slderry.bsky.social
187 posts
6 followers
1 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I have no idea what an LL stan is.
The Lancet published fraud data from hospitals and patients that did not exist. That's either incompetence or intentional.
The study was intended to sink hydroxychloroquine because otherwise the vaccines could not legally get EUAs.
comment in response to
post
The Lancet was forced to retract because the public figured out the lie.
They did not "correct" their own work because they almost certainly published fake data on purpose. Otherwise, they're incompetent.
As for your idea that an analysis based on faked data is not flawed. Yes, yes, it is.
comment in response to
post
Remember when the Lancet published a 2020 peer-reviewed blockbuster study on the dangers of hydroxychloroquine?
Then 2 weeks later Lancet admitted data was completely fabricated?
Peer-review is just gatekeepers deciding what to allow through the gate.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
comment in response to
post
The transmission lie triggered a primitive tribalism in people: "I'm clean (vaxxed). You're contaminated (unvaxxed)"
The result was a raging hatred against unvaccinated people. The way out was vaccination.
As a target of this psyop, I haven't gotten over it and how warped the vaxxing mentality is.
comment in response to
post
This paper came out in 2022 with evidence that Baric's method of no-see-m genetic splicing was used in making Covid-19.
As if HIV-like inserts and furin cleavage coding on the infective protein aren't enough.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
comment in response to
post
If the IC was incapable of figuring out the obvious, I doubt anyone cares what they think.
Yes, it's a lab leak when the spike protein has everything from a furin cleavage to gp-120-like regions crammed onto the most infectious protein of the virus. And we knew that in 2/2020.
comment in response to
post
You know how if you tell one lie you then need to tell additional lies to cover up the first lie?
Well, that's a dangerous process when it comes to a bioengineered virus.
comment in response to
post
There was a debate among prominent insiders about the unblinding and what it would do to public confidence in drug safety.
A drug with six months of double-blind clinical safety data is a hard sell because safety signals can emerge years later.
And there are serious safety concerns emerging.
comment in response to
post
You shouldn't be afraid. Unvaccinated people who have had Covid have fairly robust immunity. This has been shown in many studies.
One reason is that there are many proteins on the Covid virus besides the spike and natural infection exposes the immune system to all of them instead of just one.
comment in response to
post
Not only is spike protein toxic, but it seems to be the cause of most of the damage caused by Covid.
To this day, no one can explain why the most toxic protein in Covid was chosen for the mRNA vaccines.
comment in response to
post
The Phase 3 testing was unblinded in December 2020 after 6 months and almost all the placebo group was vaccinated.
So there ceased to be double-blind clinical safety data after the 6 month mark.
Phase 3 should last 1-4 years. Scroll to see the FDA guidelines.
www.fda.gov/patients/dru...
comment in response to
post
mRNA vaccines create tolerance in the form of IgG4 class-switching. This is one reason vaxxed people are spreaders.
High IgG4 ratios cause all kinds of other immune problems too.
So the question is whether creating immune dysfunction and high Covid spreading was worth lowering of severe symptoms.
comment in response to
post
Cranky, you should consider getting outside the Bluesky bubble and reading some of the new research on mRNA vaccines. Pfizer was safety tested for a mere 6 months, an eyeblink.
You especially need to read about the immune consequences of mRNA vis-a-vis cancer.
www.preprints.org/manuscript/2...
comment in response to
post
Vaccines created an entire group of people who are no longer worried about spreading Covid. Worse, the vaccines create many asymptomatic spreaders. Still worse, constant boostering drives mutation.
This most certainly does not make things safer for people who aren't or can't be vaccinated.
comment in response to
post
Oh, well none of us totally understands vaccine-modified mRNA and what it does to the body.
Surely you're not claiming that you do? Are you?
FI, what about the RIG-1 pathway? Is there a definitive conclusion or are they still studying it?
www.trilinkbiotech.com/modified-mrn...
comment in response to
post
So, here's the thing: I'm fine with them taking their time to figure out if producing high levels of spike protein antigen for 700 days after initial vaccination is good for the immune system.
