Bret Swanson put together an excellent slide deck to accompany this podcast, find it here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5vaooui2r15zayv1kl2ye/2024-3-23-Dan-Wilson-Response-Slide-Deck.pdf?rlkey=3t5uizv3e0gep2q3vydouwtl7&dl=0*****Find Bret Swanson on X: @JBSay (https://twitter.com/JBSay)Find Bret Swanson on Substack: http://infonomena.substack.com/Find Joomi Kim on X: @JoomiKim1 (https://twitter.com/JoomiKim1)Find Joomi Kim on Substack: https://joomi.substack.com/*****PaleoValley: Wide ar...
The point, though, is that as they acknowledge these off-targeting problems, the biodistribution problems, the off-target transfection, how can you do that when you roll it out in an instant to billions of people?
If this was an experimental Cancer drug that you're trying to save the life of somebody who's probably not going to make it otherwise, then of course you try.
You know the right to try.
I totally believe in that.
I believe in biomedical innovation.
I strongly believe in it.
But the risk benefit profile on this was just completely swept aside.
And it's one of the most stunning and perplexing things in the last several years that I still have not heard anywhere close to a good explanation.
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
You are in for a treat.
You're in for a treat, actually, at a couple different levels.
This is a video that many people have asked for.
This is going to be a response to Dan Wilson, who goes by debunkthefunk.
Who has issued a challenge in response to my challenge many months ago, where he has collected some experts to explain why I was incorrect in my assertions regarding the hazard of the mRNA so-called vaccine platform.
So if you've been waiting for that, this is your day.
But even more to the point, I have the pleasure and honor of sitting this morning with Jumi Kim and Brett Swanson.
Now, longtime viewers of Dark Horse will have heard those names mentioned many times, and the reason for that is because these are people I trust at the highest level.
These are excellent thinkers who are also extremely decent and articulate people, and they are joining me to help analyze what we have been presented by Dr. Wilson, and I think you will find them as fascinating and enlightening as I do.
I will, in introducing them, tell you where you can find their work, and I strongly recommend that you sign up for both of their substacks.
You will find no end of useful material on those pages.
So, without further ado, Jumi Kim is a cellular biologist from Rutgers, and her substack is Let's Be Clear.
Jumi, welcome to Dark Horse!
Hi.
And Brett Swanson is a technical analyst, I think is his official designation, but he is an ultra generalist in the best sense of that term.
He is somebody who can do a deep dive on technical topics and come out with a clear understanding that is then beautifully presented.
His substack is called Infonomia.
Do I have that right, Brett?
Infonomena.
Oh god, I've already screwed up.
This is terribly embarrassing.
Infonomena.
Sorry.
Not at all.
That is my bad.
In any case, Brett, welcome to Dark Horse.
So great to be here.
I will point out that you also spell Brett in a heterodox fashion with fewer than the usual number of Ts, which could make this somewhat confusing for people trying to keep track of who's speaking.
But nonetheless, you've got two Bretts.
You can decide which one is primary and which one is a spare.
I don't care one way or the other.
I think we know.
I think, you know, that is a beautiful and very diplomatic way of saying that because whatever it is that I might think is arguably defensible.
Okay, so I think what we're going to do is talk about a couple of general issues that we know are going to come up repeatedly in this analysis, and then we are going to move into a step-by-step discussion of the points raised by Dr. Wilson's Guests.
But before we do that, I think I do need to deliver an apology to Dr. Wilson.
And the reason for that is because this response is quite delayed.
And if it were just simply delayed as a result of, you know, life intervening after he had produced a video, that would be one thing.
But I specifically invited critique on this very point.
And he Dutifully delivered and my feeling is although I do think he's got it dead wrong and I think viewers of this podcast will see why I believe that very soon.
I don't hold that against him.
The fact is.
We know a great deal more about the quality of a point when we've seen the counter-arguments leveled and evaluated.
So it is an honorable and important role to bring those counter-arguments and then to see how they fare.
So I'm glad he did that and I'm looking forward to presenting the counter counter arguments but it is quite delayed for reasons that are at least initially understandable.
I looked back and Dan's video he put out on October 5th so obviously the world changed on October 7th and that Put this much lower on the priority list, at least for a bit, and then my life became quite busy with two trips to multiple countries in Europe, several trips to the East Coast, at least one trip to Texas, etc.
So I do not offer this as an excuse, but just so the audience understands why this took so long.
October 7th derailed things and then life took over from there.
But nonetheless, we are.
Panama too, right?
Oh that's quite right, also Central America, yes, Panama as well.
So yes, it's been very busy.
Nonetheless, this is such an important topic.
Is the mRNA so-called vaccine platform viable or isn't it, that I wish we'd gotten to it sooner, and I will just say that the delay is entirely on me.
Jumi and Brett would have been willing to do this much earlier.
This episode is sponsored by Paleo Valley.
Paleo Valley makes a huge range of products from supplements like fish roe and organ complex, grass-fed bone broth protein, and superfood bars.
Everything we have tried from them has been terrific.
We've spoken before about their beef sticks, which are 100% grass-fed and finished, organic and naturally fermented, but today we're going to talk about superfood golden milk.
Golden milk, also known as turmeric milk, is a delicious, nutritious, hot drink rich in turmeric, usually made in a base of either milk or coconut milk.
Turmeric is a flowering plant in the ginger family, which makes it a zingiber, folks, and it grows across much of tropical Asia.
Just as with ginger, the rhizome of turmeric has been used culinarily and medicinally across cultures for millennia.
Modern research backs up ancient wisdom, and we now know that turmeric is an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory, among many other beneficial mechanisms of action.
A particularly delicious way to get turmeric in your diet is through golden milk.
Enter Paleo Valley's Superfood Golden Milk.
Paleo Valley's delicious product has turmeric, of course, and also ginger, cinnamon, black pepper, coconut milk powder, and a bit of monk fruit to add sweetness, as well as several species of mushrooms, lion's mane, reishi, shiitake, and cordyceps.
It's gluten-free, grain-free, soy-free, non-GMO, and it's delicious.
Paleo Valley doesn't cut corners.
They source only the highest quality ingredients, and they use whole ingredients, unlike many of their competitors.
Their superfood golden milk has whole turmeric, not just curcumin, a component of turmeric, and whole certified organic mushrooms, not just the mycelium.
Golden milk is understood to help reduce inflammation, enhance cognitive function, support immune function, improve digestion, and increase endurance.
Paleo Valley is passionate not only about human health, but environmental restoration and animal welfare as well.
And they're a family-owned company.
Try Paleo Valley's Superfood Golden Milk today.
You'll be so glad you did.
Head over to PaleoValley.com slash Dark Horse for 15% off your first order.
With that said, I will just point out that there are two issues that come up several different times, and I think in the interest of time it's better just to deal with them up front.
One of them has to do with The use of the term autoimmune, which I invoke.
Maybe I should actually just outline the hypothesis in question.
What do you think, Brett and Jimmy?
Does that make sense?
Yeah, I think that's a good way to start.
All right.
So this all started when I said on a podcast with Jeremy Riss and Michael Shermer that the mRNA platform was flawed
In an unrecoverable way because it requires cells in the body to produce a foreign protein in the case of the COVID vaccines it's the spike protein but that what that does is it causes cells to give off a signature that suggests that they have been virally infected.
That signature is the production of self-antigens and non-self-antigens, foreign proteins.
And when cells in the body, T-cells specifically, see that signature, they kill off the cell that is engaged in this behavior because the presumption is that that cell is virally infected.
This is historically, evolutionarily, the only analog for that behavior.
And so as much as destroying one's own cells is not a good thing to do, it is better than leaving a virally infected cell intact.
So the body is programmed to recognize that signature and attack cells that are producing it.
And therefore, I said, when these so-called vaccines turned out to circulate around the body, that meant that they carried a lethal danger because they have no targeting mechanism on them.
They do not have an address that they are seeking a particular type of cell that they are taken up by they're taken up on the basis that they are covered in lipid which is a fat and essentially every cell in the body is covered in a fat layer and because like dissolves like these lipid nanoparticles that contain the mRNA message get taken up by whatever cells they encounter and start
producing spike protein, which then results in the immune system, even according to the design of the vaccine manufacturers, causes the immune system to recognize this foreign protein and react to it.
That's the way the vaccine works.
But it means that those cells that are doing the job of this vaccine will be destroyed by the immune system.
And when it turned out that they circulated beyond the site of injection, that meant that vital tissues, especially the heart, would be in a particular kind of jeopardy.
Place there by the activity of our cytotoxic T cells, which go around killing virally infected cells.
I don't know that that was the most elegant description of the hypothesis, but I think all of the elements were there.
And in any case, I got taken to task, among other things, for calling the activity of our immune systems when it attacks virally infected cells, or in the case of these vaccines, cells that appear to be virally infected, I called that an autoimmune response.
Now I will just say I am not the only person who would describe them that way, and I do think that there is a gray area in the language, but let's just be generous here.
Technically, this is not an autoimmune response, even though it is an attack on our own cells by our immune systems, because an autoimmune disorder is defined as requiring reaction to self-antigens, that is, antigens we ourselves produce.
And in this case, what we've got is an antigen we are induced to produce, not by a viral infection, but by an inoculation, and so technically it doesn't count under that rubric.
You could also further argue, and in fact one of the experts that Dr. Wilson brought to the table, argues that an essential difference here is that an autoimmune disorder is permanent,
And the transfected cells that have this impact as a result of these so-called vaccines is potentially transient and therefore it doesn't look like an autoimmune disorder in a second regard.
So let's just say I accept the critique.
The terminology If we are being precise, and indeed more precise than people often are, does suggest that this is a valid observation, and I have endeavored and will endeavor to correct my language going forward.
But of course it has no ...implication for whether the mechanism I described is accurate and, assuming it is accurate, whether that is a hazard that is tolerable in order to get the benefit from these shots.
Jimmy or Brett, do you have anything to add?
Just to emphasize that, I think it's an important distinction and I guess acknowledgement that you just made, but it's very clear that it is a semantic point.
While good to get off the table, it doesn't really affect the heart, the core of your argument or the argument that Dan Wilson's friends were making.
Yep, I absolutely agree with that.
Jimmy, do you have anything you want to add?
No, I agree with that.
Okay, so let me deal with the other semantic issue that I think comes up here.
I, for whatever reason, said in describing the production of these vaccine-induced antigens, I used the term transcription.
The correct term is, of course, translation.
This is not something I'm confused about as a biologist, but interestingly, this is one of these issues that you know very well until somebody turns a camera on you or you're standing at the chalkboard and I find that I get the terminology wrong about half the time.
