability for a treatment that *someone else* is going to force on people. This policy is neither insidious nor new – it’s been there for basically all vaccines, since the 1950s, for this very simple, very easy to understand reason.
All these people watching YouTube videos that refer to pharma immunity for vaccines, and those people bought it due to the ominous background music. Just a moment’s thought and you realize how completely innocuous it is. But no one takes that moment’s thought – as a people, Americans are extremely credulous.
I am not the naive one. Who’s the biggest killer in the USA? The government, especially the FDA. Not because of vaccines, but because they told everyone fat was bad for you, and then subsidized HFCS, creating the obesity epidemic. Then they blocked all research into opioid alternatives, and blocked research into psychedelics as antidepressants, so we’ve got 100k people a year killing themselves with fentanyl. Don’t even get me started on sunscreens, skin permeability of oxybenzone and lack of vitamin D.
The problem is, when you go off and talk about simian viruses in vaccines, it sucks up all the oxygen in the room, and no one can point out the real problems.
Charles wrote: “The egoless, correct, scientific approach is to say “I’m not sure, we don’t have the data yet”.
Have you actually read my post. That is exactly what I am suggesting, as well as others here, the Data is not in yet, and even when it Is a connection may be difficult to impossible to make at this point in scientific ability.
Also, herd immunity can be achieved without mandating a vaccines.
I think anyone mandating a vaccine, knowing that some people may die from that vaccine due to known allergies, or propensity to anaphylactic reaction, in general, or other issues that surfaced early in some vaccinated people, would make a good Medical Soldier in a dictators army.
Heather it seems like everyone seems to keep responding to the wrong comment – this seems endemic here, and perhaps it’s a flaw in the comment system..
Anyway, you asked whether I had read your post. Yes, I did, and I thought that all your points were addressed.
I made it very clear why various degrees of pharma company immunity are a basic requirement for any treatment that the government may later require for certain groups.
I guess I didn’t address the idea of mRNA vaccines as untested gene therapy, but that’s false in both aspects – there’s no nuclear effect, typically a hallmark of “gene therapy”, and of course, it was tested, over decades in various ways, then rapidly before first deployment.
As far as arguing against vaccine mandates – do you understand that both government agencies and private companies have required vaccinations since vaccination was invented? Requiring COVID vaccination for specific employment both wasn’t new, and doesn’t strike me as dictatorial – indeed I think even a libertarian would say “well, if you don’t like it, find another employer or go into business yourself.”
If you want to argue that vaccine injury should be better covered by the government – or by employers that mandate it – hey I’d be with you on that!
However, if you want to understand the *actual* reason for poor help for the vaccine-injured, just look at the all the TikTok videos of people claiming magnetic effects of the vaccine, or claiming ordinary muscle spasms are vaccine-related and all kinds of completely ludicrous BS.
Do you want your taxpayers dollars, or your insurance premium, going to someone who “became magnetic” because of COVID? I don’t.
This is why the standard of proof is very high.
Let’s make this very concrete. I have a friend with long COVID. For her, I feel sure it’s real. She was a lively, bubbly artist, and can barely function now – she puts it as having 2-3 semi-functional hours per waking day.
But there is so much noise with people trying to cash in supposed “vaccine injury” that, of course, she is told it’s depression, it’s CFS, it’s whatever, and she needs to prove otherwise, and she needs to do that through her now-permanent brain-fog and limited financial means.
She won’t win, even with my help.
And it sucks.
I have another friend (78F) who was technically vaccine-injured. She doesn’t regard herself as vaccine-injured, since, she thinks (accurately) that had she actually caught COVID it would have outright killed her – as with all vaccines, your side effects are an attenuated version of the effects of the real vaccine.
Do you want to *actually* help the vaccine-injured? Join me in pushing against the bullshit, whether it’s “I’m magnetic now” or some other evidence-free theory du jour.
Because every time we push some wild new theory, we increase the noise, we make it harder for the *truly* vaccine-injured to find help.
So, whether you trust the Lancet or not, a study published in the Lancet is probably going to find the inflammatory markers for long COVID, and the treatments. *Please do* call out their industry-influenced studies. They do issue retractions and feedback matters.
But in the meantime, if you say the journals can *never* be trusted, you are only amplifying the “I’m a magnet now” people, and you are *actively harming* the vaccine-injured.
