The Bioweapon was ingenious… slow kill with various mechanisms to maim and kill. Individual responses are multi factorial , each one of us are uniquely made . I believe the contents of each vial and circumstances given at the time of the jab , are additional variables.
I am suspicious that the professional and highly respected doctor/mathematician/researchers need to be careful about what and how they say things. Staying credible and not being sued by self sensoring. Thank God for Unacceptable Jessica. Competency allows for more transparency.
I view the (vaxx, or maybe spike) bioweapon as a hunter-killer, or maybe an assassin.
It seems to home on and attack the individual's weakness. It looks at the hearts of 30% of young healthy Thai males, but only 3% get (clinical) myocarditis. Turbo-cancer comes to those with that potential, autoimmune conditions to those with propensity, Covid M&M to Vit. D deficient subjects, etc., with, for your interest, a particular effect on pregnant and fertile women.
Ivermectin is interesting as it also has a multi-mechanism effect on reducing the spike damage.
With our slowly increasing knowledge of spike protein pathophysiology, now being exposed from Ralph Baric's labwork and the SARS and MERS trial runs, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that any of this was fortuitous.
I think the analogy is quite illustrative of your question. I even laughed because it was also humorous, besides I was ignorant of speed dating bars so now I have an inkling of that too; but what do I know? I am now a happy trad wife ( I used to be a doctors’s wife and biomedical research librarian, but certain BMJ articles and a certain former JAMA editor certainly made me question much, read much; my work at a certain St, Louis based now solely biotech company also contributed to my skepticism as I witnessed outright purposeful obfuscation of many things scientific as well as large financial transactions for the purpose of beneficial legislation). So now I make frugal frau videos with my redneck husband, on our homestead in palookaville NE VT, while growing my own food etc. I am much more financially poorer, however my life is much richer. The entire C19 debacle reawakened my entire interest in biochemistry so now I am self educating by reading your’s and th3 substacks of others like Arkmedic, because I want to understand this entire subject. The hubris to just gloss over all of this by the pharmaceutical companies and regulators is astounding. Unfortunately it still leads to dark conclusions about motives; motives which go far beyond financial gain. Keep these coming.
As for the question posed by U.J. the answer, even if it were correct, might not afford any real help for those who have defiled their systems with such a bio-tech weapon. Understanding the mechanics behind the bio-poison is a step forward toward an antidote but a dubious and small step indeed in my opinion. The reason for that position taken is due to the amazing complexity of the human anatomy. Once a foreign substance that has been formulated to remain within the structure of the cell in order to cause dysfunction has been introduced, trying to negate symptoms caused might probably be too little, too late.
If the fuel and oil of a formula one car is sabotaged, when the damage has been discovered, it is way too late in the race to recover. Humankind is a million more times complex than any F-1 machine! And so, presumption remains that even if the fuel of that targeted car were discovered tainted, the fact that the OIL (its life-blood) might not be suspect, and thereby would doom it in the next race.
Changing out a person's blood is a bit more entailed than the oil of a vehicle, but the point is made.
As a "fundamentalist" Christian, I have an unanswered Q which doubtful will ever be attended to: I'm almost 68 and noticed that the hair on my arms is longer than what I think normal. Then the thought came to me about that: What is the genetic mechanism which causes some hairs positioned for example on the eye-lids to not grow at all, while on ones head, they grow prolifically? The cells which make up the hair itself are not methodically replaced regularly, such as those within, being fed by biologic systems. The hairs on my finger-tops stays a certain length like eye-lashes. Eyebrow hairs grow (sometimes) and nose hairs seem to never stop growing! How can this be? A rhetorical question for all who are trusting in Creation, but for those who look elsewhere, I wonder how the question is dealt with, since nearly EVERYONE'S head hair grows quite rapidly and regularly (pre-40, anyway)!
Well, I'd better post this before a potential "brown out" wipes the slate clean!
Yeah, as a 68.5 y/o Christian female, the nose hair question is interesting. Just another humorous detail which our Creator, added to give us another thing about which to joke as we age. We are fearfully and wonderfully made and I believe more and more that we are provided with all we need to live extremely healthy lives. We just have to avoid the hubritic ( I just made that word up, turning hubris into an adjective), creations of man.
