Here’s the original article, but I’m reprinting it all here because it’s important to share.
Folks, you need to understand the basic problem with all so-called “nanoparticle” technology that has bedeviled every firm that has tried to use it before, and once you do, you won’t go anywhere near any such “therapy” no matter what the so-called “reason” for it is — unless you’re literally dying, in which case anything is worth the attempt since the inevitable outcome of “do nothing” is death.
It’s simply this: The “uptake” of the thing, whether it be a vector (e.g. adrenovirus) or nanoparticle (e.g. mRNA) in the places you want it to be taken up is relatively poor compared against the rest of the body. Nobody has ever figured out how to make something only be taken up, once injected, in just one place with the rest of the body ignoring it.
That has never been done in medical history. Ever.
What has worked is chemical therapy of this sort; for example, in the event of nuclear accident some people will take iodine to try to “load” the thyroid and prevent the radioactive I-131 from being taken up there, which will destroy your thyroid. Likewise, if you have thyroid cancer since the gland is basically the place it goes in the body you may be given it as a means of treatment.
Strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope produced in operating reactors and one of the isotopes of most-serious concern in an accident; Strontium-89 which is artificially produced is used in medicine. Strontium, being a close analog chemically of calcium, is almost-all absorbed by the bones. This is what makes it dangerous in a nuclear accident in that it will be taken up by the body and wind up in the bones, where it can cause cancer, and Sr-90 has a very long half-life so the odds of it getting you, if you ingest it, are pretty good (on the bad side.) Sr-89, which has a much shorter half-life can be given and will be taken up by the bones if you have bone cancer; it then will kill some of the cancer cells before it decays out. Since it decays much faster the odds of it giving you cancer are lower and if you already have cancer then the risk of doing nothing is death, so anything you can try irrespective of the odds of success beats nothing.
This sort of chemical affinity at the atomic level, many have proposed, also applies in the general sense to much larger things such as nanoparticles, viral vectors and similar.
The problem with the theory is that in the past it has never worked that way.
Moderna, for example, is not a new company. They have repeatedly tried to get their mRNA technology to be taken up preferentially by parts of the body that have some disease or disorder and thus attempt to treat that. It has never worked, because while some preference can be expressed for the particular particles injected too much of it winds up in other places where it’s not wanted and causes problems.
Let me repeat this for emphasis: Nobody has managed to come up with an injected, complex substance such as “nanoparticles” that are only taken up by the tissues desired and not by any of the others. This in turn means you must use very large amounts of the substance in order to get enough of it where you want it and the unwanted part can and does cause problems in other parts of the body.
This is why Moderna, despite ten years of trying, has never before had a successful therapy licensed anywhere.
We were told that this sort of thing does not happen with these shots. But there was zero proof of this; in fact, quite to the contrary, there was ten years of evidence by this company’s trials itself that said it was the exact opposite; specificity simply could not be guaranteed and too much would spill over into other places.
The second pillar of the development of these vaccines was the claim, which the CDC still makes by the way, that the spike protein alone is harmless. Thus, even if some of the material was taken up in the wrong place (not the muscle and the lymph system) it was ok because it wouldn’t hurt you. Unfortunately we now know that’s false as the spike alone is not inert and harmless; the first indications of that in scientific papers came in September of 2020 and development was not halted until the risk could be characterized.
The CDC is knowingly lying in their public statements; that the spike portion of the virus is “harmless” is simply not subject to reasonable scientific support at this point in time.
Yes, inducing antibodies in the circulation is what you want to happen. Causing spike protein components and the intact spike protein to be found in the circulation, however, you definitely do not want to happen because we now know, on the body of evidence, that both S1 standing alone and the whole spike are pathogenic — that is, they cause disorders in the body.
Indeed the evidence is quite strong that when you get hammered by Covid the reason you get hammered is that the infection becomes systemic and the part of the virus that causes the systemic problem is the spike when it gets into the circulation and then is disseminated through the body’s systems. We now know that the spike protein alone is capable of producing abnormal clotting absent the rest of the virus — that is, the entire virus isn’t necessary to do it and it’s not the virus infecting cells and replicating in them that causes it; it is the spike alone that induces the body to inappropriately produce blood clots where they do not belong.
Specifically, this paper lays out that just S1, one of the sub-units of the spike protein, is pathogenic on its own in the absence of the rest of the virus.
And a plethora of papers lay out that the full spike protein is pathogenic as well, including here, here and here. We do not (yet) know if S2, the other major part, is also pathogenic on its own. It might be that it is harmful as well by itself, or it might be harmless.
Salk, one of the best groups of thought on vaccination and viral pathology in the world, put out a paper confirming this but tried to downplay the connection to the shots with the claim that the modifications to the protein in the furin cleavage area coded by the vaccines, which were made so that the spike would be “intact” on the surface of the cell and thus be identified by the body as the “thing” to produce immunity to, meant that the other papers didn’t indicate trouble.
What they either didn’t know or deliberately ignored (probably the former; I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt given the timeline of the production of the various papers involved) is that the S1 spike subunit, which is now also known pathogenic standing alone and is identical to that in the live virus, is now known to wind up in the circulation after vaccination with the mRNA shots. It is reasonable to believe the viral vector shots have the same outcome because the cells that produce the spike and induce the immunity are attacked and broken down by the body; when that occurs some of what was on their surface inevitably winds up in the circulation even if none of the original vaccine material gets taken up in the wrong place, which we know must occuras there is absolutely no way to keep the entirety of an injection into a muscle from immediately winding up in the blood and thus being disseminated everywhere throughout the body.
I can excuse Salk from at the time of publication believing that the differences would matter. What I cannot excuse is their failure to go back and raise hell now that we know both the intact spike and S1 alone, which we know is pathogenic, wind up in the circulation after vaccination and that the vaccine was conclusively proved responsible (and not a co-infection or prior infection with wild Covid) because there was no evidence of nucleocapsid presence or antibodies to it.
Further, the CDC’s statements at this point are flat-out maliciously false; they have every reason to believe that what is encoded in these vaccinations is dangerous standing alone. There was never any science documenting that the spike was inert, and now there are multiple papers documenting that it is dangerous on its own. This was reasonable to suspect as early as September of 2020 and at this point, without solid scientific refutation of what has already been found it’s wildly irresponsible to state otherwise.
It is, on the weight of the scientific evidence at this time, profoundly unsafe to produce, distribute or administer any vaccine that causes production of the spike protein in the human body where it can and does enter the circulation, whether directly or indirectly, because the protein itself and its S1 sub-unit are believed pathogenic standing alone. This has now been known for months, indeed the first papers demonstrating this were out before any material number of jabs went into arms and have been deliberately ignored.
Incidentally this sort of accidental discovery is, in nearly every case, how science actually progresses. If you run an experiment and find what you expect you’ve learned nothing. You already knew whatever you tried to replicate; all you’ve done is reinforce what you already believed. While confirming expected things is important no progress to the body of scientific knowledge is made by doing so.
It’s when you find the opposite of what you expect that you make scientific progress.
The problems for society come when you try to deny what you found, add footnotes to excuse what you found, or simply ignore it rather than acting on what you find and raising hell in an attempt to stop potential or in-process severe harms.