Charles Wrote: { “Requiring COVID vaccination for specific employment both wasn’t new, and doesn’t strike me as dictatorial” }
Charles:
The mRNA gene therapy, had the most stringent vaccination mandates ever implemented in the USA. With Covid-19 mandates, many previous traditional vaccine exemptions were imperiously nullified under various suspect circumstances.
Again, Covid-19 therapy, s NOT a traditional vaccine. It was also still in an experimental, not properly vetted stage, when forced on the public. It still is not completely understood.
Some open source medical journals are now coming around to that realization.
Please respect trues science by joining those who are bravely coming forward to question the mRNA gene therapy in all its aspects.
BTW: There is no definitive diagnosis of long covid caused by a Covid-19 infection, alone. Please help your long Covid friends understand that. It could also be a long-term side effect of the mRNA therapy.
Long Covid symptoms are vague: Fatigue, dizziness, tiredness, brain fog, Headaches, Tremor, rapid heartbeat. Those symptoms may be caused by a plethora of other health issues, or it could be attributed to the mRNA therapy alone. Studies are not yet available and may never be.
A long covid diagnosis is a guess arrived at by excluding other possible issues. That method is still not definitive only suggestive.
___________________________________________________________________-
https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282
FROM THE ABOVE LINK: Previous research confirmed profound under-reporting of adverse events, including deaths, after immunization. Consensus is also lacking in the medical community regarding concerns that mRNA vaccines might cause more harm than initially forecasted.
**** French studies suggest that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products *** requiring long-term stringent adverse events monitoring.
Although the desired immunization through vaccination occurs in immune cells, some studies report a broad biodistribution and persistence of mRNA in many organs for weeks.
Batch-dependent heterogeneity in the toxicity of mRNA vaccines was found in Denmark.
***Simultaneous onset of excess mortality and COVID-19 vaccination in Germany provides a safety signal warranting further investigation.***
Despite these concerns, clinical trial data required to further investigate these associations are not shared with the public.
***Autopsies to confirm actual death causes are seldom done.***
Governments may be unable to release their death data with detailed stratification by cause, although this information could help indicate whether COVID-19 infection, indirect effects of containment measures, COVID-19 vaccines or other overlooked factors play an underpinning role.
This absence of detailed cause-of-death data for certain Western nations derives from the time-consuming procedure involved, which entails assembling death certificates, coding diagnoses and adjudicating the underlying origin of death.
Consequently, some nations with restricted resources assigned to this procedure may encounter delays in rendering prompt and punctual cause-of-death data. This situation existed even prior to the outbreak of the pandemic.
In conclusion: excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years, despite the implementation of COVID-19 containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines.
This is unprecedented and raises serious concerns. During the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered, and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same morale should apply.
“Gene therapy” again. If you call mRNA vaccines “gene therapy” because RNA is delivered into cells, then you logically have to call attenuated virus vaccines “gene therapy”. Also RNA interference treatments. I could go on. Whole fields of treatments would now be “gene therapy”.
It’s a preposterously inaccurate way of using the term “gene therapy”, and makes the term useless, which is why there is clear consensus that mRNA vaccines cannot be considered gene therapy. One random researcher with an axe to grind doesn’t change the consensus.
Using the term “gene therapy” inaccurately is a hyperbolic scare tactic.
And you have again cited a bunch of data of which I am already aware and which do not contradict anything that I have said. I have explained multiple times now how excess deaths are perfectly explained by our existing knowledge. If we simply assume the spike protein is somewhat toxic, and so the vaccine was slightly toxic *for that reason*, then all the data fall into line, and we have just the ordinary situation: some degree of vaccine injury is expected, but it’s far better than letting the virus run rampant.
There is no data that suggests anything other than this ordinary scenario. There is no reason to go looking for exotic theories.
As physicians say: where you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
I suggest you take all the data you have, and whatever your pet theory is, and what I have explained about simple reasons for excess deaths, paste it all into ChatGPT, and ask it to explain where you have made unwarranted logical leaps, why the consensus theory is still the best fit to all available data, etc.
I do this kind of thing all the time, and it is very useful to refine one’s thinking.
Make sure to include my (repeated) explanation for why the data you think is being hidden cannot be used for the purpose you want to use it for. Because you continue to treat the absence of that data as nefarious, ignoring the very simple explanation for this.
It’s great, because ChatGPT will happily explain the same thing 4 times over, but I’ve hit my repetition limit.
