Hi Elena, do you see PMC as More a cultural Term, or as a class in the marxist Definition? Because they (Mostly do not own the means of production or relevant capital). The often function as the „agents of capital“ but also depend on a wage or salary. Sorry for the question :)
“we heard about the cancellations and attempts at intimidation of virologists, epidemiologists and even the scientific developer of the mRNA-vaccine, Robert Malone, who openly admits that the spike proteins developed by the vaccine in the human body have high cytotoxic characteristics”
Robert Malone is by no means the ‘scientific developer of the mRNA-vaccine’ and the paper that Steve Kirsch put together is misleading at best. As one example the extrapolations and claims being made from the Japanese study are pure conjecture. From the paper referencing the Japanese study:
“Here’s what this means. This vaccine seeks out your daughter’s ovaries and instructs the cells in the ovaries to turn out a very toxic spike protein. It also goes to your child’s brain, heart, and other critical organs.”
First of all the study in question was done in rats not humans and involved 50 ug of modified lipid-mRNA administered intramuscularly. The figures that they put together to demonstrate that the vaccine appears to ‘seek out’ the ovaries intentionally leave out the amount at the injection site as this would dwarf the numbers for all other organs. Kirsch also ignores the far more understandable percent of administered dose which for the ovaries tops out at 0.095 %. This may well be 12.3 ug lipid equivalent as reported in the figure but is a tiny fraction of the administered vaccine. Why they focused in on the otherwise random 12.3 and left off the injection site value (165 at 48 hrs post injection) does not exactly engender trust in their analysis or aims. Here is the same data including the injection site: (unable to include images)
Additionally, they fail to discuss the entire dose given to rats – 50 ug – is actually larger than one human does (30 ug). Humans, that typically weigh far more than an adult rat, received only 60% of the dose examined in this study. To be more precise female wistar ham rats (the ones used in the Japanese study) typically max out at 250 g (0.25 kg) for the rats with ovaries while globally humans average about 62 kg. So while the rats used in this study received 1.66 times the dose that is given to humans they weigh roughly 1/250 that of an average human. For humans the drug is injected into the upper arm in a muscle that for most people is probably not too much smaller than the entire rat used in the study.
The author of this ‘report’ either does not understand what he is discussing or is intentionally trying to mislead his readers. Either way there is absolutely no basis for the fearmongering claims that he makes and it is with good reason that scientists have been ignoring his ‘work’ on this subject.
More germane to this article is the focus on the cytotoxic characteristics of the spike protein. This is not at all the omen that it is made out to be. It shouldn’t come as a great surprise that when we ask cells in our body to make a protein found in a highly contagious virus that we end up with a cytotoxic condition. This simply means that the circumstances are harmful or deadly to the cells. The relatively small number of cells that will receive the mRNA for the spike protein – the vast majority of them located at the injection site – run the risk of injury or death as they produce a viral protein that functions to make it easier for the virus to enter our cells. We are looking to alert our immune system in order for it to learn to identify and respond to spike proteins when they enter our body. The vaccine is a drug and does impact the cells in our body – as is precisely the goal. If it were simply a benign cup of water we wouldn’t be able to receive immunity from covid as a result. The biological claims made in this article are wholly without merit.
Love the blog, though I'm following up on the "Red Pill" vaccine stuff and am unconvinced. It appears the term "cytotoxic" is wielded to scare people, without specifying what the actual side-effects will be.
There is no evidence that Robert Malone single-handedly invented these vaccines. At best it appears he is one of many who contributed to their development.
Since I don't understand the nuances of climate science, I listen to what the scientists have to say. 97% agree that human-caused climate change is happening and will be catastrophic for our species soon. 3% of climate scientists are skeptics of climate change, and are funded by fossil fuel companies to spout misinformation. I'll trust what the majority of experts have to say until there is evidence that the skeptics are right: that the 97% are indeed being bribed by the big bad communist governments to lie about climate change.
I approach vaccine-science in the same way. The consensus among immunologists and doctors (who know better than you and I on this stuff) is that vaccines are safe and effective. Side-effects do occur but are extremely rare, and are miniscule occurrences relative to the effects of Covid-19, a disease everyone would probably get unprotected without lockdowns and vaccines. Therefore the point that vaccines are worth getting for they are safe and effective still stands strong.
Do I agree with lockdowns and coerced vaccines? Fuck no! Do I trust big pharma? No way. Do I think big pharma will act as corporations do and do anything to protect its PR to sell its product, including bribing scientists and governments? Probably. But as it stands I have found zero evidence of big pharma pulling the strings of medical academia and bribing editors of Nature, and therefore I'll just have to trust the overwhelming consensus on them being safe and effective.
I am sympathetic to the idea of the mainstream vaccine consensus to be a hoax, just yet to see a convincing case in its favor.
Thanks for writing Elena. Really great.
Yep. Cogent analysis. And I share the anger for sure. We've got to stop this shit.