In fact, Since Dan's video came out and called my attention to the fact that I had made that error here, I've made it one more time in public at least.
So anyway, I don't know why the mind works that way.
It's not an important distinction, but for those of you who are wondering what the hubbub is about, Let's take the simplest case when you've got DNA in the nucleus of a cell and it produces an RNA transcript on the way to making a protein.
We call the first step of this transcription, because they remain within the language of nucleotides, And when it moves to another language, the language of proteins, we call that translation.
So if you imagine if I was writing down what somebody was speaking, I'm staying within the language of English.
I'm just taking it from auditory to visual.
And then if I were going to turn it into Portuguese, that would be a translation.
So anyway, yes, I should have said translation rather than transcription.
But again, not a substantive problem.
That's just purely semantic.
Either of you have anything you want to add on that front?
Perfect.
All right, so let's get to the substance of the matter.
What we are going to do here is we are going to step through the video and pause whenever we have an observation to make.
All right, here we go.
So without further ado, I give you the experts.
Hi, I'm Cindy Leifer.
I'm a professor of immunology at Cornell University.
I'm here because we're talking about autoimmunity to viral antigens in vaccines and why that's just not true.
That's not what happens.
What is autoimmunity?
Autoimmunity is when your body reacts against a self-antigen.
The reason why that's different from a viral infection is because you can't not have a self-antigen.
It's part of your body.
It never goes away.
This is fundamentally different than anything that's in a vaccine or anything that's associated with a viral infection.
Those are foreign antigens.
And yes, we develop an immune response to them, but it's temporary.
We develop B-cells that make antibodies and T-cells that can help those B-cells make antibodies or T-cells that can go kill virally infected cells.
But once they do their job, almost all of them are eliminated from the body and some are maintained as memory cells so that the next time you encounter that antigen, you can very effectively react against it.
All right, I have a couple things to say here, maybe you guys do as well.
One thing I would say is that in passing she acknowledges what of course anybody in her position would know, which is that virally infected cells are destroyed by our immune system, which is the central piece of my claim also.
I would also point out though that she paints a picture That is extremely clean relative to what actually happens.
And the reason for this, or the reason that the reality is less clear, is that The immune system is, in principle, capable of responding to virtually any biological threat at a molecular level.
The way we manage not to be overwhelmed by our immunity against ourselves is that all of the cells that react to our own proteins are eliminated during development.
But that creates a, when it works, a very elegant system that distinguishes self from non-self.
But it also creates an evolutionary incentive for pathogens to find those holes in our immune system.
So there is a whole landscape of gray area and nuance surrounding this issue because pathogens that come to molecularly look like self evade the immune system by doing so and so there's very strong selective pressure both over evolutionary time and even in the course of a given human or a given infection.
There's a very powerful force driving antigens to find this space.
Likewise, you have a universe of things that hover between self and non-self.
That may seem strange at first, but those things that are regularly in our environment that we ourselves do not produce are things that the immune system in general should ignore.
Things like pollen grains, for example, or fungal spores, those sorts of things, or proteins in our food.
Those are all things that we are harmed when we react to them.
But of course, famously, there are a tremendous number of reactions to these things, allergies, and those allergies can be deadly.
You can get asthma from allergy to things that you've inhaled or eaten and it can kill you.
So the cartoon version of self versus non-self recognition is all well and good.
And it is an important stage in understanding immunity.
But the reality of immunity in a complex system means that self and non-self are not as clear a distinction as they might be.
And in fact, the novelty of the mRNA platform itself raises a question because the body is being induced to produce proteins that it wouldn't otherwise.
Yeah, if I can jump in.
Although the autoimmunity issue may not be the central one we're going to talk about most today, I think we're mostly going to be talking about the cytotoxic immune attack of transfected cells.
It seems quite apparent that we've had an explosion of autoimmune conditions over the last several years.
I think any clinician would tell you this, epidemiologists would tell you this.
And I mean, if I've learned anything over the last couple of years studying this, Biology and especially the immune system are just extraordinarily complex, and I don't think we're anywhere close to understanding all of the mechanisms by which many of these autoimmune conditions have arisen over the last couple of years.
But if you look at things like thrombocytopenia, if you look at the sort of reactivation of things like lupus and diabetes and Sjogren's disease and all these multi-inflammatory conditions that are hard to define and diagnose and treat,
Clearly, I think there are a host, and we've got thousands of case reports on this, a multitude of autoimmune reactions, even if we don't fully understand them.
So to dismiss these effects, despite all the overwhelming evidence, I think is too cavalier.
Yeah, in fact, there's a recognition amongst people who are grappling both scientifically and medically with the consequences of these so-called vaccines of what's called dysregulation.
So what we see is an immune system that when it works is supposed to draw clear distinctions that is failing to draw those distinctions.
It's losing the ability to hold viruses in check in a way that we typically do, for example.
You know, there are a lot of questions about why these transfection agents are having this impact on the immune system, but the idea that there is a whole new landscape of dysfunction and that nobody understands it yet is pretty clear.
Something I'll add to that is that The experts that Dan has on, they may, I don't know what they would think about this, but probably they would admit that sometimes autoimmune issues can happen after a viral infection.
And they're saying these vaccines are similar to getting a viral infection.
I mean, it's different, but let's just say that's more or less the case.
Why wouldn't it be possible, you know, with these transfection vaccines?
Yeah, I think the way to think of it, you know, you said, Brett, that the immune system is a complex system in and of itself, which is absolutely true.
It's also an evolutionary system and an informational system.
And one of the In fact, the reason that Heather and I became so alarmed when the mechanisms underlying these shots was revealed was that it was a radical intervention in a complex system in which information is a primary component.
So nobody is going to be in a position to predict all of the consequences.
And indeed we've seen innumerable consequences that nobody saw coming.
So yes, dismissing the idea that autoimmunity could be a consequence of these shots is nonsense.
But let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Let's say that they are just simply taking me to task for invoking autoimmunity in the context of the mechanism that I described, which, narrowly speaking, is not autoimmune.
It is the immune system reacting to our cells, but as a result of a foreign antigen.
One other thing is we might want to show a paper.
It's called Potential Autoimmunity Resulting from Molecular Mimicry Between SARS-CoV-2 Spike and Human Proteins.
I think there are a few other papers like this, but there are a few papers just predicting that there are some shared epitopes there between some human proteins and spike.
Perfect.
Yeah, as you would expect because the evolutionary pressure is so intense to find holes in the immune system.
And while each individual has unique holes in their immune system as a result of idiosyncrasies of the proteins they personally produce that are not widely shared, There's also large holes in the immune system that cover proteins that we all produce, right?
If a virus can adopt a molecular look that resembles those things, then the immune system is in a bind because it can either pursue those
Those pathogens at the level of these molecules and risk attacking the body itself or it can refrain and leave those pathogens unchallenged which this goes beyond the scope of this podcast but if you want to think about why
autoimmune disorders exist at all, this is one of the big reasons is that these holes in the immune system are an opportunity for a pathogen that wishes to escape surveillance, and therefore there's an arms race that crosses hundreds of millions of years in which pathogens and hosts have battled over these holes.
All right, shall we forge ahead?
But the problem with autoimmunity is that antigen never goes away.
So the antigen is always there, the immune response is always on, and therefore you've lost control of that immune response.
So it's an issue of timing and control.
We can't control that immune response against self-antigens effectively, and you can't ever get rid of the self-antigen, so it's a progressive chronic disease.
And an immune reaction to a foreign antigen just simply is not autoimmunity.
I would just add one thing, which I know is going to come up in several different places here.
Again, the distinction between a transient interaction and a permanent chronic condition is both a real distinction and one in which there's a lot of gray area.
And the fact of the mRNA that were utilized in these inoculations having been What I would call hyper-stabilized, the substitution of every single uracil in the mRNA with pseudouridine caused these things to be incredibly durable.
And so, in fact, we don't know how long they last in the body, and we don't know what their fate is.
Are they being taken up by cells, translated into protein?
The cells are destroyed.
The mRNA persists through that destruction and is taken up by another cell that then produces these proteins.
We really are at the beginning stages of understanding what these pathologies look like.
And so, you know, is it transient?
Not nearly as transient as we were told it was.
Is it permanent?
Probably not.
But It's somewhere in between, and so it's the novelty of these shots is challenging even the fundamental categories that we tend to think of biologically.
Anything either of you want to add there?
Absolutely, and just because she spent a lot of time talking about autoimmunity, I just, you know, we pulled up a bunch of papers and there are, like I said, hundreds and hundreds, so these are just a couple, but You know, Graves' disease after mRNA, autoimmune hepatitis following mRNA, adult-onset stills following mRNA.
Then there's sort of a wrap-up comprehensive paper, Insight into New-Onset Autoimmune Diseases After COVID-19 Vaccination by Ming Guo.
And again, there are many, many more.
But the evidence that's in the literature is, like we'll talk about many times today, really overwhelming, even if we don't understand all the mechanisms.
And that's a key fact.
When you're dealing with biology, you are inherently dealing with a complex system, and in this case we're dealing with layered complex systems, so it's not infrequent for us to have Awareness of a pattern and a lack of understanding about its cause.
That's typically where you start in biology.
And because this is all so new, that is where we're going to find ourselves repeatedly.
So anybody making declarative statements about what just simply off the table is suspect to begin with.
All right, shall we move on?
The second point is mechanism.
The idea put forth for how a spike protein in a vaccine might potentially cause autoimmunity is that there's tons of the mRNA that gets into cardiomyocytes and that causes an immune response and then the immune cells attack those cardiomyocytes and cause the damage.
There's no evidence that that happens.
There's multiple ways to have myocarditis.
One of the ways is the way I just said.
So if there are T cells that are reacting against a self-antigen, they can induce damage.
Or there can be just general high levels of inflammatory response in that individual, and that causes immune molecules called cytokines to be circulating in the blood at high levels.
And if they're in the blood at high levels, they could, in fact, damage the heart.
And the third way is if there's just a predisposition.
So an individual might have a particular genetic makeup that makes them simply more likely to generate this inflammatory response and more likely to incur damage to the heart regardless of the type of stress to the body.
Sorry.
All right, there's a lot to unpack there.
Either one of you want to start off?
Well, this really gets to the heart of the matter, I guess.
No pun intended, sorry.
She said that, you know, mRNA and spike do not impact the cardiomyocytes and Here again, the evidence is so overwhelming, it's hard to understand how this late in the game, I realize this was several months ago, that, you know, we're looking at such different, I guess, sets of literature and evidence all around.
You can look up at how many Different papers.