Follow Ed Dowd. All those people with health care/jobs (and healthy before) were largely injected and now are on “disability” or worse.
We have the data.
I love the reference to “journals” as if Lancet and other propaganda outlets are legit anymore. I bet you trust the CDC too, Charles.
Your understanding of probability and studies is lacking. The whole point of studying a treatment is to see if it increases incidence of adverse effect X, Y or Z compared to others. Not that something ONLY happens, so you can manipulate the data in your mind. The reason why this is important is because people could have received differing levels of toxicity in the shots, placebos, etc. That’s why we follow the entirety of the groups, treatment and control groups.
Hey there Palamas, looks like you inadvertently replied to the article as a whole rather than my comment, but don’t worry, it’s clear what you were reacting to, since you used my name.
I do read a number of scientific journals, e.g., Nature, Cell and of course, the Lancet.
Studies published in the Lancet are, generally speaking, consistent with studies published in other journals; there are corrections (because that’s just science) but overall, it’s cohesive.
So, I’m not really sure what you’re saying. When you mistrust the Lancet, are you saying there is a global cabal of scientists who are publishing results that are falsely consistent?
Because I’ve seen similar claims of scientific fraud a number of times (notably in regards to climate modelling) and I just can’t get my head around it: who is paying them? Why is there no single scientist willing to win a Nobel prize by publishing real data?
Is any such scientist being secretly murdered? If so, how is it that journalists across the globe are unable to tell this story, despite the lure of a Pulitzer for uncovering it? Are they in on it too?
How does it all work? I’m baffled.
Charles – Of course, there are a lot of things that the scientific community gets right. Nevertheless, there are areas in which the whole field of science, medicine, reporters, and the Nobel Prize committee have all been corrupted. Pharmaceutical science is in a class by itself, and vaccine science is the worst subclass of the worst class. I didn’t come to this view lightly, and all of us who came to know the depth of corruption in government and medicine have paid a high price for our beliefs, both personally and professionally. I wrote more about this in this week’s Substack. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/when-the-cult-is-the-majority
The FDA shut down another vaccine trial due to Vaccine Associated Enhanced Respiratory Disease (VAERD). This was the mRNA RSV vaccine in infants and toddlers. Not only did it not work, it had a more than double increase of serious RSV cases (15.4% for vaccine vs. 5% for the placebo), and 26.5% went on to severe RSV vs. 8.3% in the placebo group. https://www.fda.gov/media/184301/download
Charles, you haven’t figured this out yet? It’s not a coincidence that Ioannides called it out long before covid, then was one of the few people who also go the covscam right. The organizational structures that fund almost ALL of these institutions are what call the shots. This is proven. I could give you a huge list that Michael Shellenberger has pointed out with NGOs and “climate change”, also WHO connections, etc. There are tons and they are nearly all corrupted. There are no “conservatives” in academia any longer, just by chance, right? I’m laughing out loud that you haven’t figured this out. I hope you haven’t thought about it as the excuse, because otherwise it’s quite sad. It’s plain as day at this point.
Josh is one of the few that saw this whole, sad story clearly from early on as I did. We have been totally vindicated.
Sorry, you’re not providing any kind of data or argument here, you’re just re-asserting that you’re right.
We’re seeing an increased incidence of certain rare cancers, and perhaps myocarditis. Because these conditions remain rare, you would need quite a lot of data before you could show that these increases are only amongst the vaccinated.
If these rare conditions happen significantly more often amongst the vaccinated, you would have a case.
However, be careful: many more unvaccinated died of COVID than vaccinated did. This creates what’s called “unhealthy user bias” in the vaccinated group, that is, there are a lot of people in the vaccinated group who would have died of COVID had they not gotten the vaccine.
This means the vaccinated are older, more often diabetic, more often hypertensive, more often immunocompromised, etc. You would expect more of the vaccinated to be dying in general, because the corresponding risk pools among the unvaccinated are already dead.
Then further, if exposure to the spike protein causes an uptick in certain rare cancers, you would expect more cases in the vaccinated group. This is because there are a number of people in the unvaccinated group who would have developed one of these rare cancers if vaccinated, but instead they are just dead.
Basically, if you naively compare the two groups you’d be committing a basic mistake that comes up a lot in epidemiological science. I highly recommend the series “Studying Studies” (by Peter Attia) as a way of learning about these kinds of mistakes.