Hi Elena, do you see PMC as More a cultural Term, or as a class in the marxist Definition? Because they (Mostly do not own the means of production or relevant capital). The often function as the „agents of capital“ but also depend on a wage or salary. Sorry for the question :)
wow! yes! thank you!
I've been looking for an article like this for a whole year. Thank god I'm not alone.
Damn this one hit hard, also love that you bring up Taibbi, he’s one of the only brave voices left in this media sphere. Dope piece as usual btw
“we heard about the cancellations and attempts at intimidation of virologists, epidemiologists and even the scientific developer of the mRNA-vaccine, Robert Malone, who openly admits that the spike proteins developed by the vaccine in the human body have high cytotoxic characteristics”
Robert Malone is by no means the ‘scientific developer of the mRNA-vaccine’ and the paper that Steve Kirsch put together is misleading at best. As one example the extrapolations and claims being made from the Japanese study are pure conjecture. From the paper referencing the Japanese study:
“Here’s what this means. This vaccine seeks out your daughter’s ovaries and instructs the cells in the ovaries to turn out a very toxic spike protein. It also goes to your child’s brain, heart, and other critical organs.”
First of all the study in question was done in rats not humans and involved 50 ug of modified lipid-mRNA administered intramuscularly. The figures that they put together to demonstrate that the vaccine appears to ‘seek out’ the ovaries intentionally leave out the amount at the injection site as this would dwarf the numbers for all other organs. Kirsch also ignores the far more understandable percent of administered dose which for the ovaries tops out at 0.095 %. This may well be 12.3 ug lipid equivalent as reported in the figure but is a tiny fraction of the administered vaccine. Why they focused in on the otherwise random 12.3 and left off the injection site value (165 at 48 hrs post injection) does not exactly engender trust in their analysis or aims. Here is the same data including the injection site: (unable to include images)
Additionally, they fail to discuss the entire dose given to rats – 50 ug – is actually larger than one human does (30 ug). Humans, that typically weigh far more than an adult rat, received only 60% of the dose examined in this study. To be more precise female wistar ham rats (the ones used in the Japanese study) typically max out at 250 g (0.25 kg) for the rats with ovaries while globally humans average about 62 kg. So while the rats used in this study received 1.66 times the dose that is given to humans they weigh roughly 1/250 that of an average human. For humans the drug is injected into the upper arm in a muscle that for most people is probably not too much smaller than the entire rat used in the study.
The author of this ‘report’ either does not understand what he is discussing or is intentionally trying to mislead his readers. Either way there is absolutely no basis for the fearmongering claims that he makes and it is with good reason that scientists have been ignoring his ‘work’ on this subject.
More germane to this article is the focus on the cytotoxic characteristics of the spike protein. This is not at all the omen that it is made out to be. It shouldn’t come as a great surprise that when we ask cells in our body to make a protein found in a highly contagious virus that we end up with a cytotoxic condition. This simply means that the circumstances are harmful or deadly to the cells. The relatively small number of cells that will receive the mRNA for the spike protein – the vast majority of them located at the injection site – run the risk of injury or death as they produce a viral protein that functions to make it easier for the virus to enter our cells. We are looking to alert our immune system in order for it to learn to identify and respond to spike proteins when they enter our body. The vaccine is a drug and does impact the cells in our body – as is precisely the goal. If it were simply a benign cup of water we wouldn’t be able to receive immunity from covid as a result. The biological claims made in this article are wholly without merit.
Love the blog, though I'm following up on the "Red Pill" vaccine stuff and am unconvinced. It appears the term "cytotoxic" is wielded to scare people, without specifying what the actual side-effects will be.
There is no evidence that Robert Malone single-handedly invented these vaccines. At best it appears he is one of many who contributed to their development.
Since I don't understand the nuances of climate science, I listen to what the scientists have to say. 97% agree that human-caused climate change is happening and will be catastrophic for our species soon. 3% of climate scientists are skeptics of climate change, and are funded by fossil fuel companies to spout misinformation. I'll trust what the majority of experts have to say until there is evidence that the skeptics are right: that the 97% are indeed being bribed by the big bad communist governments to lie about climate change.
I approach vaccine-science in the same way. The consensus among immunologists and doctors (who know better than you and I on this stuff) is that vaccines are safe and effective. Side-effects do occur but are extremely rare, and are miniscule occurrences relative to the effects of Covid-19, a disease everyone would probably get unprotected without lockdowns and vaccines. Therefore the point that vaccines are worth getting for they are safe and effective still stands strong.
Do I agree with lockdowns and coerced vaccines? Fuck no! Do I trust big pharma? No way. Do I think big pharma will act as corporations do and do anything to protect its PR to sell its product, including bribing scientists and governments? Probably. But as it stands I have found zero evidence of big pharma pulling the strings of medical academia and bribing editors of Nature, and therefore I'll just have to trust the overwhelming consensus on them being safe and effective.
I am sympathetic to the idea of the mainstream vaccine consensus to be a hoax, just yet to see a convincing case in its favor.