There's the Crosson paper that was in NPJ Vaccines, talking about mRNA vaccine persistence and factors associated with cardiac involvement in recently vaccinated patients, which found lots of patients who were deceased, they found the mRNA spike and cytotoxic lymphocytes in the heart tissue.
There was the Yonker paper, Circulating Spike Protein Detected in Post-COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Myocarditis.
That was a very well publicized Then you have just the series of autopsies.
So you have the Christian-Bohmeier biopsy proven case series.
You've got the Konstantin Schwab and Schermacher paper, autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, showing versus with biopsies, autopsies, and then other molecular systems, measurement systems,
Both the spike and the attacking lymphocytes, often T cells, NK cells, other types of lymphocytes, in the damaged tissue of people that were either injured or deceased.
And again, I could go on for dozens and dozens and dozens of other papers, But to me, and again as an outsider, somebody that's learned a lot of this over the last couple of years just reading the literature, it strikes me that there was a big disconnect on some of these points among people like the two of you and Dan and his friends that are much more expert in these narrow fields than I am.
But coming at this from the outside, the literature is so voluminous and so clear, I think this is a very good example of what has Gone wrong writ large across so many different areas of COVID over the last couple of years.
Yeah, I'm stunned even by the way she's presented.
She's effectively said, yeah, it could be that mechanism and here are two others, one of which I don't even It doesn't really mean anything.
Basically, she cites inflammation as the cause of inflammation, rather than the right way around, which is that inflammation is frequently downstream of damage.
And it's the damage that was central to my argument.
And the point is, the damage is difficult to detect.
The symptom is what alerts us to it.
And the idea that at autopsy, it's not even My hypothesis would not be falsified if at autopsy we didn't find these lymphocytes because it's possible that the damage done is over by the time the person dies.
The fact that we do see them on autopsy is a screaming red flag that tells us that the mechanism in question at least often does involve attack by our immune system against heart tissue which strongly supports the hypothesis that I advanced.
So I feel like what she's telling us is that she's actually a verificationist who instead of going to look for evidence that this was a hazard only sought evidence that Pointed in some other direction.
So anyway, it was surprising to me to hear her say that.
Anything either of you have further?
I just want to elaborate.
There's going to be so much more on this topic from the others.
I'll wait for now.
Okay, Jumi?
I'll just elaborate on some of the things that Brett Swanson brought up.
So in that Krausen paper, the relevant figures, figure 2, it shows biodistribution and persistence of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines.
So this is the mRNA, not just the spike, but it shows some individuals where they detected the mRNA vaccine in the left and right ventricles of the heart.
There's also Some other papers corroborating this.
There was a paper by Lee et al., published in 2021, called Intravenous Injection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 mRNA Vaccine Can Induce Acute Myopericarditis in Mouse Models.
So this was experiments done in mice where they injected the mice both intravenously and intramuscularly with the mRNA vaccines in both cases for the IV and the intramuscular injections.
In the supplementary material, it shows that they detected the mRNA vaccine in the hearts of the mice for both types of injection.
Dr.
Yeah, that's particularly damning, right?
Not just the presence of the lymphocytes, but the presence of the mRNA transcript itself in the myocytes leaves very little opportunity for any other mechanism to be explanatory here.
I would also point out Early in this segment, she strangely suggests that My presentation requires a huge number of myocytes to be transfected.
The fact is, my point would be the amount of damage is going to be proportional to how many myocytes are transfected.
It's not good if it's a small number and it can be catastrophic if it's a large number.
But this also does raise this question which you point to, Jumi.
about accidental intravenous injection and I would point out that Mark Girardeau has been has been trying to highlight this hazard which was in fact caused not It's not entirely caused by, but it is largely caused by the strange requirement that those administering these shots not aspirate the syringe.
There is a technique that is understood, which is when you put a needle in somebody's tissue, you pull back on the plunger to see if there is any blood.
The implication is if you see blood, that's because you've landed in a blood vessel and it would be a mistake to inject the material there, so you push the needle in farther.
People who were delivering these shots were instructed not to do that specifically, which means that some fraction of the damage that occurred was due to the random chance of having the needle at the wrong depth to get into the interstitial spaces in the muscle, and it actually went into circulatory tissue.
So, in those cases, you would likely have much larger numbers of myocytes transfected, compounding the damage greatly.
Anything else you think needs to be said there?
Well, just on that point, the Yonker paper, you know, found that Markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies were detected in the plasma of individuals with post-vaccine myocarditis where no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects.
So whether it is free spike large amounts of free spike in the blood that is the problem or whether the free spike in the blood is a signal that more mRNA got into more places in the body.
That does seem to go to your point.
All right, let's take another chunk here.
The third point I want to make is that viral infections are actually one of the most common underlying mechanisms for myocarditis.
It's not a vaccine.
It's the actual viral infection because some viruses infect the heart cells.
That's their target cell type.
And in that case, yes, the immune system aggressively attacks those infected cells.
All right, so she acknowledges that the immune system will attack heart cells if virally infected.
She alludes to viruses attacking the heart, which while that is certainly something that occurs sometimes, it is uncommon.
And it is uncommon for a pretty clear evolutionary reason, which is that the heart is not a good tissue from which to propagate an infection.
Right?
The heart is deeply buried within our system.
If you infect the lungs of a creature, then getting to the next creature has an obvious, there's an obvious route for transmission.
It's hard to jump from somebody's heart into somebody else's heart and so viruses tend to spare the heart because they have an interest in keeping the host on its feet or at least alive so that it can spread a virus.
So viruses are selected so that this is a fairly rare pattern.
Now she's going to claim that it is an extremely common pattern with SARS-CoV-2 and that the more dangerous forms of myocarditis are the result of SARS-CoV-2 infections, not transfection of the heart with mRNA.
Q&A.
Quite unclear how she reaches that conclusion.
It's not well supported by evidence, but nonetheless, that's the argument that she's making.
But I didn't want to have her gloss over the rarity of the pattern that she's invoking as common.
There's a ton of evidence on this point as well.
First of all, she acknowledges the basic mechanism, whether it's by infection or transfection, that damage can occur.
But the evidence that we have, at least as far as I can tell, is very clear that the myocarditis due to COVID itself was quite rare.
You can look at the jump from 2020 when we had lots of the virus all over the world where we did not really see myocarditis rates jump.
Especially in young and middle-aged people, where it would be more conspicuous.
But then in 21 and after, we saw jumps in all sorts of ways.
And you can look, there's a paper that was in the American College of Cardiology by Joy.
He found no increase in myocarditis in COVID-19 in 2020.
There was a huge Israeli paper by Tuvalu.
Which looked at 197,000 Israelis in 2020 found no increased incidence of myocarditis due to COVID-19.
There are others I could go on but and again we can come back to this point but this has been one I think of the most persistent arguments or should I say talking points It meant to, I think, minimize the seriousness of the cardiac issues.
Yeah, it is a talking point, formulated to misdirect, it would seem.
And what's more, we will also return to this point, but The implication being that one is choosing between these things when in fact one of the greatest failings of these shots is that they didn't manage to block transmission of the virus.
And so it is not a choice between which kind of myocarditis you'd like to risk.
To the extent that it is caused by SARS-CoV-2, the question is, would you like an additional source of risk from the transfection elements?
And for me, that would be an obvious no.
Now, myocarditis can happen with SARS-CoV-2 infection as well, or COVID-19.
In that case, the myocarditis is more severe, more long-lasting, and 10 times more frequent than if you have the very rare mild form of myocarditis in response to a vaccine.
So what do we take away from this?
One, there's no evidence that there's this massive immune response against the heart cells by the immune system following a vaccine.
So obviously what she just covered we covered in the section just ahead of it.
People will correct for that I guess.
In this case she is by putting the word massive in there she is obscuring the problem which is that there is evidence of this mechanism in play and the degree to which any individual may suffer from it Presumably varies by the degree of transfection, but I don't know if you want to jump in here, Jumi.
This is a point that I think you've been excellent on.
You want to talk about the subclinical question?
Yeah.
Sorry, I'm not sure, you mean like the . - Well, you have been making the point, I don't know for how long, but that we detect but that we detect multiple times
myocarditis when it is clinically relevant when somebody is sick enough that they show up in a doctor's office or a mortuary or a morgue more likely than before they get to the mortuary but the point is we detect those cases which are by definition more severe and that we do not
necessarily see every case where somebody has received damage in their heart damage that starts as a wound and then becomes a scar which will actually compromise their heart's function over a lifetime and in fact there I've forgotten what the name of the study is but there was one study in which somebody did systematically look at this where they instead of
Working backwards from cases of myocarditis, they worked forwards from instances of inoculation and looked for myocarditis where there were no symptoms and indeed found a shocking level.
Do either of you remember?
Yeah, I have some.
I'm not sure if these are the papers you're talking about, but there was one Called Sex-Specific Differences in Myocardial Injury Incidents After COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination.
Bergen et al.
So that one found 5.1% had elevated troponin levels.
So that's just a marker for heart injury.
So these are not people who You know, you would say had myocarditis, but they were certainly exhibiting heart stress.
And then there was another one, another paper by Man Senglun.
Yeah, the Thai paper.
Yeah, right.
And in that one they found 3.5 percent, this was boys, appeared to have either overt or subclinical myocarditis after Pfizer vaccination.
Yeah, which is an incredibly high rate for a condition that actually has a pretty low survival rate as you extrapolate out.
Now, we don't of course know how similar the myocarditis that's being produced by these shots is to the myocarditis that was understood before the shots were ever introduced.
But that's a very high number, especially in light of the fact that we're talking about young people who stood to gain effectively nothing from these shots and would still have remained vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2.
And these were both, as I understand it, prospective papers.
So both the Thai and the Swiss papers, they looked at your heart and your markers Uh, in your blood before and after the mRNA vaccination.
And so they could rule out that you had some other sort of condition pre-existing the vaccination.
And people might have expected is too strong a word because we don't want to expect any of this.
The Thai paper was among teenage boys.
The Swiss paper was among health workers who mostly, I gather, were young and middle-aged women.
And they found a similar percentage, several percent, with these markers of cardiac damage.
Yeah, which is just, uh, it's mind blowing that anybody, how, how this among other things didn't result in immediate scrutiny.
And from my perspective, the pulling of these things from the market, at least for young, healthy people who stood to gain nothing from them, it's shocking to me.
It's a total failure of, of our system to protect people from an obvious danger or something very serious.
Just one more data point on her assertion that COVID-19 virus causes more and worse myocarditis than mRNA shots was the big Nordic Scandinavian paper, I think covering 23 million people.
