Wednesday, February 9, 2022

I Really Hate Being Right - by Karl Denninger

 This really sucks.

  • Vaccination confers broader IgG binding of variant RBDs than SARS-CoV-2 infection

  • Imprinting from initial antigen exposures alters IgG responses to viral variants

  • Histology of mRNA vaccinee lymph nodes shows abundant germinal centers

  • Vaccine spike antigen and mRNA persist for weeks in lymph node germinal centers

That was a steaming pile of **** you ate and that last point is materially worse than I expected.

A reminder: Malone is the one of the people who originally came up with the idea of mRNA.

Let's take the buried lede here:

This study asserts that the mRNA and the spike protein produced persists for weeks in lymph node germinal centers in human patients. Having worked with mRNA for decades, I can attest that this is highly unusual.

Remember that mRNA is not new technology.  Moderna has been trying to commercialize it for about a decade now for various indications, including cancer.  Cancer, of course, is a disease where very high risks are tolerated because the alternative is basically always death, and any sort of bad thing is better than death.

But they've never made it work.  The reason is that every time they had enough dose to get the results they also got toxicity; the injected stuff got broken down too fast otherwise, and if you raised the dose the toxicity went up enough that you couldn't get an effect without screwing the patient.

This is the history of mRNA -- until now.  It's why it has never been deployed in human disease before; it's not for lack of trying.

Malone hypothesizes that what changed was the substitution of pseudouridine (a synthetic that does not exist in nature) for uridine is the reason the mRNA jabs are able to produce the spike without being destroyed first.  Well, that solves one problem but produces another; the body is incapable of clearing it because it doesn't recognize it as foreign.

So now what is injected migrates through the body and is taken up instead of staying at the injection site, doing its thing and being rapidly degraded and cleared.  That the latter happens is known because we have the Japanese data, which they demanded Pfizer produce, that show wildly-elevated presence in the ovaries, among other tissues.  This should not have happened, but it does.

We knew this early last year and yet did nothing with that information.  Now we know why, and its much, much worse than my base working hypothesis -- that it was simply a function of the very high vascularization found in muscle tissue.  Nope.

The problem is that as I wrote about last year in some depth we know the spike itself is cytotoxic -- that is, it does direct tissue damage.  

That's two serious safety indications.

Further, contrary to the assertions made by a whole bunch of people related to safety this study found spike protein in the body for 60 days which was the duration of the study, which means we do not know how much longer it persists than that.

Now we're up to three deliberately-ignored problems.

As I pointed out before mass jabbing took place we knew antibody levels produced by these jabs were wildly higher than those seen with natural infection.  We did not know why dosing was set there, only that it was.  Nobody has ever provided a reasonable explanation that I've seen as to why they did that.  It appears to be facially stupid, in that if infection is protective, and the assumption is that it would be, then why would you go further on a deliberate basis?

But now this paper documents something much worse; the reason the jabs produce such a high antibody count is that they also produce a much higher spike protein count than natural infection does -- even severe infection.  In fact we know that viremia, that is, virus in the blood, does not happen at all except in severe and fatal cases.

The jabs produce it essentially every time -- and in higher amounts.

In other words the risk of long-term serious harm is likely greater from the jabs than from the disease.

This, by the way, is entirely consistent with the correlations in the DMED database, now subject of a whistleblower complaint.  Heart attacks up more than 300%, some cases of tumors up nearly 300%, myocarditis up nearly 200% and embolisms up 250%, all among otherwise young and healthy US soldiers, likely in the top 20% in terms of health of all young people in the United States.  If they're getting pounded to that degree that quickly following being jabbed how bad do you think it is for those who are less-healthy and over a longer period of time?

That's not to say that the disease might not kill you outright -- of course we know that it can, and sometimes does.  But to take a prophylaxis that appears to have a worse long-term expectation in terms of propagation of the very part of the disease process that causes the severe injuries and deaths than getting infected is, without some pretty damned good evidence that this correlation is proved to not hold is stupid.

What's even more-stupid is that irrespective of the potential benefits on an individual basis to recommend or even permit a person who already had Covid to take such a jab is, given these facts, gross malpractice at best.  Even the CDC at this point admits there is zero statistical benefit for someone who has previously been infected.