If you don’t take this into account, you just get the result that you want instead of what’s real.
Finally, gratuitous rudeness and self-congratulation seems to be extremely common among “skeptics”. This clearly indicates that you have cherished beliefs in this area, instead of a scientific “best understanding so far”. This makes a person very very vulnerable to confirmation bias.
Where are the comparative cohort groups? The best comparative cohort group was the Phase 3 trial groups. Only they got destroyed (as a cohort group) a year after the Phase 3 trial, by vaccinating the placebo group for humanitarian reasons.
There is robust correlation data between severity of COVID disease and Vitamin D3 blood levels. Was that taken into account? (or the lupus subgroup already taking hydroxcloroquinine as a maintenance drug, for example.)
The best available cohort group for comparison would be the Jassen (J&J) vaccine group. Do they show the level of excess death (and morbidity) level as the mRNA vaccines? Such comments on studies I’ve seen so far, don’t show an increase of excess death in the Jassen group. (Both vaccines were available during the same period, I know of no sorting by pre-existing conditions for vaccine selection, only availability.
Finally, consider the question of the age effect on COVID deaths. In below 45 age brackets, COVID deaths were very low, even among those who got the disease without the vaccine. Therefore they most likely would not be anti-selected via death. Is the excess death and morbidity showing an increase in this group? (Can you back calculate the death differential between groups, and show that the differential would account for the difference in question?)
Hi George, you’re quite right that the placebo cohorts from the original clinical safety trials are unusable. Consider, everyone who signed up for those trials was willing to receive the experimental vaccine. When they found out they got the placebo I assume most of them tried hard to get the real vaccine.
If the hypothesis is that the mRNA delivery mechanism itself is toxic (and not the spike protein) then I guess you would look at the Sinovac group, for example, since that was a classic “killed virus” vaccine.
If the spike protein is toxic, well, we’re all (very mildly) screwed, since even killed-virus vaccines involved exposure to the spike protein, and also, I would guess that by now, just about every unvaccinated person has now likely had either symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID.
As I was discussing in another series of replies with Josh, this is going to be a PITA to determine definitively. You’re looking for a tiny additional number of deaths relative to background, and your assumptions about the background rate can easily swamp the tiny signal that might be there.
However the rare cancers are rare enough that maybe we will have enough data for a signal in the next few years.
If I had to bet, I expect a null result, that is, we won’t find a statistically significant relative increase in rare cancers across different subgroups, whether the subgroups are vaxxed vs unvaxxed, or are based on which flavor of vaccine was taken.
Then we will all be left scratching our heads over whether it’s the spike protein or some other global environmental exposure (microplastics?).
Meanwhile I take what is considered “high dose” D3 every day, along with multiple forms of K, which is one of the rare, truly proven supplements.
I don’t bet on such things. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. No better, and no worse that the other opinions. The underlying question is – what are the LONG TERM effects of the COVID 19 vaccines? Not a few weeks or few months after initial vaccination.
Oh, I agree. The right attitude is: this my understanding *so far*.
People who profess certainty when the data are ambiguous generally should not be listened to.
However, with the metaphor of *being forced to place a bet*, we can share our intuitions, without projecting false certainty.
>>However, be careful: many more unvaccinated died of COVID than vaccinated did.
This is provably false. Even if it were true that the vaccine protected people from severe disease and death (I think it did only for a few weeks), this statement would be false. The reason is that in the countries hardest hit by COVID, the oldest segment of the population had a very high rate of vaccination and also a very high rate of death. I wrote about this 15 months ago, analyzing British data from the Office of National Statistics. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/im-not-going-to-write-about-the-british This was the only data we had that compared health outcomes by vaccination status.
According to the British data, trends in rates of disease and death for the vaccinated and unvaccinated were crossing, so that even taking denominators into account, the vaccinated were at higher risk. Then ONS stopped publishing this data. I found this suspicious.
UK ONS, CDC, various other foreign orgs all show increased ACM for unvaccinated vs vaccinated people shortly after vaccines were introduced.
Realize that this means the vaccine was safe and effective enough to overwhelm a *major* unhealthy user bias. That is, the people who were authorized to get the vaccine first, and who sought it out in larger numbers once it was widely available, were precisely those more likely die whether they got COVID or not.