Now, it just looked at health records, which isn't the Very best way to do it.
But even that paper found, depending on which cohort you were looking for, something like a 6 to 13 times more myocarditis from the mRNA shots than from the virus itself.
I'd have to go back and look at the exact numbers on there.
Yeah, I agree.
Somehow, in the public mind, and apparently in Dr. Leifer's mind, the reality has been inverted with respect to the commonality and severity of this hazard.
That is not autoimmunity.
Autoimmunity is to antigens that can't go away.
They're part of your body.
It's a chronic immune response that's not controlled.
And third, virus infection itself can cause myocarditis, and it's much more severe, long-lasting, and debilitating than anything you might see with a vaccine.
Yeah, not that anything that you might see with a vaccine and really the point that has been missed here and will will be missed continually is the importance of damage to the heart, which I was very careful.
I make this point regularly, which is at the heart.
I interpret this as the downside of the heart's exquisite protection against tumors.
The heart effectively never gets tumors.
And that is, in my opinion, likely to be the result of the fact that it has a very low capacity for repair.
In fact, mostly it doesn't repair.
What it does is it scars over.
And so when we are talking in such cavalier terms as Dr. Leifer is about
You know, the myocarditis that is the result of these shots, what we're talking about is a wound in the heart that even when the person survives that wound and goes on to live a relatively normal life, they're doing so with compromised cardiac capacity because scar tissue is
You know, it's a distant second to your healthy heart tissue.
So anyway... Well, just to add, there's several studies now that have looked at some long-term outcomes of people who got myocarditis from the vaccines.
There was one Australian one, Shenton et al, that one found that 54.8% of patients diagnosed with vaccine-associated myocarditis reported ongoing symptoms at six months.
There was another study that found that they were looking at teens up to a year since they got their diagnosis.
56% still had features of myocarditis.
Two out of three still had abnormal findings.
So this is a year in and they still have symptoms.
A year in, in young people who have very long lives ahead of them, hopefully.
But that's... We are playing with damage to the most vital of vital organs in people with long lives ahead of them.
It's unthinkable.
Especially in light of the age stratification of the danger of SARS-CoV-2, in which Young healthy people have almost no danger from these things, and so the risk of myocarditis from the shot is a preposterous one for such a small benefit.
Brad, I just wanted to point out that you were making this point from early on because of your
Your work in evolutionary biology, your work with cancer, your understanding of the heart and its specialness with the type of cells, and I just didn't think we could pass, you know, go along without mentioning that you recognized the fact that if this was going to do damage to other organs, the heart would be especially
Perhaps vulnerable, and it's too bad I think that's actually turned out to be the case.
Well, I would invite people to look at
this the other way around that anytime some process or substance is generally damaging to the cells of the body you will discover it as a result of a critical failure in the heart because the heart is especially vulnerable because the heart is endowed with such exquisite tumor protection at the cost of such low capacity for repair and because the heart when it fails
creates such an overwhelming pathology that we spot it, especially when it happens in young people, where it effectively never should.
Well, that's a great point, and we can come back to this later, but as long as we're here, I do think there's a lot of evidence that young men are especially vulnerable for some reason or another, whether it's testosterone, androgens, etc., at that point in their Life cycle, because we've also seen that with sort of sports or high-intensity activity.
On the other hand, it may be that the conspicuous nature of finding this in young people, where we almost never see heart attacks or other cardiac events.
Maybe they actually survived more of these events where they come into the hospital with, you know, chest pain, right?
Whereas lots of the people in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, who maybe died of cardiac events, we never thought of those as myocarditis events over the last couple of years because they weren't able to withstand this trauma.
So part of this is a measurement and issue of conspicuousness.
That's a really good point that presumably many people who were within an age range where heart attacks would be common may not have been scrutinized with respect to whether or not there was some sort of myocardial or myocarditis precursor.
And that when it happens in a kid, of course, you're going to look because nothing should be happening in the heart at all.
All right.
Why is all this important?
Because the only ways that we can prevent ourselves from getting infected with viruses are from preventing exposure and that's wearing masks all the time and even that's not 100% effective.
So this is where this gets really strange for me.
What she has started to say here is that Wearing masks all the time is the way that we prevent people from getting, I think she says viruses generally, but she's not skeptical of the utility of masks even at this late date in preventing the spread of this disease and she says it's not a hundred percent effective.
Well what percent effective does she think it is?
It's remarkable that she sees that as the top line of defense.
But then she goes on, well, as we will see here, maybe I should just let her speak for herself.
So we need to protect ourselves against viruses.
We have very few treatments for viruses.
So the best way to protect yourself against virus infections is to be vaccinated.
All right.
Again, she says we have very few treatments.
Well, this is beyond the scope of this podcast, but I don't think we do have very few treatments.
And in fact, with respect to SARS-CoV-2, we have some excellent treatments that are highly effective, which have been systematically demonized and undervalued.
And so anyway, I don't know what whether you two will want to comment on this, but it seems to me that this is a this person is functioning like a
A recitation of the standard talking points from a perspective in which these vaccines are the only response to an extremely dangerous virus and that they make perfect sense from that perspective.
Well, you've talked a lot about the treatment angle, so let me just Comment on the idea that Vaccines are the best way to prevent a respiratory virus.
I think I certainly hoped that that would be the case here as I learned more and more and looked back on the history of say the influenza vaccines.
And even you saw that when Dr. Anthony Fauci left office, I think in the first month or two after he retired, he published a paper in a major cell journal.
Saying, well, obviously, we didn't think that these vaccines were going to work just like the flu vaccines are large, largely ineffective, because of the difference between mucosal and systemic immunity.
And a lot of us reading that after seeing what he'd been saying on TV for the previous couple years, were a little bit stunned.
Of course, I think that is a central point that preventing, you know, highly Mutation viruses that mutate frequently with a non-mucosal barrier is going to be very difficult.
But again, the sort of just assertion that we know that this is the best way to treat these or to prevent them is just that, I think, an assertion.
Yeah, it's remarkable.
This is one of the things that I did learn during the so-called pandemic was the degree to which immunity is not A simple parameter that you either have or don't, but the localness of immunity, the mucosal immunity differing substantially from a body-wide immunity raises obvious questions about this approach to controlling this particular disease.
And so, you know, the shallowness of the perspective is pretty dramatic, I would say.
And there's no doubt that the vaccine is safe and effective.
So I just want to repeat what she said.
There is no doubt that the vaccine is safe and effective.
So this again gets into, this is a faith-based assertion that At the point she is making this claim does not stand up to even the barest scrutiny and in any case it calls into question her entire perspective.
If she has not even woken up to the fact that there are questions, serious ones, about the safety of these vaccines and that the efficacy of them
has been challenged by every data set and in fact the only the only defense of it is to keep moving the goalposts so that the presumed utility of the vaccines is corralled into a very tight neighborhood.
It's shocking.
I'm struggling for words to even describe how absurd that perspective is coming from a so-called expert Late in the so-called pandemic.
And it is much better to get the vaccine, much lower risk of disease, much lower risk of myocarditis than with getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 and getting COVID-19.
Okay, so Brett, you've covered this quite well.
Her claim is simply not true that your risks are lower with the vaccine, but maybe even more to the point, she's speaking as if it is a choice.
You get the vaccine, you won't get the disease, and your risks from the vaccine are lower.
No, If you get the vaccine, you are still very likely to get the disease, and therefore it's a question of compounding the risks that you are already facing with a new risk that you don't have to face.
Am I missing something?
No, not at all.
And again, the evidence is so voluminous, probably the most famous paper that gets cited a lot, actually it's two papers coming from the Cleveland Clinic,
They tested, surveyed their 51,000 employees, and they found an amazing stair-step reverse effectiveness effect, where the people that had, I think, four or more doses had the most infections.
Three doses was a little bit less, two doses a little bit less, one dose.
And the people that were not vaccinated had the fewest COVID-19 infections, and then they went back, I think maybe six months later, and they found that that same effect persisted.
Now, we can see this in all kinds of studies, all kinds of epidemiological surveys, and with our own eyes over this, you know, several year period.
But again, it's falling back on these assertions, these talking points, which get to one of your points you've made so often and so well, pardon me, the last couple of years, which is that something seems to have gone wrong with our sensemaking,
mechanism as individuals at our institutions, whether that's academia, medical schools, the media, government agencies, even our sort of civic culture, where these things that we all hoped for, but didn't turn out to be true, are not corrected.
And this is just one little example, but it's just it's happening so often that it's a it's a big problem.
Yeah, we, you know, at the beginning of all of this, before we knew anything about what the real world consequences of these shots was going to be, it was clear that there were many mechanisms by which this could go wrong.
antibody-dependent enhancement, original antigenic sin, the arms race that produces novel variants.
And then what I think took many of us by surprise was the empirical discovery that multiple inoculations with the mRNA platform vaccine caused the production of IgG4, which itself is the body's own mechanism for turning down immunity.
So there were many mechanisms by which a vaccine that was not well tested could make things worse and not better.
So why a system of supposed experts that should be aware of all of these pathways did not Register alarm when evidence that things were in fact being made worse for the vaccinated arose.
The obvious question is by what mechanism or mechanisms is that happening?
Yeah, and I was going to talk about this later, but since we're on it, you know, we saw, especially, it was very apparent in nations that did not have much COVID in 2020.
So I'm thinking of a lot of Asian nations, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia.
Once the vaccination campaign came in 2021, the hope was that they were going to get through that a low period that they enjoyed in 2020 and got on the other side of the vaccine.
Instead they had explosions of COVID in those countries along with excess mortality and we can talk about that later as well.
But whether it is imprinting, or it's tolerance, or it's a combination of the two, or some other factors that you just mentioned, these are certainly fascinating from a scientific perspective, coming from someone where I had no idea about any of this stuff before I got to learn it.
Again, it points to the complexity of our immune systems, it points to the complexity of these thoroughly novel technologies, which we probably haven't Emphasized enough today, although you have over the last several years, and the way that this super novel technology interacts with our super novel, you know, our super complex immune system.
But again, the data is so, so overwhelming.
Yeah, it's overwhelming.
We're in search of the mechanism or mechanisms of damage, but it should be pretty clear that these things are having negative consequences that were unforeseen by their manufacturer for sure.
I've just been listening to Brett Weinstein linking the COVID RNA vaccines with autoimmunity.
All right.
So this is Dr. Mark Veldhoorn, who is at the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the University of Lisbon.
He starts off saying that the cells that transcribe the RNA message will be inherently attacked by T-cells, whose function it is to destroy virally infected cells.
There are a few mistakes in here.
