More bad news for the mRNA "platform"

sorry, Robert, it is not safe for any purpose.

More bad news about the vaxxes. I posted two comments yesterday that the mRNA platform is not serviceable for any purpose, and a Nature study seems to put the nail in the mRNA coffin, as Childers opines. Let’s hope so. Thanks, Jeff. You did such a good job I am including your remarks verbatim here.

How about some stochastic proteins, everyone?

Via Coffee and Covid (by Jeff Childers, Esq.):

💉 Pfizer must feel like it’s been one damned thing after another these days. In a year packed with horrible news for the jabs (not to mention poor jab recipients), yesterday saw a critical new discovery of jab problems, possibly the worst and most damning yet. How bad was it? It was so bad that, even though I almost never make predictions anymore, I will predict this: The FDA will be forced to withdraw the mRNA covid shots because of this study.

I’m not even joking about that.

Our investigation begins with yesterday’s Telegraph article about a new study headlined, “One in four who had Moderna or Pfizer Covid jabs experienced unintended immune response.”

The explosive, new, peer-reviewed, gold-standard study is already making news even though it was only published yesterday, December 6th. And it published in the well—respected Journal Nature, featuring the multisyllabic, incomprehensible title, “N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting.”

This study has twenty authors. There is safety in numbers.

Don’t let the mind-numbing title fool you. If Kevin McKernan’s SV40 monkey-virus discovery tossed a hand-grenade into Pfizer’s machine-gun bunker, this carefully-written study dropped a tactical nuke on Pfizer’s Pacific Fleet anchoring at Hawaii. The study’s implications are vast.

Since the science is a little thick — no, it’s very thick — I’ll start by telling you the end first.

Here’s how the Telegraph’s article defensively described the study’s results. Keep in mind, they were down-playing the results, as much as they possibly could:

No adverse effects were created by the error, data show, but Cambridge scientists found such vaccines were not perfect and sometimes led to nonsense proteins being made instead of the desired Covid “spike”, which mimics infection and leads to antibody production (and) an immune system flare-up.

The new study, published in Nature, found this occurred in around 25-30 per cent of people.

Hahaha! The vaccines were “not perfect!!” Omygosh! Please, stop! Hahahaha! It hurts to laugh! Whew. Alright, I’m okay now. Onwards.

Here’s the simple version: the researchers discovered that a necessary ingredient in the mRNA vaccines (1-methylpseudouridine) has an unfortunate side-effect: it messes up RNA translation one-third of the time by slipping a gear every so often. Instead of making the intended spike protein, these tiny mistranslational slip-ups create … other things. Other kinds of proteins. New ones.

And there’s no way at all to predict what kind of protein it will create. It’s stochastic (completely random).

The ‘vaccine’ creates stochastic proteins one third of the time. In one-third of cells, not people, like the Telegraph again mis-reported. There are trillions of mRNA packages in each shot. So — unless I’m missing something — what the study is saying, without actually saying it, is that this is happening inside every single jab recipient.

And it’s happening a lot.

Now, you know I hate to sound negative, but I’m guessing there would have been a lot more vaccine hesitancy had people known that trillions of their cells would soon randomly be creating bizarre, novel proteins, and for an indeterminate and possibly long time.

That sounds a lot like Russian roulette.

Nobody could possibly know what kinds of problems this kind of thing might cause. Mostly because they’ve never tested anything like this before, except maybe down in the lowest level of the secret dungeons under Dr. Mengele’s laboratory.

Do not let them get away with it when the citizen volunteers will inevitably argue, “hey, they were new vaccines, of course we’re going to learn some unexpected things about them. Nobody expected them to be perfect.”

Um, NO. They called it “misinformation” when we said the shots were “experimental.” They said the shots were the best-tested, safest vaccines in human history. They said we learned all the long-term side effects within the first 90 days — and guess what? There were none.  No long term side effects.

Honestly, sometimes it’s infuriating how stupid our experts are.

Continuing on, the Telegraph first claimed ‘no adverse effects’ were caused by the ‘nonsense proteins,’ but then turned right around and said they cause an unintended immune system flare-up. That is an adverse effect, morons. But second, they are just slapping the old “no evidence” gag around. In this case, the Telegraph’s “no evidence” argument is an archaic, tired-out, well-known logical fallacy called the “Argument from Ignorance.”

All they are really saying is, we don’t know what the adverse effects might be.

I don’t want to quibble, but saying “There ARE NO adverse effects” is a rather different thing from saying “we DON’T KNOW what kind of adverse effects this might cause.”