The whole rollout of the mRNA products looks like it was a crap shoot at best. Even if the various steps taken to ensure that an “immune response” would transpire as hoped had worked wonderfully, there was never even any evidence gathered regarding the effect this would have on recipients’ overall health, not to mention the effect of receiving repeat jabs periodically. Then they unblinded the control group, arguing that this was the ethical thing to do.
Looks to me like the charge of experimenting on human subjects may be valid.
... among other things missing / regulatory breaches. Which sorta kinda begs the question how and why these novel injectable products ever achieved Emergency Use Authorization as “vaccines” in the first place...
Oh wait, I think I have the answer! Stop press!
The Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex has bought the entities formerly known as “Health Authorities”.
No, of course not: you don't go into problems you know you're going to see. Will post my final part of the most extensive substack project in 7 parts today :-S Jees! What a freak show.
Great analogy. My thoughts are that some APCs will get transfected and destroyed for sure, but more tissue cells become transfected with the LNPs than APCs. This makes the bigger threat the billions and billions of the proteins created by cells vs. the injected LNPs. The APCs that did not get transfected and destroyed will break these proteins into smaller peptides, and those smaller peptides are what get displayed to the T-cells of the immune system. So, effectively many T-cells might not get to experience the whole spike protein. But B-cells can and do get to experience the whole thing.
The T-cells and B-cells are indeed like the girls in the speed dating bar that are constantly milling about. The T-cell girls are very picky and are sampling the junk presented to them by the APC dudes that are also milling about, and the creepy APC dudes that are permanently seated and never move. The B-cell girls aren’t so picky and can immediately attach to whatever comes into the bar, including the whole spike protein that got made and released by tissue cells. This autoactivates the B-cells to create suboptimal antibodies against the proteins that were created from what was injected, not against what is constantly mutating. So, when the real dude enters the bar, the girls just ignore him.
The creepy APC dudes that never move are especially dangerous. They are called follicular dendritic cells because they were formed from the embryonic tissue when the speed dating bar was made. They do not mill around. They are permanently seated at the bar. They do not phagocytize and display smaller junk to T-cells. They come into play long after the infection started, and the suboptimal reactive antibodies got made by the over excited B-cell girls. They attach to the suboptimal antibody that is holding the antigen protein, called the antigen antibody complex, and hold onto it for a very long time without being phagocytized so the girls in the bar can continue to experience and remember the wrong dude created from the injection. And the real dude never gets picked up.
May I lead to another issue which is directly consequence of this crappy LNPs?:
In the APC slide, which is absolutely ingenious in principle and breaks down the TLRs/PRRs beautifully (even if there are of course a “few more” RIG-1-Like, NLR, CLR, etc., etc., etc.), there is a fundamental error: there is no endocytosis via receptor binding, but the LNPs crash directly into the membrane and destroy any flow weight between the plasma membrane and membrane-bound receptors.
Next they disrupt the whole endosomal regulation even before it comes to escape.
That's why I think the whole concept of antigen presentation is already disturbed in such a diffuse way that you can only get scared. Overexpressed PD-L1 is not a good sign that cell death is still functioning.
Trial by Jury – The Case of the Missing Corona ‘Virus’
[The camera zooms in on the courtroom packed with reporters, their pens poised. The aspiring viroLIEgist sits nervously at the witness stand, fidgeting with a stack of lab notes. Across from him stands the sharp-dressed attorney, Mr. Rigorous, known for his devastating cross-examinations. Behind him, the jury watches intently]
Judge: [Hammering the gavel] Order in the court! Mr. Rigorous, you may proceed with your cross-examination.
Mr. Rigorous: [Grinning] Thank you, Your Honor. [He approaches the viroLIEgist.] Dr. Specimen, you claim to have isolated a novel corona virus, is that correct?
Dr. Specimen: [Squirming] Uh, yes, yes. We have a robust methodology –
Mr. Rigorous: [Interrupting] Robust, you say? [He winks at the jury.] Let’s start at the beginning. Did you, at any point, isolate and purify this so-called “virus” directly from the fluids of a sick patient?
Dr. Specimen: [Squirming] Well, not exactly. You see, direct purification from fluids is unnecessary because –
Mr. Rigorous: [Leaning in, eyebrows raised] Unnecessary? I see. What you’re telling us is that you skipped the part where you would actually prove there’s a virus in the patient’s mucus?