One is a technical one that it is RNA and not DNA.
So we are talking about translation and not transcription.
All right, I did just want to make one point here, which is I understand that they're taking me to task for my incorrect usage of a term of art, in this case, translation rather than transcription.
But I would point out that even in taking me to task, what he says is not entirely correct either.
He says that the distinction is because we are talking about RNA and not DNA, where in fact you can get the same issue.
COVID is a positive sense RNA virus.
If it had been a negative sense RNA virus, then it would have to make a positive sense RNA strand in order to do its work, which would be transcription, not translation.
So anyway, I don't mean to take him to task.
I think it's the most minor of quibbles, but the point is, as long as they're going to be raising minor quibbles about me, I guess my point would be Biology is tough.
There's a lot of terms of art and it is difficult even for somebody in the process of taking someone else to task to do these things with perfect precision.
I think that's a minor point.
I think what's important here is to understand that our T-cells are really trained to only respond against foreign peptides, that is, pieces of protein.
And indeed, once those peptides are detected on the surface of cells, these cells will be killed.
Exactly the same thing as a virus that is detected inside an infected cell, Also dead cell is killed and indeed the RNA vaccines mimic this process of a viral infection very well.
All right, so here he has acknowledged the central part of my argument that those cells that have been transfected and produce foreign protein will be attacked and killed by elements of our immune system.
In fact, CD4 are cytotoxic T-cells and natural killer cells.
Second part is, he then calls it so-called vaccines, which is a bit confusing.
I think it's very clear from countless studies, scientists, labs in many, many countries.
These vaccines ensure very good selection and activation of B cells and T cells.
They produce very good antibodies.
And hence, this is a very good working vaccine.
It does exactly what a vaccine is supposed to do.
It protects us against severe disease.
All right.
That strikes me as an odd thing to say.
What he says makes sense up until that last sentence where he says it does exactly what a good vaccine should, which is protect against severe disease.
And this strikes me as absurd.
The fact is, ideally what a vaccine should do is block contraction and transmission of a disease.
That is a vastly better goal than reducing the severity of the disease once you contract it for multiple different reasons, but primary among them is that blocking the contraction and transmission of the disease is the way you would drive a disease to extinction.
So the value of managing the symptoms of a disease and not controlling its spread, compared to the value of blocking the spread so that it is not affecting a majority of the population at all, they're night and day differences.
And what's more, as long as what you do is adjust the severity of the impact of the disease without controlling its spread, you're dealing with a live evolutionary phenomenon where that virus can change and becomes a permanent cost to the species in which it's endemic.
So I'm just stunned to hear anybody who understands the subject matter as well as he clearly does, who has somehow convinced himself that the purpose of a vaccine is to manage the severity of disease rather than control its spread. who has somehow convinced himself that the purpose of a I don't know.
I don't even know what to think about that.
Yeah, if it were true that it was an effective therapeutic, That would be a good thing, better than not having an effective therapeutic, I suppose.
But it certainly is very different from the way most of us have thought about vaccines all our lives, which is to block and control the spread to prevent these exponential externalities, right?
Where we pass the disease along from person to person, from host to Hostess, etc.
So that certainly is very different.
The other point is that he asserts again that the robust antibody production is in fact a good correlate of protection.
I think they call it in biology, right?
Where if you can measure a high titers of antibodies, that is a good proxy for it being a good therapeutic or doing a good job at blocking reproduction and transmission of the vaccine.
And I don't think that over time we have actually found that antibody levels to be in fact a good quality of protection.
Yeah, it's a poor proxy What you should really be shooting for is a robust T-cell response and antibodies, as I've said in a number of different places, I have the sense that our conversation has focused on these so-called vaccines producing
significant titers of antibodies that that's almost become our focus because the public knows what an antibody is and it has only the vaguest notion of what a T cell might be.
So if from the point of view of convincing the public that what we've got here is really a very valuable inoculation You might focus on antibodies, but that is certainly not where you would focus if you were interested in controlling a dangerous disease.
So this chart...
is one of the most famous of the last year or 18 months that is a past that's passed around all over the internet supposedly showing the huge effectiveness of the vaccines against COVID-19 death and of course looking at this superficially you see that huge spike of unvaccinated deaths in
Late 2020-21, early 2022, and a very flattish line of the vaccinated.
But this chart is, I have to say, bogus.
It's based on a CDC dataset, which is fatally flawed.
The CDC dataset Overcounts the number of unvaccinated deaths in at least two or three major ways, and it also messes up the denominator, rendering it worse than useless.
Very deceptive.
One reason that it's flawed is That hospitals, especially in the United States, way overcount the number of unvaccinated patients.
So, for example, if you were vaccinated at a Walgreens, CVS, your own doctor, as opposed to within the health system that owns the hospital, You were defaulted to unvaccinated in the patient records.
So, there's a new study that found that in this one study, 44% of the people who were counted as unvaccinated, when they did a deeper dive into the medical records, actually were vaccinated.
And this happened all over the place.
Physician's assistant in Rochester, New York named Deb Conrad did her own survey within her hospital and found this huge miscategorization.
Another miscategorization expertly elucidated by Norman Fenton in the UK is what I call the two-week black hole, which actually can go up to six weeks, where Because the theory was at the outset that the vaccine wouldn't start working for, say, two weeks before it had the intended immune effect, we were going to categorize you as unvaccinated.
Now, for some reasons, you could understand why that would make sense from some perspectives, but not from other perspectives where it, again, is highly misleading.
So, in some cases, They would count you as unvaccinated until after two weeks after you got your second shot.
And so it had these profound misleading effects.
And again, Norman Fenton would show this with his great spreadsheets.
So again, this chart, which is perhaps the most famous in recent times, trying to show efficacy really cannot and should not be used.
Yeah, it is.
It is.
As you say, it's beyond useless.
the what you're calling a two-week black hole which Norman Fenton calls the cheap trick is actually capable of taking something with no physiological impact whatsoever and creating something above 80 percent apparent efficacy just simply by taking those people who show up as sick in in the period two weeks after they've gotten inoculated and shoving them into the unvaccinated group
So, on its face, you know, if it can take a saline injection and make it look like a highly effective vaccine, you know that the methodology is just utterly indefensible.
But I would also point out that there's a physiological reason to be troubled here, too, which is if you imagine that people have some level of immunity to either Coronavirus is generally or they've had some exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and have developed some immunity to it.
A vaccine or a transfection agent that induces the production of spike protein actually can have a paradoxical effect because it can basically occupy that fraction of the immune system that is targeted at SARS-CoV-2 and distract it, making you vulnerable to get the infection because your B and T cells are too busy with dealing with your inoculation.
From the patient's perspective, you don't really need to know any of this stuff.
The question is, what's just the net impact of my getting that shot or not?
What are the downsides?
What are the risks?
And what are the benefits?
And so by playing these accounting games where people get shoved into the wrong category, it gives you a totally warped impression of the impact of saying yes to the shots.
So Again, I'm struggling for words to describe just how it's not useless.
It is misleading in an extreme form, and that should be alarming to anybody who has been led to believe that, you know, this chart is a decent guide to what we know about the effect of the shots.
I would also point out that I'm not sure if it's all three of the experts that Dan Wilson brought to the table or just two of them, but this chart shows up multiple times.
It's a central talking point amongst those who are dismissing the hazard of these shots.
Let me just make one more point about it.
I think this chart, which is where most people obtain it from, is from Our World in Data.
Which is a magnificent repository of data on all kinds of topics.
And I found it useful over the years on all sorts of global economic issues.
It's really terrific.
But in this case, because they're using this very flawed CDC data set, a lot of people who love our world and data like I do, assumed that it was a reliable source.
Yeah, well, it's unfortunately a little bit like the case of Wikipedia, where we all get so used to using it to, you know, figure out how many liters of water are in, like, Bicol, that when we go and we look up
People who have been demonized by those in the official channels we find slander but you know our minds are more open to it because the source has been established as a useful one so it's tragic to have something like our world and data compromised by this political nonsense.
I just want to add actually that there are some papers Showing a temporary drop in lymphocytes right after vaccination, a few days after, and a lot of those people who might actually be more susceptible to infection would be categorized as unvaccinated here.
Right.
So yes, a vulnerability that you need to be aware of, uh, is being obscured by this accounting scheme.
Because, uh, you know, how many people have been compromised because they've been misled by, by a presentation like this?
It is indeed correct that when the vaccine is injected in the muscle, there will be muscle cells that take up the RNA.
The RNA will be translated into spike protein, and those cells that express this on their surface will indeed be killed by T-cells.
The muscle is actually a good example of how this happens.
Upon injury, for example, after an infection, Those cells will be replaced once they are damaged.
The muscle itself holds many stem cells that will replace any infected or spike-producing cell that is killed by your T-cells.
So, again, he acknowledges the central question here, which is, will cells that take up these mRNA messages and translate it into spike protein be killed by your immune system?
And the answer is, of course, they will.
Everybody ought to acknowledge that.
And then the question is, how could that possibly be a tolerable thing if it happens in your heart?
Which is, I believe, where he's going to go next.
Brett, did you have something you wanted to say?
No, I'll wait.
Okay.
What is not true is that the vaccine is circulating around the body.
This is a misconception.
The vaccine does not circulate, it was hard enough to generate it, so it would last long enough to be taken up by a few cells in your muscle.
It is also stored at very low temperatures because otherwise it might fall apart.
Alright, so he's saying it doesn't circulate around the body and then he implies, though he doesn't really say, that the vaccines are so fragile that at body temperature it wouldn't last very long even if it did circulate.
You want to jump in there, Brett, or you want to keep going?
No, I think this is an absolutely central point.
I mean, he acknowledges that transfected cells will be killed in your shoulder, hopefully, but then in the next breath denies the central fact, the central question of, well, if they circulate around the body and then transfect other cells, that's going to cause major harm.
And he just Brushes it away without explaining when in fact, again, the evidence is overwhelming.
We had, you know, from way back, the Rolpgen paper published in Cell from the Stanford pathologists that found circulating mRNA in the lymph nodes, I believe it was 60 days.
After injection.
This was sort of the bombshell that came out, I think, maybe in January of 2022, so about a year in.
You know, highly regarded, respected Stanford pathologists that found this.
And we've got just voluminous evidence ever since.
I'm sure Jimmy, I think, has written a couple articles on this.
But again, you know, the autopsy evidence that I'm going to go into in a little bit here is so clear of finding, you know, spike protein in the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the adrenals, the brain.
the all sorts of blood vessels, the, and now we even know the placenta, breast milk, ovaries, testes.