Anything is possible, I suppose.
But telling people it is safe? That is not ethical.
comment in response to
post
So we agree. What are you arguing about then?
comment in response to
post
publichealthpolicyjournal.com/yale-study-l...
There's a link to the pre-print in there.
comment in response to
post
Believe it or not, you were actually more persuasive when you were telling bald-faced lies claiming that Kennedy thinks vaccine mRNA is the same as natural mRNA.
comment in response to
post
Could you summarize your claim?
Right now, I understand that you are denying that pseudouridine was added to the Covid mRNA as a stabilizer.
"It is demonstrated that Ψ can enhance RNA stability and, in the meantime, decrease anti-RNA immune response..."
www.frontiersin.org/journals/cel...
comment in response to
post
Are tRNA and rRNA the same as mRNA?
No?
Then they are different.
I can't believe you are arguing that vaccine mRNA is not a modified, synthetic formulation.
It is one of the most reported-upon facts in the past 4 years.
comment in response to
post
To tell the truth, I really don't know what Amber was trying to say. It appears that she doesn't believe in scientific modeling and I'm supposed to understand why.
So you're right. I should have asked her to clarify.
But that is also how we get off topic and into the weeds...
comment in response to
post
You mean the Yale LISTEN study overseen by Akika Iwasaki? She's one of the most eminent scientists in her field.
There are very serious implications for immune damage and I'm sure she did not want to have to publish this since she promoted the vaccines.
comment in response to
post
Sure, that may be part of it.
The main reason is that mRNA is fragile:
"They had been prescient to introduce pseudouridine, but subsequently it was found that N1-methylpseudouridine substitution stabilizes mRNA even more..."
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
comment in response to
post
No, it's not inherently bad. But long-lasting synthetics should be created with caution.
Synthetic is probably bad if it's in the form of mRNA that does not break down for months and you get injected with trillions of copies of it.
I can explain why but are you really interested?
comment in response to
post
"Researchers found that a subset of PVS participants had detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in their bloodstream, with...cases showing antigen persistence up to 709 days... prolonged spike protein exposure has been linked to chronic immune activation."
This is from the Yale study I linked above.
comment in response to
post
Natural mRNA has a uridine-based bond. The body breaks this down quickly, destroying the mRNA. This was a problem for the vaccines which might break down before an immune response was generated.
Scientists replaced the uridine bond with pseudouridine which is far more durable.
comment in response to
post
You think explaining who won the 2023 Nobel prize and for what reason is misinformation?
comment in response to
post
There's a reason that most vaccines take 5-10 years to bring to market and that is because it's a good idea to test it after you do something to it.
You know...like adding a pseuouridine bond to mRNA.
comment in response to
post
Okay, why don't you restate your issue with what Kennedy said?
Clarify it for me.
comment in response to
post
Your fight is with Amber. She's the one claiming that the vaccine mRNA is the same stuff as the mRNA in your body.
Go for it and I'll be cheering you on, TNT.
comment in response to
post
You don't like modeling? How scientific of you.
comment in response to
post
This is not about IQ.
It's about knowing the basic, CONSTANTLY repeated fact that vaccine mRNA is not the same as natural mRNA produced by the body.
And it's about knowing when people are being verbally deceptive about that.
comment in response to
post
"...we suggest that future clinical trials for cancers or infectious diseases should not use mRNA vaccines with a 100 % m1Ψ modification, but rather ones with the lower percentage of m1Ψ modification to avoid immune suppression."
comment in response to
post
Modified mRNA as used in the Covid vaccines was developed by Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman. It was developed starting in the 2000s and finally used in vaccines in 2021.
comment in response to
post
Modified mRNA is not a conspiracy.
It's all over the media and people won Nobel prizes for it.
comment in response to
post
They don't give people Nobel prizes for pointless hairs.
comment in response to
post
I don't tolerate people changing the topic and putting up strawman arguments.
When Kennedy talks about vaccine mRNA, he is not talking about the natural substance in our bodies.
It is a scientific fact they are different.