Dr. Specimen: [Flustered] We used a well-established protocol. Instead, we combined the
patient’s mucus with a monkey kidney cell culture, starved it, and –
Mr. Rigorous: [Interrupting with mock concern] Oh, so you took a patient’s mucus, mixed it with cells from an entirely different species, starved those cells, poisoned them with toxic chemicals, antibiotics, and, what was it again, fetal bovine serum?
Dr. Specimen: Well, yes, that’s standard –
Mr. Rigorous: [Grinning] “Standard.” So, after this biological disaster, when the cells inevitably broke down and died, you claimed that was evidence of a virus?
Dr. Specimen: [Getting defensive] Yes! The cytopathic effect is what –
Mr. Rigorous: [Smirking] Cytopathic effect! Ah, the mysterious code for “we poisoned cells and
watched them die.” Tell me, Dr. Specimen, what proof do you have that the breakdown of these poisoned, malnourished cells was caused by a virus rather than, say… the toxic soup you created?
Dr. Specimen: [Stammering] Well, it’s what the literature says and, um… everyone knows –
Mr. Rigorous: [Cutting in] “Everyone knows?” [He gestures dramatically to the jury.] I believe
this court would prefer evidence over gossip, Doctor. Now, let’s talk about the genome you supposedly ‘discovered.’ You took this toxic brew, fed it into a machine, and then used some software to assemble genetic pieces, correct?
Dr. Specimen: Yes, yes, we sequenced the genome –
Mr. Rigorous: [Raising his voice] Ah, sequenced! You mean the software took fragments and tried to fit them together, like a biological jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces?
Dr. Specimen: [Defensively] It’s highly sophisticated software!
Mr. Rigorous: [Sarcastically] Sophisticated? Doctor, if I fed a pile of shredded newspaper into that machine, would it also “reconstruct” War and Peace?
[The jury chuckles. Dr. Specimen looks increasingly uncomfortable]
Dr. Specimen: [Panicking] No, no! It’s different. This is how we create the viral genome.
Mr. Rigorous: [Slyly] Create, you say? So, we’re not finding a virus – we’re creating one?
Interesting choice of words, Doctor. Now, did you ever attempt to prove that this Frankenstein creation could naturally infect a healthy host?
Dr. Specimen: [Squirming] Well, no. We injected lab animals with the toxic cell culture, and when they got sick –
Mr. Rigorous: [Mocking] Sick from your toxic brew? And that, Doctor, is what you call “evidence” of transmission? You didn’t try something simple, like, I don’t know, letting the sick patient sneeze on a healthy person?
Dr. Specimen: [Flustered] Natural transmission doesn’t work well in the lab! It’s much cleaner to inject -
Mr. Rigorous: [Interrupting] Cleaner? Cleaner to torture animals with direct injections of this toxic sludge you call a “virus”? [He lets the words hang in the air.] Doctor, do you have any explanation for why you skipped natural transmission altogether, or is it because – oh, I don’t know – it never works?
[The courtroom erupts with murmurs. Dr. Specimen is visibly sweating]
Mr. Rigorous: [Turning to the jury] Ladies and gentlemen, this man would have you believe that by starving cells, poisoning them, and injecting that toxic concoction into helpless animals, he’s “proving” a virus exists. All without ever isolating or purifying anything! Is this science… or sleight of hand?
[He paces dramatically, letting the tension build]
Mr. Rigorous: One last thing, Doctor. After injecting animals with this ‘viral’ brew, did you ever attempt to purify the “virus” again from those animals to confirm it was there?
Dr. Specimen: [Almost whispering] No…
Mr. Rigorous: [Leaning in] No? You never bothered to re-isolate the virus, because that would expose the fact it wasn’t there in the first place, wouldn’t it?
[Dr. Specimen is completely defeated, sinking lower in his seat]
Mr. Rigorous: [Addressing the jury] Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. We are dealing with
scientific fraud on a monumental scale, a fraud that never once demonstrated the existence of a virus through proper isolation or purification. It’s smoke and mirrors! I leave it in your capable hands to deliver justice.
[The jury nods thoughtfully as they leave the room to deliberate. After a brief pause, they return, their verdict ready]
Judge: Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict?
Jury Foreperson: [Standing] We have, Your Honor. We find the defendant… guilty of scientific fraud!