So we have evidence that it not just goes beyond the shoulder, but that it can go everywhere.
And I'm sure that there are all sorts of different cases going from person to person.
But when you have billions of people, you're going to have large numbers of them that have high levels of circulating mRNA and spike.
And we have the evidence.
Yeah.
And the question is when Someone like Mark discovers that in fact an assumption he's been working from, that it doesn't circulate around the body, turns out to be wrong.
Is that going to cause him to rethink his position?
Because, as you say, he's acknowledged that transfected cells will be killed.
And what I've said is that as soon as we knew it didn't stay in the deltoid, it should have been pulled because that you can't afford to have cells haphazardly killed around the body.
That's a hazard in and of itself, especially with such a meager purported benefit, which turns out probably to be an illusion.
It's ever less coherent.
My guess would be that he doesn't change his tune upon discovering that, but I guess we'll see.
Jumi, did you have something you wanted to add there?
Just a note on the paper that Brett Swanson brought up, the one that showed that they found the mRNA vaccine two months Post-vaccination.
That was actually the limit of the time period that they looked, so it could have even been longer.
And the other thing, which I'm not sure if any of the people on the video, if they acknowledge this, but the mRNA in the vaccines is not like normal mRNA.
It's been modified.
The uridines have been replaced with N1 methyl pseudo-uridine, and it seems like that might get in the way of Being detected by, you know, the RNases, the RNA, the enzymes that break down RNA in our cells, it seems like they are not able to recognize them the same way.
So that's maybe why this vaccine mRNA is lasting for so long.
Yeah, it's… Oh, go ahead.
Pardon me.
Another paper that's directly on point is from Carlo Bronia from Proteomics Clinical Applications from July 2023.
They conclude the minimum and maximum time at which the PP spike, which specifically refers to the mRNA-produced spike, was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days, respectively.
So they detected significant amounts circulating 187 days afterward.
Again, that's just one of many other studies.
Yeah, and again, to Jumi's point, we're looking at the limit of these studies, right?
How far did they look?
So what you've got is looking pretty damning for their perspective.
You've got an acknowledgment on now two of their parts that cells that are transfected are going to be killed by the immune system.
We've got powerful evidence that circulation around the body is happening and we've got powerful evidence that the ephemeral nature of these transfection elements was misleading.
That in fact they last a shockingly long time for a biological element Circulating around the body as you point out, Jumi, probably because of the the pseudouridine enrichment which they did across the entire transcript.
So the the real question at some point is once you have enough of these pieces of evidence, how do you avoid the conclusion that the alarming mechanism that I outlined is Should be presumed to be true, and it also matches the symptoms of people who seem to have suffered badly from these inoculants, right?
It's hard to figure out another thing that makes as much sense of this story as that simple explanation.
And we've mostly so far been going through the micro evidence, right?
The microbiological Markers, tests which pick up, you know, mRNA or spike and so forth, which is super important.
So, we've proved that in principle, right, it does circulate.
It lasts a long time.
We've got acknowledgment that it transfected cells will be killed.
Then, and we could either do it now or probably later, you go on to the more macro evidence, the epidemiological evidence of Your mechanism has been proved correct, I think.
Now, how large are the actual real-world harms?
It can happen in one person.
Is it happening in a lot of people?
And I think as we go through this conversation, we'll see that, in fact, that set of evidence actually does match up with the micro evidence.
Perfect.
All right.
The vaccine or any other vaccine does not circulate.
Studies have actually shown that about 90% of the vaccine content is at the place of injection with about 10% in the liver.
In both places, it is broken down very quickly.
This is really a matter of a few days.
You might find pieces such as the lipid nanoparticles or fragments of RNA, but these are at very low amounts and they do not make a functional vaccine.
So if I understood him correctly he said no vaccine circulates around the body and these things are broken down very quickly which Jumi points out is at odds with the evidence that we have and you know what we don't have is evidence of how long you would have to measure to find these things were no longer detectable.
So if there's any component of his his argument left it's that A majority of the inoculant seems to stay in the deltoid, which is suspect also because, again, you've got these hyperstabilized mRNA transcripts.
So even if you were to do a census, a pharmacokinetical census, and early on you found them in the deltoid, how long before they leak out, given that they are in a form that the body does not seem to clear?
And we don't really know the dose.
We've never used this technology before.
Other technologies, you know how much antigen you're putting in the body.
If I understand correctly, because the mRNA, the mod RNA in this case, is a code, as long as it sticks around, and depending on everybody's individual biochemistry, you may be producing tons of spike for an unknown length of time.
Yeah, the fact is the body has no elegant way of dealing with an information molecule Like this one, which leaves open the possibility that it gets picked up by cells, they produce spike protein, they get destroyed, the mRNA transcript spills out, and it gets picked up by some new cell.
So potentially, from the point of view of people who have very long-running, eclectic sets of symptoms, it could be that this is an active molecule that just simply exceeds the body's capacity to metabolize it.
So it's important to understand this misconception.
Brad goes on to say that it should be clear to anyone who understands how immunity develops that this is going to cause an autoimmune disorder in any tissue that transcribes.
I think he again means translates.
But this is a misconception that is mixed with a lack of knowledge to make a pretty scary story.
What immune disorders, as the name implies, are immune reactions against self.
Immune reactions from the vaccine are actually against a foreign or non-self protein called spike.
Even in the worst case, if a whole or a functional vaccine would end up in a cell far away from the muscle, also this cell will just be replaced.
To make it extra scary, the heart is given as an example, possibly linking it with myocarditis.
But the latter is actually a consequence of inflammation itself.
Yeah, I don't know what he's even talking about.
Myocarditis is not a consequence of inflammation itself.
It is inflammation.
So the question is, what's causing the inflammation?
He's using a tautology to escape the idea that the mechanism that he's validated multiple pieces of could actually be responsible.
And of course, he's taking me to task again for using the term autoimmune disorder, which I grant is technically incorrect, but that has no impact on the mechanistic underlying questions, which are obviously the important ones.
primary due to soluble immune mediators called cytokines, of which the concentration is actually much higher on viral infection.
And yes, also in your heart muscle, there are stem cells that will be replaced if the cell is killed.
Here he is failing to acknowledge a central piece of cardiology, which is that the heart does have a low capacity for self-repair, and he's resorting, he's pretending.
I don't want to say pretending because I don't know, but I assume he is pretending not to recognize a distinction.
We have a range of capacity to repair in the different tissues of the body.
The heart is at the extremely low end, which makes it much more vulnerable to damage.
And he does not acknowledge that that's true, but it clearly is.
Yeah, and Brett, I was really astonished to see that, I believe they just flashed that paper entitled, Cytokinopathy with Aberrant Cytotoxic Lymphocytes, etc., which was in Science Immunology.
There you go.
It was by Anas Barmada.
And I was so surprised to see them use that paper because this paper is exactly on point and confirms the mechanism that you described just from the abstract.
It revealed expansion of activated CXCR3+, cytotoxic T-cells and NK-cells, both phenotypically resembling cytokine-driven killer cells.
Together, our results demonstrate upregulation of inflammatory cytokines and corresponding lymphocytes with tissue-damaging capabilities, suggesting a cytokine-dependent pathology, which may further be accompanied by myeloid cell-associated cardiac fibrosis.
I mean, if that's not on point, Yeah, I mean, it states exactly my hypothesis in slightly more precise terms.
But what it says is that you're finding cytotoxic T cells and natural killer cells, as I've said, in the cytokine-driven inflammation in the heart, of course.
Yes, it is interesting that he would use that for a narrow purpose, but somehow miss the fact that he is validating the overarching hypothesis in no uncertain terms.
So in summary, the statements are pretty wrong.
The central point of vaccine distribution is wrong.
But more importantly, there is a complete misunderstanding of how the immune system discriminates between self and non-self.
This is the quintessential principle of immunology and how it works with surgical precision.
This goes back to the days of Frank McFerrin Burnett who introduced self into the immunological lexicon in 1949.
The mechanistic working of this has been worked out by Peter Medawar, Jacques Miller, Charlie Janeway, Ralph Sinkernagel, and of course Peter Doherty.
This really is the quintessential part of immunology.
All right, now that is an interesting way for him to cap that all off because of course
My hypothesis, which is not my hypothesis alone, I'm not the only person who's spotted this of course, but the hypothesis that I advanced that has Dan Wilson gathering these experts to tell me how wrong I am is predicated on an understanding of the distinction between self and non-self and the fact that when a cell is in the unusual of producing non-self antigens.
The body recognizes it as virally infected because that's the evolutionary analog for a novel circumstance created by the mRNA platform.
So yes, I clearly do understand that.
And we have now seen that all of the pieces of the puzzle, there is strong evidence pointing to the fact that they are taking place.
So again, I would say you're right, Brett.
The question really is, the mechanism seems well supported by evidence.
The question is, is it an exceedingly rare phenomenon or a common one?
And I guess we'll get there soon.
Anything to add?
Not now.
So personally, what Weinstein says is that there's no targeting on the mRNA for a specific cell type is not entirely correct.
What is true is that unlike with viruses, which you can kind of take mRNA vaccines to be vaguely modeled on, there's no cellular receptor for the mRNA vaccine to direct the uptake.
But that doesn't mean that uptake is random and we have no idea where it occurs.
We know in great detail where mRNA vaccines end up getting taken up.
Now, I will just point out that I do not say random precisely because I am aware of this distinction.
They are non-targeted.
I am correct about that.
And I say the distribution is haphazard, meaning that although it is not random, it is not selected by the manufacturer.
It is simply a matter of the affinity of the lipid nanoparticles for the cells that they encounter.
which may vary between cell types but is not a design feature it is i mean haphazard is the perfect term for it so i think he's he's created a straw man to take down my argument that there's no targeting mechanism what you would ideally want is a
an addressing mechanism that caused the mRNA messages to be translated by cells you could afford to lose so that when your immune system did come for them, the cells that were lost were insignificant. - Yeah, the cells that were lost were insignificant. - Yeah, in fact, a couple fairly new studies make exactly this point.
There's a paper by Jinggan Chen.
In PNAS, called Combinatorial Design of Ionizable Lipid Nanoparticles.
And in the first sentence, it says, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can oftentimes inadvertently transfect off-target tissues, leading to potential safety issues.
Even more recent than that, 23rd January 2024, Authors from Moderna, first author Dimitrios Boutounis, Strategies to Reduce the Risks of mRNA Drug and Vaccine Toxicity is the title.
To lower the risk of off-target effects in the development of mRNA therapeutics, It is possible to inhibit mRNA expression in a cell-specific manner or improve organ-specific uptake of LNP.