Just to exaggerate this a little bit so you can see how large this effect is: imagine a group of elderly diabetics with hypertension get the vaccine, and you compare their rate of death to bunch of unvaccinated healthy young people who are unvaccinated, so might get COVID.
If the vaccine were 100% safe, 100% effective and 100% side-effect-free, you will still expect less deaths among the unvaccinated group in this example.
You simply cannot draw any conclusion from the raw death counts. It’s folly. You have to compensate for the healthy user bias, or any conclusion you draw is inherently worthless.
For the same reason, you would expect ACM trend lines between the vaccinated and unvaccinated to cross at roughly herd immunity. At that point, almost all of the remaining unvaccinated people – that is, the ones not killed by COVID – came in contact with the virus and were strong enough to survive the virus even though not vaccinated.
Meanwhile, in the vaccinated group, there are many people still alive only because they received the vaccine – COVID would have killed them otherwise.
To put that as succinctly as I can: at some point, things *pretty much* drop back to the normal background death rate. At that point, if you compare ACM in the vaccinated to the unvaccinated, you are just comparing the relatively weak to the relatively strong.
Which is also likely why UK ONS stopped publishing this data. It’s some combination of “mission accomplished” and “even if we publish this data with a 50pt blinking red message about healthy user bias right over it, people are still going to clip that out and claim that ONS stats say that the vaccine is dangerous, so let’s just not”.
So.. elsewhere you’ve linked me to your article “When the majority is the cult”, in which you make the case that the majority is brainwashed and unreceptive to new data.
I think you’re actually right in some cases that the majority is the cult. For example, my current read is that aging is at least partially programmed (it’s not *just* damage), and also “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” was quite illuminating. Not following you on 9/11 as an inside job, though..
Regardless, can you stand behind your words about the cult-like tendency to ignore data that contradicts existing beliefs, and re-examine your conclusions with healthy user bias in mind?
Please, send me the data from CDC and other nations that you’re talking about. I’ve been on the lookout for such data, eager to analyze it. AFAIK, only ONS released data by vaccination status, and in the article I linked, I describe my reasons for believing that data has been doctored. (1) The history changed as time went on. Reminds me of Winston Smith. (2) When the data looked really bad for the vaccinated, they stopped publishing it.
The big picture: This is not a vaccine by the old definition, but a whole new technology, released to the public with no long-term testing. And the public was pressured to take it, even though there was no liability claim for those whom the vaccine injured or killed. Perhaps you’ve seen the VAERS data — that reports by doctors of “adverse events” in their patients shot up by a factor of 100 the month that the mRNA shots came out, and those adverse event reports only came down when people stopped taking boosters. https://openvaers.com/
Take a look at the Pfizer Papers. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Pfizer_Papers/0jzkEAAAQBAJ
It’s not hard to find. Is there something wrong with this data, in your view?
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm
Bigger picture, I have just explained that raw ACM data would be useless without compensating for healthy user bias.
Anyone publishing any conclusions around the raw data without that analysis would be either incompetent or actively seeking to mislead. And this is not subtle. With what I’ve said above, I have made it clear, even to a layperson, in just a few sentences.
In addition, literally just a week ago, you talked about VAERS data another time, and I replied with the following context:
—
VAERS reporting became mandatory with the COVID vaccines.
Motorcycle accident a week after the COVID shot? VAERS.
Data from previous vaccines and COVID vaccines simply cannot be compared.
—
Yet you are re-asserting the same VAERS claim here. Surely you understand it is totally invalid? Why would you re-assert such a clearly invalid claim?
Overall, Josh, this is very worrisome. You analysis on programmed aging and the gaps in modern aging science has been very astute. But in this area, it seems to me that I’m seeing obvious missteps, and I don’t understand what has changed.
The article that you linked (1) is >3 years old, when the vaccines were in their initial phase of a few weeks of positive benefit (2) Is not peer-reviewed, and doesn’t link to data sources (3) Doesn’t separate people by vaccination status — even though we know this data is available to CDC. Don’t you find it suspicious that MMWR publishes their conclusions in a non-peer-reviewed format, where they don’t have to upload the data for independent analysis? Here’s what I wrote about that subject in 2021. https://osf.io/a8w4z
I’m not suspicious, nor am I surprised, because any competent scientist knows that the raw data is *useless* for the purpose you mean to put it to.
Just really think through the steps here Josh: you’d be trying to find a teeny tiny signal – something like 10 additional deaths per million per year, relative to background – in two populations where you have to make tons of assumptions just to try to model the background death rate.