To deliberately introduce a toxic substance in large volume to the blood, when no benefit can be obtained from doing so, sounds like poisoning to me.

It gets worse.

If you remember back last summer I noted that we had seen a really nasty trend in "N" antibody titers; they had flat-lined, even though Delta was ripping through the world.  "N" antibodies are only produced by infection since all the jabs produce only spike.  Therefore, "N" titers should represent the people who got the virus and recovered, and when there was a large spike in infections so should have "N" followed.  It didn't, which had only one plausible explanation: If you got jabbed the jabs screwed your "N" antibodies if you were infected afterward, which meant they'd wane off in a few months and you could get it again.  In short being jabbed might keep you from getting seriously screwed for a while but being infected was durably protective, and if you got jabbed and then infected the evidence was the jab prevented you from building that durable protection.  That's horrible, even catastrophic, in that if you got jabbed you basically traded a one off risk of infection that can only screw you once for the requirement to repeatedly take more jabs, each with a risk of screwing you and for which we had data strongly suggesting that the risks were exponential with each repeated jab.

What we didn't know, until very recently, is whether if you were infected BEFORE being jabbed taking the jab would screw your previous (and demonstrated durable) immunity, essentially turning you into someone who only had vaccine immunity that would wane off, leaving you as exposed to serious outcomes as an uninfected person.

Now the answer appears to be in on that and it's horrifying news: If you get infected, recover and then take the jab you have destroyed your durable protection against severe outcomes and are left with only the jab immunity, which can both be evaded by mutation and wanes off within about six months to a statistical zero.

In this cohort of vaccinated subjects, 43% (n = 25/58) of the participants no longer exhibit NAbs activity 180 days after the administration of the first dose of BNT162b2 [6]. This is a very interesting observation since even those who were seropositive at baseline, i.e., a documented previous infection to SARS-CoV-2, seemed to lose their neutralizing capacity (n = 7/18, 39%) [6]. (Figure 3B)

Aw ****.

Congratulations to all of you who did that; you intentionally and knowingly violated what you have known about viral infections your entire life, from measles to chicken pox to even the flu; once you have had a given virus while the protection may not be complete the odds of you getting it again are extremely low and if you do the odds of being hammered are statistically equivalent to zero.

In other words you took the risk of the jab for no benefit, which even the CDC now admits to be true and what's worse is that if you previously had and recovered from Covid you destroyed your durable, perhaps even lifetime protection against a severe or fatal outcome from this virus along with your body's natural expansion of that protection which is almost-certain to be good against mutation as well -- and there's nothing you can do about it.

If you were jabbed if and when exposed over time to Covid, as it will never go away, you're very likely to be able to get it again.  And again.  And again.  Nobody knows, and we won't know for years, if you will regain the ability to produce durable protection against severe or fatal outcomes if you stop taking jabs or if that destruction is -- and it might be -- permanent.

Malone raises another interesting point, although that only goes to motive, not result: You can't patent a naturally-occurring thing, nor something that another person discovered before you did.  Was the real purpose behind using pseudouridine to make the result patentable, where it would otherwise not be?

Oh, and incidentally and finally, don't read this if you got jabbed and like to sleep.  While plenty thick (be aware that if you haven't been reading papers full of this sort of stuff for a while you'll have a bunch of other windows open, and take quite some time, to put together the necessary pieces of knowledge to understand what's contained within) it lays forth the mechanistic argument and methodology by which these jabs may well wildly potentiate cancer and severely impair general immunity.  Such is unlikely to show up instantly, of course, as cancer almost-never does clinically and general immune impairment usually takes quite some time -- years -- to be recognized as clinically significant in a given person.  Indeed every human being has cancerous cells in their body at any time as they occur from time to time in every person, but our natural immune response normally keeps them in check via a complex, and not all that well understood set of processes -- processes that, it appears, the mRNA jabs interfere with and which there is no evidence can be reversed.  That there are apparent signals appearing this quickly, given the usual progression of same, ought to alarm anyone.

How bad does all this look when taken together?  Meatspin or even Mr. Hands level bad.  No, don't look either up on the Internet.  Seriously.  Some things you can't un-see.