Now, if they want to improve it to lower the risk, it means that there is a risk right now, I presume.
Yeah, I have not encountered either of those papers, but that is fascinating.
Yes, it is an acknowledgment of exactly the hazard I'm talking about.
If you want... Go ahead.
Sorry about that.
If you want even one more, even newer from just last week, this is from Drew Weissman himself, last year's Nobel Prize winner for the and one methyl pseudoridine mRNA.
It's called mRNA-based therapeutics looking beyond COVID-19 vaccines.
In the summary, it says, nonetheless, challenges remain with regards to mRNA stability, duration of expression, delivery efficiency, and targetability to broaden the applicability of mRNA therapeutics.
It's right there.
There you go.
You got a Nobel laureate who agrees with me about the lack of targeting. - Yeah.
Nobel Laureate is funny because this Nobel Prize was given for one of the biggest design defects in these shots, which is saying something because there are certainly a number of design defects.
But yes, the pseudo-uridine stabilization has turned these
molecules into I don't know what the right term should be I feel like ghost transfection agents you guys know about ghost fishing where nets that have been lost by fishing boats continue to pull fish out of the ocean and drown them this is like ghost transfection where the the mRNA transcript is circulating around haphazardly affecting new cells
Just one more point on this, and I think we can all acknowledge the amazing technical abilities of all these scientists who are developing new therapeutics, new vaccines, you know, manipulating these molecules, packaging them with LNPs and so forth.
It's amazing stuff, right?
Going back to Robert Malone, who you've talked to, you know, several decades originating the work on this.
And I hope they have many Successes if we get much better at targeting, if we get much better at a range of these things.
So I don't take that away from them and I don't dismiss the possibility that we can do really important work for health in the days, years, decades to come.
The point, though, is that as they acknowledge these off-targeting problems, the biodistribution problems, the off-target transfection, how can you do that when you roll it out in an instant to billions of people?
If this was an experimental Cancer drug that you're trying to save the life of somebody who's probably not going to make it otherwise, then of course you try.
You know the right to try.
I totally believe in that.
I believe in biomedical innovation.
I strongly believe in it.
But the risk benefit profile on this was just completely swept aside.
And it's one of the most stunning and perplexing things in the last several years that I still have not heard anywhere close to a good explanation.
Not only is the risk-benefit profile unacceptable for humans, but the failure to stratify the recommendations for them, right?
Elderly people, to the extent there was an argument to be made that these were useful in protecting elderly people from harms of the disease, even if it couldn't prevent them from contracting it.
I don't think the argument's true.
But if that was the argument, then why on earth would you expose young, healthy people to it or pregnant women?
You could easily have reduced the harms here by stratifying the recommendations by age, and it wasn't done.
And I would also add to your point, Brett, I agree that this technology has the potential to do some very useful things that have never been accomplished before.
But I'm kind of angry at the people who study it, because at the point that they saw how it was being used, There were lots of people involved in the scientific study of these technologies who knew full well that there was a problem with the failure to target them.
And they should have stood up and they should have said so.
They should have said this technology is promising, but it is not ready to be injected into people because we have no way of governing which cells are going to do the translating.
And they didn't.
So I understand everybody's in a tough spot.
With respect to keeping a roof over their head, but we were talking about risk to life of innocent people who were being misinformed about a hazard that experts understood, and I can't see a defense for it.
Related to this, just A lot of people might respond by saying that mRNA technology is mature.
They've been doing it for decades.
And it did start decades ago, but most of those studies, if you look at them, they're about how to make sure that the mRNA survives long enough to transfect the cells and how to make them give an immune response.
But they weren't about safety, biodistribution, how long the mRNA lasts, where does the mRNA go afterwards.
Right.
Yeah, it was early phase research, right?
So they were nailing down pieces and there's nothing wrong with that.
But the problem is when somebody fast forwards it into a human therapeutic, there should have been whistleblowers every which way.
And there just weren't.
But that doesn't mean that uptake is random and we have no idea where it occurs.
We know in great detail where mRNA vaccines end up being taken up.
We know that they're taken up overwhelmingly at the injection site by both the muscle cells and the dendritic cells and that is predominantly where they stay.
The dendritic cells are a type of white blood cell that tends to be particularly good at activating T-cells and initiating the immune response.
And once it's activated, that dendritic cell will go to the nearest lymph node.
Once there's T-cells that can respond to spike protein as it produces spike protein, B-cells that can recognize spike protein will reproduce, and that will give rise to the germinal center reaction the mRNA vaccines are so well known for.
So he's just making a simple logical error, which is that a majority of the transfection elements functioning at the site of injection says that that fraction which is going somewhere else is not medically significant, which That is going to turn out to be wrong, but at the very least, you would need to provide some evidence.
You know, the fact that the majority of seawater never made it into the Titanic doesn't mean that the seawater that did make it into the Titanic didn't cause a critical problem, right?
So, focusing on the part that went right is an absurdity, logically speaking, in this case.
Now at one point quite early on Weinstein claims that the vaccine itself circulates widely and presumably he's referring to humans because that would be the relevant context here and this comment belies a serious misunderstanding.
It's based on the pharmacokinetic data that was submitted by the manufacturers of the mRNA vaccines pre-licensure and in this study basically what they do is they take the lipid nanoparticle that the mRNA vaccines are in but instead of putting the mRNA from the vaccine in them They put in this enzyme called luciferase.
So why do they do this?
Luciferase is a really beloved tool in molecular biology.
It's actually the enzyme that enables fireflies to grow, and lucifer actually means light bringer.
Basically, when luciferase is in the presence of the metabolite luciferin, it will generate light.
When you do this, where you put the luciferase mRNA in the lipid nanoparticles and inject them into the rats, you can then sample the tissues from the rats after you sacrifice them, which is the polite euphemism we use for, you know, killing laboratory animals, so that we can interrogate what's happening to them physiologically, pathophysiologically, and so on.
Um, you can get a readout in numbers of how much vaccine expression there is, how much mRNA expression there is, by the amount of light that you generate with the luciferase, right?
This is really, really convenient.
So, when you do this with the rats, you give them a dose that is equivalent to one milligram per kilogram of body weight of the rat.
What's the problem here?
The problem here is that before we even consider metabolism here, if you adjust for the weight of the rat and compare it to the weight of the person, you are, you know, if you take a 40 kilogram human, which is like the average size of a 12 year old girl on the WHO growth chart, this is roughly equivalent to getting 1400 doses of the mRNA vaccine at the same time, which is not a thing that anyone is doing, and not a thing that anyone should do, and not a thing that anyone recommends you do.
In these circumstances, it's not unusual that you would see much wider distribution of the mRNA vaccine than what you would expect to see at the doses that are used in the physiologically relevant context, right?
So, if I can jump in.
Yeah, go ahead.
He's mentioning the Japanese data, or actually I think the Pfizer data that was given to the Japanese regulators, which I believe Byron Bridle was the first one to find it, at least that I'm aware of.
In the spring of 2021, and he was astonished.
He's a vaccinologist in Canada.
He passed it around to some other people like Robert Malone, who was also astonished, at this biodistribution data showing the mRNA going to many different parts of these animals.
Now, of course, they should have disclosed this more widely.
Pfizer should have disclosed it.
The regulators should have disclosed it more widely.
But now, today, several years later, that one rat study is completely irrelevant.
It's moot.
We've got billions of people.
We've got autopsies, thousands of studies showing exactly where it goes in real human beings.
And so the fact that he goes back to that study and says, well, maybe it overestimated the amount of mRNA because of this or that, is completely irrelevant.
Not only irrelevant, but let's say that we didn't have all of this autopsy data and everything else.
This argument is sophistry.
The fact is their technique requires them to give a huge dose in order to figure out where it goes because of the weakness of the assay.
He has not provided any evidence to say that it is not representative.
What's more, the fact that it's being provided by the manufacturer in the context of licensure means that the manufacturer is representing it as indicative.
So what you know okay so this luciferase protein you need an awful lot of it in order to be able to see it on a microscope slide but that is not an indicator again the fact that the majority of it may stay where you intended it doesn't mean that the minority that escaped that location isn't clinically important and
The fact that the dosage is huge in rats doesn't mean anything either, because for one thing, that's also a short-term study.
So there are just so many different ways in which this is misdirection.
A lay person may hear that the dose was absolutely gigantic compared to the mRNA shots and assume that that means it's irrelevant, but the manufacturer didn't think so.
So what's he really saying?
Right.
What we also see, though, from these preclinical studies is that the luciferase signal, the vast majority of it, is coming from the injection site and from the draining lymph nodes, which is exactly what we would expect.
Um, it is not impossible, necessarily, that you do get some degree of vascular leak, and you do get some wide distribution, but fundamentally, this is not some vaccine that's, like, going directly into the bloodstream, going willy-nilly everywhere, into the brain, into the heart, what have you, like YC is attempting to suggest.
It's not.
Overwhelmingly, it's going to be in the injection site, and the lymph nodes that drain the injection site.
It's overwhelmingly going to go into dendritic cells, and it's going to go into muscle cells, and those are the cells that are going to express the spike protein.
Again, it is irrelevant that the majority of it goes where you want it.
The question is, is the minority that goes somewhere else clinically significant?
In contrast to the virus, to SARS-CoV-2, in which we can see a massive autoimmune signature similar to what we see with the autoimmune disease lupus, in which there are global defects in our ability to tolerate cell We have nothing resembling that with mRNA vaccine.
Studies have profiled the development of autoantibodies, that's antibodies against our own self-antigens, against before and after mRNA vaccination, including in patients with myocarditis, which is a point I will return to in a moment, and there is nothing resembling an autoimmune signature there.
They provide us with the benefits of immunity against the spike protein without the risk of developing autoimmunity and autoimmune disease that we see with SARS-CoV-2.
All right, Brett, were you looking to jump in there?
Well, towards the beginning of that point, or maybe at the end of his previous, he said, we're not seeing it go to the heart.
We're not seeing it go to the brain.
And I just always found that ironic because there was sort of one semi-famous paper called a case report, Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis After BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination, where they found both myocarditis and inflammation of the brain with the spike protein and attacking lymphocytes in both the brain and heart.
And I just thought that was ironic because he mentioned it doesn't go to those two places.
And this is one guy.
Yeah, he's looking at the evidence that it doesn't go there rather than looking for evidence that it does.
And we furthermore even see that among those who develop breakthrough infections, that risk of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 is attenuated.
Now, at one point Weinstein alludes to this idea, not explicitly, but he suggests that myocarditis, following the mRNA vaccine, reflects an autoimmune phenomenon, and this is not well supported.