Judge: [Solemnly] Very well. [He turns to Dr. Specimen] For crimes against logic and reason, and for misleading the public in the name of science, I hereby sentence you to… [He smirks] a life term as the head of the National Institute of Infectious Arse-covering and Deception -NIIAD.
[The courtroom erupts in gasps and laughter as the viroLIEgist is dragged out, wailing in ‘protest’]
Good: I understand this piece more or less, by virtue of just having read the book "Immune" by Philipp Dettmer. The whole book is made up of analogies rather like those that Jessica uses here.
Bad: Dettmer is the owner of a 40-person company in Germany that would certainly experience apoptosis (ie, would be committing suicide) if Dettmer said anything negative about vaccines. Which he carefully does not - quite the opposite.
You can find a review of the book on my substack for October 24.
Are the differences in lipid nonoparticle catonic charges by design? And if yes, would that allow specificity toward different cell membranes of different tissues? Such as one with specificity for ovarian tissue while another for bone marrow, and yet another for blood brain barrier?
The spike laden LNPs of process 2 become targeted to foamy M1-like macrophages (and specialized foamy macrophages in the mucosa called sebocytes) by ADE upon receipt of the second dose and with the onset of IgG1/3 antibodies. This causes apoptosis resistance and perhaps may explain how spike protein from vaccination may linger in the monocytes/macrophages longer term (weeks to months). During this time the host may show signs of post-vax syndrome as the body attempts to clear the transfected cells with HERV-K102 activation. HERV-K102 replication in uninfected macrophages (newly arising) causes the insomnia, fatigue and brain fog. The transfected macrophages exhibit immunosenescence which initiates and causes progression of chronic diseases: hence multiple symptoms are possible. In the Upper respiratory tract (URT) the sebocytes still undergo PCD on day 6, and blistering of the upper lip fordyce spots then results in lysis. However at this time the bioweaponized HERV-K102 particles are shed which can communicate a clotting disorder to third parties which can and does communicate sudden death. By the third dose (or several months after the 2nd dose), the systemic spike IgG1/3 such as in the blood transitions to IgG4. With the 3rd dose in the presence of spike protein the IgG4 binds to the FCGR2B receptor on macrophages blocking their activation meaning there is no trained innate immunity to defend the host against concurrent pathogens/tumors. Under these circumstances infections/tumors become deadly (and where optimal Vit D3 no longer prevents death). In people who were infected prior to the 2 doses of spike mRNA gene therapy shots, they do NOT transition to IgG4, so they are protected against death by vitamin D3. However, they will show evidence of immunosenescence which causes the initiation and progression of chronic disease. In addition to the above, every time the host gets infected with SC2 this will stimulate the antibodies and T cells to HERV-K102 envelope protein which becomes expressed on SC2 infected cells causing Autoimmunity. I think ivermectin can help no matter what. More details can be found here: Laderoute, M. Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) of Infection into Macrophages Validates the Importance of HERV-K102 Particle Production for Pandemic Preparedness. Preprints 2023, 2023120185. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202312.0185/v2.
DOI: 10.20944/preprints202312.0185.v2. I believe there are differences between macrophages (innate immunity) and dendritic cells (adaptive immunity). This discussion only pertains to foamy macrophages.
The answer to your question is found in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: 42%
Just yesterday Dr. Paul Marik was on Fox News in Baltimore talking about the surge in turbo cancers since the jab boosters came out. The dam now has a crack in it. Happy Halloween!
The Bioweapon was ingenious… slow kill with various mechanisms to maim and kill. Individual responses are multi factorial , each one of us are uniquely made . I believe the contents of each vial and circumstances given at the time of the jab , are additional variables.
I am suspicious that the professional and highly respected doctor/mathematician/researchers need to be careful about what and how they say things. Staying credible and not being sued by self sensoring. Thank God for Unacceptable Jessica. Competency allows for more transparency.
I view the (vaxx, or maybe spike) bioweapon as a hunter-killer, or maybe an assassin.
It seems to home on and attack the individual's weakness. It looks at the hearts of 30% of young healthy Thai males, but only 3% get (clinical) myocarditis. Turbo-cancer comes to those with that potential, autoimmune conditions to those with propensity, Covid M&M to Vit. D deficient subjects, etc., with, for your interest, a particular effect on pregnant and fertile women.