For an idea of just how mendacious the Telegraph’s article was, here is the precise sentence from the study that the Telegraph used when it falsely reported that “No adverse effects were created by the error, data show”:

Although there is no evidence that frameshifted products in humans generated from BNT162b2 vaccination are associated with adverse outcomes, for future use of mRNA technology it is important that mRNA sequence design is modified to reduce ribosome frameshifting events, as this may limit its future use for applications that require higher doses or more frequent dosing, such as the in vivo production of hormones.

See? There was not any ‘data’ proving that the vaccines were safe, as the Telegraph claimed. The study only said there was “no evidence of an association with adverse events.” Which certainly could be just because nobody’s looked for an association with adverse events yet.

The study, which is so technical it can be barely understood by lay readers (if at all), was marvelously written. At first, a reader mistakenly concludes the study is a giant apologia for the jabs. Every chance they got, the twenty authors optimistically described the bright future of mRNA technology — once, that is, this one teensy, awkward little (unfixable) wrinkle has been ironed out of the formula. That’s how the study passed peer review and got published.

The scientists are learning how to play the game.

Now, remember. This study — and all the news reports about it — constantly reassures pharma bigwigs and depressed jab-takers that there’s no evidence of adverse effects from the random ‘nonsense proteins,’ the randomized proteins that 25% of their transfected cells are now making. Nothing to worry about!

But check out this very telling quote from one of the study authors, Anne Willis, who is a very upbeat kind of lady. She found that the problem just creates a very exciting opportunity for jab makers to fix it:

(Professor Anne Willis, Director of the MRC Toxicology Unit) adds it is very exciting that there is a way to fix the issue, which “massively de-risks this platform going forward”.

Screech! Hold on, wait just a minute! Slam on the brakes for a second. If fixing the issue “massively de-risks the (mRNA) platform” … that means … there are massive risks to be fixed. And that quote, ladies and gentlemen, gave away the entire game, right there, and showed us what the study authors are really thinking.

They are appalled, just like we are. And they got the message out the only way they could, smuggled across the peer-reviewed border in a hollowed-out teddy bear of exciting opportunities.

The offending ingredient, 1-methylpseudouridine, is a type of pseudouridine used in the jabs to stabilize the mRNA payload. We’ve discussed this chemical before. Its first unintended side-effect was making the mRNA too stable, which we think is why the pseudouridine-enhanced mRNA lasts for months (or longer), instead of disappearing within a few hours, like natural mRNA does, and like the FDA mendaciously claimed it would when they were first pushing the jabs.

Ironically, they just gave the Nobel prize to the two scientists who figured out how to make artificially long-lasting mRNA using 1-methylpseudouridine. But yesterday’s peer-reviewed study — written long before the Nobel prize was awarded — concluded there is a fatal flaw with using 1-methylpseudouridine. The authors’ suggestion to fix it? Use natural mRNA.

But since natural mRNA won’t work, as it is metabolized too quickly, the real message from the study is: mRNA technology is inherently unsafe, and poses massive unknown risks. Who knows what are the risks of millions or trillions of cells creating random proteins all day long? Remember the old “infinite number of monkeys” argument? It goes: Given enough monkeys and typewriters, some chimp somewhere will randomly type up Hamlet before you even got around to handing out bananas for lunch.

Who wants to roll the dice that trillions of ‘random proteins’ never ever come up with something harmful? Or is it even more likely the whole unexpected process is all harmful? Random results in a drug should be unacceptable, even if they only create conditions for autoimmunity.

Thus, the FDA must pull these drugs.

💉 Let’s recap the four major jab low-lights — all from just this year:

1. In February, Kevin McKernan brilliantly discovered unexpected DNA plasmid contamination in the mRNA shots.

2. Kevin equally-brilliantly discovered something hiding in plain sight that apparently every other scientist on the planet — including the FDA — somehow missed: the mRNA shots unexpectedly include parts of an oncogenic simian virus (associated with cancer).

3. In August, I reported on a study showing the way spike protein (and thus the shots) cause autoimmune problems by unexpectedly binding to C4 immune cells, in my post titled, ☕️ JACKPOT ☙ Tuesday, August 8, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠.

4. Then yesterday, in this newest study, we learned about the fourth major, unexpected problem with the jabs, which goes to their very design: random protein production.

So, you tell me: how long can the FDA realistically keep this charade going? There will be more explosions at the next meeting of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee than there were at Pearl Harbor.

We are now sprinting towards the finish line.