Think through the assumptions you will need to make to compensate for healthy user bias, like: “ok, we’re going to assuming double the number of cases of undiagnosed pre-diabetes in the vaccinated group..”
But it would also be defensible to use triple, or to use 1.5x. And *just that one assumption* swamps the signal you’re looking for.
You could produce 10 sets of defensible assumptions, and get 10 different results, and they would all be utterly meaningless.
The way to actually address the safety question is the way they actually did it: run a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on a population with full health workups, where the cohorts have been matched as closely as possible so that little to no statistical adjustment is required.
And that’s how they correctly found a rare myocarditis effect, and a rare blood clotting affect – both of which are effects of actual COVID infection, since the COVID vaccines, like basically all vaccines, produce an attenuated version of the effects of an actual infection.
That’s how the to understand this study and the way it was published. All the authors understand that the safety profile was already correctly determined by the clinical trials. This study is likely somewhere between belt-and-suspenders (as in, might as well run the data to cover the 0.000001% chance that the clinical trials missed something) and PR campaign (people are using the data wrongly and this needs to be done to correct it).
So, no one is hiding something here Josh, it’s just that the data you seek cannot be used to answer the question you’re posing.
“imagine a group of elderly diabetics with hypertension get the vaccine, and you compare their rate of death to bunch of unvaccinated healthy young people who are unvaccinated, so might get COVID.” – young people have much more social contacts than elderly, thus have much more opportuninty to catch a diesease via such social contacts: parties, playing sports together, going to school, concerts, friends meating in public places etc. Retirees spending time at home are less likely to catch a virus.
You’ve missed the point Tom – I’m talking about normalizing the background death rate.
The point is: even if every single one of the young people caught the virus, and not one single elderly person caught it, you’d *still* expect more deaths in the elderly group, because the background death rate is so much higher in such a group.
And this is why it’s meaningless to try to compare # of deaths in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. To do that, you have to model the background death rates of both groups, and that involves all kinds of guesses, and the guesses you make easily overwhelm the small signal you’re looking for.
Charles, you are the one undergoing the confirmation bias. Everything about the rollout, the immunity, the printing of money to reward friends of the administration and FDA, this is all basic human thinking and deduction that you would employ for literally any other topic in your life, but because you either took the injection or are a political tribalist, you don’t want to use critical thinking.
As Josh says,
“The big picture: This is not a vaccine by the old definition, but a whole new technology, released to the public with no long-term testing.”
That was always the case. They lied about it working, they lied about it being safe, they lied about the unvaccinated being at higher risk (remember the White House press release trying to demonize those who decided not to take it and how it said they’d die that winter? I haven’t forgotten – you do all you can to ignore their lies, though)?
They even pushed the injection on children!
To not admit everything about this was a scam with indifference for life (at best) is just complete dishonesty. We all know what happened. It’s time to repent and ask for forgiveness, which still most of you haven’t done. It’s sick.
As yes, this is such a familiar step in the argument, I could draw a flowchart..
When pressed for specific evidence, since you don’t have any, you just state that it’s all so obvious that you don’t need to present any evidence.
Then you double-down on insults.
Well, I’m not going to “repent” (as you put it) of my evidence-based, well-informed understanding.
I can be convinced by evidence, but you can’t, so goodbye.
My entire first paragraph is literally recorded history and evidence. The declassified information on DARPA and EcoHealth about what was done with GoF is also public knowledge at this point. The mRNA therapy was not tested for any amount of time like other “vaccines” (fact), has DNA contamination and pro-cancer manipulations (fact), and is in a lipid nanoparticle to get into cells, which is why it’s worse than any other “treatment” and causes cancer incidence to relatively skyrocket. Pfizer and the NIH even knew this. What else did they lie about? It would supposedly stay localized (in shoulder musculature) and not spread systemically. Wrong, another lie, it went to multiple organs and even the gonads.
Everything about the story was a lie. These are facts, evidence, and data. Don’t talk to me about what is convincing, you are ignoring obvious realities, and it’s likely due to emotional reasons. It’s not my fault you took the “therapy”, my friend. But it is time to come clean so that we can fix what happened and never allow such civic and freedom abuses ever again, and protect patients, which is the point – not harm them.
Josh, happy holidays and happy new year to you and your family! Thank you for all!.