Ivermectin is interesting as it also has a multi-mechanism effect on reducing the spike damage.
With our slowly increasing knowledge of spike protein pathophysiology, now being exposed from Ralph Baric's labwork and the SARS and MERS trial runs, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that any of this was fortuitous.
It seems to hunt down any fault or weaknesses in the human body. Just like any weapon would do. The proof is there now to come to such an assessment
This is what they don't want you to know....
https://rumble.com/v5knm2x-337024905.html?e9s=src_v1_upp
Funny analogy! (Or at least I found it funny - am I weird?) Great article thanks
only as weird as me!
https://t.me/mspezial/17218
Narfing out loud. I luv you, ma'am! ♥
Just finished my long thought and will finally summarize in part 7 and show what a freakin' mess they did:
https://genervter-substack-com.translate.goog/p/downstream-teil-6?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true
I think the analogy is quite illustrative of your question. I even laughed because it was also humorous, besides I was ignorant of speed dating bars so now I have an inkling of that too; but what do I know? I am now a happy trad wife ( I used to be a doctors’s wife and biomedical research librarian, but certain BMJ articles and a certain former JAMA editor certainly made me question much, read much; my work at a certain St, Louis based now solely biotech company also contributed to my skepticism as I witnessed outright purposeful obfuscation of many things scientific as well as large financial transactions for the purpose of beneficial legislation). So now I make frugal frau videos with my redneck husband, on our homestead in palookaville NE VT, while growing my own food etc. I am much more financially poorer, however my life is much richer. The entire C19 debacle reawakened my entire interest in biochemistry so now I am self educating by reading your’s and th3 substacks of others like Arkmedic, because I want to understand this entire subject. The hubris to just gloss over all of this by the pharmaceutical companies and regulators is astounding. Unfortunately it still leads to dark conclusions about motives; motives which go far beyond financial gain. Keep these coming.
As for the question posed by U.J. the answer, even if it were correct, might not afford any real help for those who have defiled their systems with such a bio-tech weapon. Understanding the mechanics behind the bio-poison is a step forward toward an antidote but a dubious and small step indeed in my opinion. The reason for that position taken is due to the amazing complexity of the human anatomy. Once a foreign substance that has been formulated to remain within the structure of the cell in order to cause dysfunction has been introduced, trying to negate symptoms caused might probably be too little, too late.
If the fuel and oil of a formula one car is sabotaged, when the damage has been discovered, it is way too late in the race to recover. Humankind is a million more times complex than any F-1 machine! And so, presumption remains that even if the fuel of that targeted car were discovered tainted, the fact that the OIL (its life-blood) might not be suspect, and thereby would doom it in the next race.
Changing out a person's blood is a bit more entailed than the oil of a vehicle, but the point is made.
As a "fundamentalist" Christian, I have an unanswered Q which doubtful will ever be attended to: I'm almost 68 and noticed that the hair on my arms is longer than what I think normal. Then the thought came to me about that: What is the genetic mechanism which causes some hairs positioned for example on the eye-lids to not grow at all, while on ones head, they grow prolifically? The cells which make up the hair itself are not methodically replaced regularly, such as those within, being fed by biologic systems. The hairs on my finger-tops stays a certain length like eye-lashes. Eyebrow hairs grow (sometimes) and nose hairs seem to never stop growing! How can this be? A rhetorical question for all who are trusting in Creation, but for those who look elsewhere, I wonder how the question is dealt with, since nearly EVERYONE'S head hair grows quite rapidly and regularly (pre-40, anyway)!
Well, I'd better post this before a potential "brown out" wipes the slate clean!
Yours in the Creator's amazing works,
R.
Yeah, as a 68.5 y/o Christian female, the nose hair question is interesting. Just another humorous detail which our Creator, added to give us another thing about which to joke as we age. We are fearfully and wonderfully made and I believe more and more that we are provided with all we need to live extremely healthy lives. We just have to avoid the hubritic ( I just made that word up, turning hubris into an adjective), creations of man.
The whole rollout of the mRNA products looks like it was a crap shoot at best. Even if the various steps taken to ensure that an “immune response” would transpire as hoped had worked wonderfully, there was never even any evidence gathered regarding the effect this would have on recipients’ overall health, not to mention the effect of receiving repeat jabs periodically. Then they unblinded the control group, arguing that this was the ethical thing to do.
Looks to me like the charge of experimenting on human subjects may be valid.
There were zero studies on carcinogenicity on the m RN a lnp jabs
... among other things missing / regulatory breaches. Which sorta kinda begs the question how and why these novel injectable products ever achieved Emergency Use Authorization as “vaccines” in the first place...
Oh wait, I think I have the answer! Stop press!
The Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex has bought the entities formerly known as “Health Authorities”.
No, of course not: you don't go into problems you know you're going to see. Will post my final part of the most extensive substack project in 7 parts today :-S Jees! What a freak show.
Finally done! 6 parts of preparation for this monster.
https://genervter-substack-com.translate.goog/p/downstream-teil-7?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true
Zeta potential, hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity all interrelate and in my view, are clearly disrupted by the jabs. https://vimeo.com/1021313092
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/i-got-you-peged-pfizer
cool ? not sure what this means, ---
https://vimeo.com/1021313092
no match for video
It should work. https://vimeo.com/1021313092
Try another browser
links not working
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/water-conference-presentation-lisbon
Great analogy. My thoughts are that some APCs will get transfected and destroyed for sure, but more tissue cells become transfected with the LNPs than APCs. This makes the bigger threat the billions and billions of the proteins created by cells vs. the injected LNPs. The APCs that did not get transfected and destroyed will break these proteins into smaller peptides, and those smaller peptides are what get displayed to the T-cells of the immune system. So, effectively many T-cells might not get to experience the whole spike protein. But B-cells can and do get to experience the whole thing.
The T-cells and B-cells are indeed like the girls in the speed dating bar that are constantly milling about. The T-cell girls are very picky and are sampling the junk presented to them by the APC dudes that are also milling about, and the creepy APC dudes that are permanently seated and never move. The B-cell girls aren’t so picky and can immediately attach to whatever comes into the bar, including the whole spike protein that got made and released by tissue cells. This autoactivates the B-cells to create suboptimal antibodies against the proteins that were created from what was injected, not against what is constantly mutating. So, when the real dude enters the bar, the girls just ignore him.
The creepy APC dudes that never move are especially dangerous. They are called follicular dendritic cells because they were formed from the embryonic tissue when the speed dating bar was made. They do not mill around. They are permanently seated at the bar. They do not phagocytize and display smaller junk to T-cells. They come into play long after the infection started, and the suboptimal reactive antibodies got made by the over excited B-cell girls. They attach to the suboptimal antibody that is holding the antigen protein, called the antigen antibody complex, and hold onto it for a very long time without being phagocytized so the girls in the bar can continue to experience and remember the wrong dude created from the injection. And the real dude never gets picked up.
hahaha this is awesome
creepy APC dudes lol
May I lead to another issue which is directly consequence of this crappy LNPs?:
In the APC slide, which is absolutely ingenious in principle and breaks down the TLRs/PRRs beautifully (even if there are of course a “few more” RIG-1-Like, NLR, CLR, etc., etc., etc.), there is a fundamental error: there is no endocytosis via receptor binding, but the LNPs crash directly into the membrane and destroy any flow weight between the plasma membrane and membrane-bound receptors.
Next they disrupt the whole endosomal regulation even before it comes to escape.
That's why I think the whole concept of antigen presentation is already disturbed in such a diffuse way that you can only get scared. Overexpressed PD-L1 is not a good sign that cell death is still functioning.
Addendum:
Meaning disturbed in a way that is messing up with CD4+ - Subclass differentiation, DCs and CD8+ maturation.
lymph node is like a speed-dating bar ....LOL
I never knew they existed! I mean a speed-dating bar. (Outside of Nevada, that is...)
r.
I really like your brain )
☺️😢🙏🏻
Trial by Jury – The Case of the Missing Corona ‘Virus’
[The camera zooms in on the courtroom packed with reporters, their pens poised. The aspiring viroLIEgist sits nervously at the witness stand, fidgeting with a stack of lab notes. Across from him stands the sharp-dressed attorney, Mr. Rigorous, known for his devastating cross-examinations. Behind him, the jury watches intently]
Judge: [Hammering the gavel] Order in the court! Mr. Rigorous, you may proceed with your cross-examination.
Mr. Rigorous: [Grinning] Thank you, Your Honor. [He approaches the viroLIEgist.] Dr. Specimen, you claim to have isolated a novel corona virus, is that correct?
Dr. Specimen: [Squirming] Uh, yes, yes. We have a robust methodology –
Mr. Rigorous: [Interrupting] Robust, you say? [He winks at the jury.] Let’s start at the beginning. Did you, at any point, isolate and purify this so-called “virus” directly from the fluids of a sick patient?
Dr. Specimen: [Squirming] Well, not exactly. You see, direct purification from fluids is unnecessary because –
Mr. Rigorous: [Leaning in, eyebrows raised] Unnecessary? I see. What you’re telling us is that you skipped the part where you would actually prove there’s a virus in the patient’s mucus?
Dr. Specimen: [Flustered] We used a well-established protocol. Instead, we combined the
patient’s mucus with a monkey kidney cell culture, starved it, and –
Mr. Rigorous: [Interrupting with mock concern] Oh, so you took a patient’s mucus, mixed it with cells from an entirely different species, starved those cells, poisoned them with toxic chemicals, antibiotics, and, what was it again, fetal bovine serum?
Dr. Specimen: Well, yes, that’s standard –
Mr. Rigorous: [Grinning] “Standard.” So, after this biological disaster, when the cells inevitably broke down and died, you claimed that was evidence of a virus?
Dr. Specimen: [Getting defensive] Yes! The cytopathic effect is what –
Mr. Rigorous: [Smirking] Cytopathic effect! Ah, the mysterious code for “we poisoned cells and
watched them die.” Tell me, Dr. Specimen, what proof do you have that the breakdown of these poisoned, malnourished cells was caused by a virus rather than, say… the toxic soup you created?
Dr. Specimen: [Stammering] Well, it’s what the literature says and, um… everyone knows –
Mr. Rigorous: [Cutting in] “Everyone knows?” [He gestures dramatically to the jury.] I believe
this court would prefer evidence over gossip, Doctor. Now, let’s talk about the genome you supposedly ‘discovered.’ You took this toxic brew, fed it into a machine, and then used some software to assemble genetic pieces, correct?
Dr. Specimen: Yes, yes, we sequenced the genome –
Mr. Rigorous: [Raising his voice] Ah, sequenced! You mean the software took fragments and tried to fit them together, like a biological jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces?
Dr. Specimen: [Defensively] It’s highly sophisticated software!
Mr. Rigorous: [Sarcastically] Sophisticated? Doctor, if I fed a pile of shredded newspaper into that machine, would it also “reconstruct” War and Peace?
[The jury chuckles. Dr. Specimen looks increasingly uncomfortable]
Dr. Specimen: [Panicking] No, no! It’s different. This is how we create the viral genome.
Mr. Rigorous: [Slyly] Create, you say? So, we’re not finding a virus – we’re creating one?
Interesting choice of words, Doctor. Now, did you ever attempt to prove that this Frankenstein creation could naturally infect a healthy host?
Dr. Specimen: [Squirming] Well, no. We injected lab animals with the toxic cell culture, and when they got sick –
Mr. Rigorous: [Mocking] Sick from your toxic brew? And that, Doctor, is what you call “evidence” of transmission? You didn’t try something simple, like, I don’t know, letting the sick patient sneeze on a healthy person?
Dr. Specimen: [Flustered] Natural transmission doesn’t work well in the lab! It’s much cleaner to inject -
Mr. Rigorous: [Interrupting] Cleaner? Cleaner to torture animals with direct injections of this toxic sludge you call a “virus”? [He lets the words hang in the air.] Doctor, do you have any explanation for why you skipped natural transmission altogether, or is it because – oh, I don’t know – it never works?
[The courtroom erupts with murmurs. Dr. Specimen is visibly sweating]
Mr. Rigorous: [Turning to the jury] Ladies and gentlemen, this man would have you believe that by starving cells, poisoning them, and injecting that toxic concoction into helpless animals, he’s “proving” a virus exists. All without ever isolating or purifying anything! Is this science… or sleight of hand?
[He paces dramatically, letting the tension build]
Mr. Rigorous: One last thing, Doctor. After injecting animals with this ‘viral’ brew, did you ever attempt to purify the “virus” again from those animals to confirm it was there?
Dr. Specimen: [Almost whispering] No…
Mr. Rigorous: [Leaning in] No? You never bothered to re-isolate the virus, because that would expose the fact it wasn’t there in the first place, wouldn’t it?
[Dr. Specimen is completely defeated, sinking lower in his seat]
Mr. Rigorous: [Addressing the jury] Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. We are dealing with
scientific fraud on a monumental scale, a fraud that never once demonstrated the existence of a virus through proper isolation or purification. It’s smoke and mirrors! I leave it in your capable hands to deliver justice.
[The jury nods thoughtfully as they leave the room to deliberate. After a brief pause, they return, their verdict ready]
Judge: Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict?
Jury Foreperson: [Standing] We have, Your Honor. We find the defendant… guilty of scientific fraud!
Judge: [Solemnly] Very well. [He turns to Dr. Specimen] For crimes against logic and reason, and for misleading the public in the name of science, I hereby sentence you to… [He smirks] a life term as the head of the National Institute of Infectious Arse-covering and Deception -NIIAD.
[The courtroom erupts in gasps and laughter as the viroLIEgist is dragged out, wailing in ‘protest’]
Probably just one more reason to avoid dating bars.
And Nevada
The good and the bad.
Good: I understand this piece more or less, by virtue of just having read the book "Immune" by Philipp Dettmer. The whole book is made up of analogies rather like those that Jessica uses here.
Bad: Dettmer is the owner of a 40-person company in Germany that would certainly experience apoptosis (ie, would be committing suicide) if Dettmer said anything negative about vaccines. Which he carefully does not - quite the opposite.
You can find a review of the book on my substack for October 24.
Are the differences in lipid nonoparticle catonic charges by design? And if yes, would that allow specificity toward different cell membranes of different tissues? Such as one with specificity for ovarian tissue while another for bone marrow, and yet another for blood brain barrier?
yes. yes.
Wow!
The spike laden LNPs of process 2 become targeted to foamy M1-like macrophages (and specialized foamy macrophages in the mucosa called sebocytes) by ADE upon receipt of the second dose and with the onset of IgG1/3 antibodies. This causes apoptosis resistance and perhaps may explain how spike protein from vaccination may linger in the monocytes/macrophages longer term (weeks to months). During this time the host may show signs of post-vax syndrome as the body attempts to clear the transfected cells with HERV-K102 activation. HERV-K102 replication in uninfected macrophages (newly arising) causes the insomnia, fatigue and brain fog. The transfected macrophages exhibit immunosenescence which initiates and causes progression of chronic diseases: hence multiple symptoms are possible. In the Upper respiratory tract (URT) the sebocytes still undergo PCD on day 6, and blistering of the upper lip fordyce spots then results in lysis. However at this time the bioweaponized HERV-K102 particles are shed which can communicate a clotting disorder to third parties which can and does communicate sudden death. By the third dose (or several months after the 2nd dose), the systemic spike IgG1/3 such as in the blood transitions to IgG4. With the 3rd dose in the presence of spike protein the IgG4 binds to the FCGR2B receptor on macrophages blocking their activation meaning there is no trained innate immunity to defend the host against concurrent pathogens/tumors. Under these circumstances infections/tumors become deadly (and where optimal Vit D3 no longer prevents death). In people who were infected prior to the 2 doses of spike mRNA gene therapy shots, they do NOT transition to IgG4, so they are protected against death by vitamin D3. However, they will show evidence of immunosenescence which causes the initiation and progression of chronic disease. In addition to the above, every time the host gets infected with SC2 this will stimulate the antibodies and T cells to HERV-K102 envelope protein which becomes expressed on SC2 infected cells causing Autoimmunity. I think ivermectin can help no matter what. More details can be found here: Laderoute, M. Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) of Infection into Macrophages Validates the Importance of HERV-K102 Particle Production for Pandemic Preparedness. Preprints 2023, 2023120185. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202312.0185/v2.
DOI: 10.20944/preprints202312.0185.v2. I believe there are differences between macrophages (innate immunity) and dendritic cells (adaptive immunity). This discussion only pertains to foamy macrophages.
The answer to your question is found in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: 42%
Just yesterday Dr. Paul Marik was on Fox News in Baltimore talking about the surge in turbo cancers since the jab boosters came out. The dam now has a crack in it. Happy Halloween!