The latest evidence that we have suggests that there's an overreaction on the part of the immune system to the vaccine that causes it to make too many cytokines in response to it at too high levels, which manifests as the transient myocarditis that generally self-limits and self-resolves relatively quickly.
However, what we don't see is any kind of autoimmune signature where there are antibodies targeting the heart or there is he cells targeting the heart that is simply not observed.
That has been looked at extensively.
It isn't clearly there.
It was there in the paper that he just blew by in order to cite as evidence.
Here I will skip us back to it.
I'm having a little buffering issue.
I'm going to wish I hadn't done that.
The first time I watched this video, I hadn't noticed how they were often using the same sources, like all three of them.
Yeah.
Here we go.
All right.
So he specifically denies what is stated in the sentence right above the one that he's highlighted.
I find that interesting.
Um, the idea that you can just cause an autoimmune disease to sprout out of nowhere by vaccination demonstrates a substantial and fundamental lack of understanding of how the immune system works.
Even in individuals who have existing autoimmune disease, first of all, it is not recommended that they avoid vaccination, mRNA vaccination, or what have you.
Um, even if they are on immunosuppressants.
The American College of Rheumatology has posted detailed guidelines in ensuring that these people can benefit from the protection of vaccination including for them to stop immunosuppressant medications for a period and how to stop them and under what circumstances to ensure that they can benefit from the protection of vaccine as much as possible.
But beyond that, even among patients with active autoimmune disease, we don't see uniformly that they develop flares.
In some cases, there is no increased risk of flares in some studies.
In other studies, there has to be a small but real increased risk of flares, and it generally resolves on its own.
But in any case, there is not anything resembling like a clear autoimmune signature.
There is nothing here that suggests that the mRNA vaccines are meaningfully increasing the risk of developing an autoimmune disease.
Okay, so again, I will just point out that this is all predicated on my imprecise, arguably inaccurate use of the term autoimmune.
It's not a challenge to the mechanism I actually described.
I will conclude by pointing out that Weinstein really overestimates his own importance in thinking that his ignorance warrants a flood of biologists responding to explain where he got things wrong.
But insofar as he stakes his reputation on this, I will expect him to be silent forevermore on the issues of vaccination and procedure of vaccination against COVID-19 given that he is so egregiously wrong.
Well, if I was egregiously wrong, I would correct my position and not be silent about it.
I think that would be better than being silent.
As for overrating my own importance, I don't know if we're important enough to censor and ridicule, then it is important for us to make these points so that those who wish to understand these underlying mechanisms can do so.
But I'm not going to dwell there.
Do we have any further comments on Dr. Nuremberg's observations before we get to more general considerations?
I'm sure he can present lots of papers showing that they didn't find autoimmune issues after vaccination.
I know they're out there, but there are also papers showing the opposite, that there was new onset autoimmune issues after vaccination.
And I don't know what to make of that, but that's normal also.
You see a mix of things with studies, but it seems like they don't talk about the ones that do show the autoimmune issues after vaccination.
I'm looking at one right now about new onset inflammatory arthritis after COVID-19 vaccination.
That's just one example I pulled up.
Yeah, and I mean, logically speaking, If you find this phenomenon in some places and don't find it, that's not an argument that it doesn't exist.
It's an argument that there is some structure that you haven't identified yet that might tell you where it is.
Now, that's not to say you couldn't have a study.
that erroneously found that it was present and some accurate studies that said it was absent.
But logically speaking, in a world where we have studies that say that it is present, pretending those studies doesn't exist is an absurd response.
At the very least, there should be curiosity about what distinguishes the studies which saw it from those that didn't.
All right, so let us move to any remaining points that we think haven't been adequately covered, and then maybe we'll try to summarize what we've gleaned from all of this.
Jumi or Brett, are there things that you want to make sure we get in here?
Yeah, if you don't mind, I'd like to go through the case series of Arnie Burkhart.
Who was a German pathologist who was just about to retire when COVID hit, and until he unfortunately passed away last spring, did a series of 75 autopsies on
I think mostly Germans, but mostly Europeans in any event, who passed away within some number of weeks or months after mRNA vaccination.
And his findings are really, really amazing.
One, because they're so rare, we should have been seeing this all over the world.
But two, what did he find?
So, of the 75, 31 of them had been broadly judged as cardiac deaths, but vaguely so.
They weren't in-depth autopsies.
And so he did a more in-depth autopsies and found that in all 31 of those cardiac deaths, He thought they were vaccine-induced.
He found killer lymphocytes.
He found spike protein in the damaged heart.
Now, of those 31, he found 16 were basically microvascular damage with stenosis and dissection, and 15 of those 31 were myopericarditis.
Among the 16 of microvascular damage, five of them were aortic dissections.
So the aorta is the largest artery that comes out of the top of your heart.
And if that ruptures, that's very, very bad news.
And we've actually seen a lot of these.
So, you know, these were most, not all, some of them were in their 20s, but mostly most of them, I think, were in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s.
And this is another example of where autopsies, original autopsies, did not pick up the fact that these probably were caused by vaccine damage.
If you look at the entire 75, his findings showed that 21 beyond a doubt and 37 probable were caused by the mRNA vaccine.
So that's 77% of the 75.
This is one retired pathologist in Germany who did 75 autopsies and found this evidence.
And what does the evidence show?
It shows both of the things we've been talking about the last couple hours.
It shows the biodistribution.
He found it in the heart, brain, testes, kidneys, adrenals, lungs, liver, etc., etc., large and small blood vessels all around the body.
And he found the lymphocytic infiltration and damage.
So this is a huge, you know, a large case series proving the points we've been talking about.
Yeah, so just to translate the lymphocytic infiltration, that's white blood cells We've been talking about T-cells, killer cytotoxic T-cells and natural killer cells, both lymphocytes that are consistent with what this pathologist found invading the tissues that had caused the deaths of these patients shortly after vaccination.
So while I suppose one could imagine some other explanation that would cause all of those pieces of evidence to align by some other mechanism.
It is hard to imagine what it would be.
We have powerful evidence.
The hypothesis that I put forward makes predictions.
These pieces of evidence are Those predictions manifest in autopsies of a significant number of patients and a large fraction of those studied.
So that does suggest that the pathologies that relevant pathologies are downstream of the exact mechanism in question and what it should do is it should shift the burden of proof to those who believe that the vaccines are not at fault They would need to establish that there was some other explanation for the pattern of evidence that is otherwise clearly indicative that they are.
Is that a fair summary, you believe?
Absolutely.
I mean, the amount of evidence, again, at the micro and the macro, which I'm going to talk about in a second, is overwhelming.
And the lack of a response from Health authorities, people in leadership positions around the world has been, I guess, disappointing, you'd have to say.
Now, one, if you were a skeptic of Burkhart's evidence or some of the other evidence that we've rolled out, or especially Burkhart's evidence, you could say, well, maybe there was a selection effect here.
Maybe the 75 families who offered their loved ones for Burkhardt to study had a particular reason to believe this was the case.
Maybe if he sampled a larger random sampling of Germans, he would have found something different.
But that's when you have to go look at the Excess mortality and morbidity data from around the world.
And here you find that it is consistent with all the evidence that we've been discussing today.
So in nearly every single middle income and high income nation around the world, the ones that took lots of mRNA vaccines, you see dramatic spikes beginning in 2021 going through 2023 of Cardiac issues, strokes, renal failure, and overall excess mortality.
And particularly, you saw a change in the age structure of who was dying, where, of course, in 2020, in a lot of nations, older people were dying of COVID.
In 2021, we saw a dramatic spike of healthy young and middle-aged people suddenly succumbing to diseases that they don't normally Succumb to in such numbers.
And so you can see it in the national databases.
You can see it in the life insurance actuarial tables.
You can see it in the disability roles in many countries.
And so again, it is another huge set of macro data reinforcing the micro data, the biological data.
And again, the world is a complicated place.
The last couple of years have been very complicated between COVID, between lockdowns, between Treatments, non-treatments, hospital protocols, the vaccines, etc.
There are lots of different factors here.
I'm not saying that this is simple.
But when so much evidence aligns from so many different types of data, from so many different directions, from different nations, from private sources, from public sources, you start building a case that is very, very strong and that has not been looked into with anything like what we need for such a cataclysmic event.
Yeah, I think You know, there's obviously been a lot made of my invoking Dr. Rancourt's estimate of global vaccine deaths.
His estimate came out to 17 million, and maybe that number's too high.
On the other hand, you know, you're pointing to the complicated nature of recent history and add to that the simple fact that by the logic that we've described here yes we have focused on the heart but we are talking about a an inoculation that if the argument about damage to the heart myocarditis and pericarditis is correct
implies that there will be damage to virtually every tissue of the body, resulting in a range of pathologies that would be incredibly broad.
We're talking about something capable of getting the immune system to attack any tissue in the body that takes up these mRNA transcripts, which could in principle be just about anything.
So how do you find that signal when that signal will manifest as an indefinitely large basket of seemingly unconnected pathologies when the powers that be have a strong incentive not to study the obvious question, which is what happens when we compare otherwise similar groups of people who did and did not take the mRNA vaccines?
It's not a hard question to study if you're willing to pursue that, but to the extent that we were strong-armed into accepting these poorly tested, highly novel inoculants, those who induced us to do that Do not want to study the simple question of how did people fare who took them versus people who didn't.
So that means you're going to have a very complex pattern of pathology which will of course not be easy to diagnose because the real question isn't you know anything beyond well what happens when you damage every tissue in the body at low percentages?
It will manifest as something difficult to see it because of the number of symptoms in question.
Yeah, one could argue that we've never seen anything like this before.
the range and depth of pathologies and every story you read in the press, you know, throws out one new explanation after the next.
Some of them plausible, some of them completely implausible, right?
Where when we were having a very large surge of sudden deaths in 21 and 22, especially, you know, there were stories being written in big newspapers around the world of, you know, too much gardening, not eating breakfast, living in the flight not eating breakfast, living in the flight path, climate change, you know, too much sleep, not enough sleep.
And, And, you know, it was, it got, it was humorous in a way.
But the range of pathologies and the disability numbers require people in leadership positions around the world to investigate and get to the bottom of this.
And I would argue If the people that want the mRNA technology and a whole host of biomedical technologies to work in the future, to be trusted in the future, they should want to get to the bottom of this.
It may not be pretty, but I would argue that it would be better for them and certainly for people around the world if we do get to the truth.
Yeah, I don't see that we have any choice because there's no other way to re-establish any sort of trust in these systems.
They have betrayed us so badly.
And I would also point out that, you know, of course, you know, the cheap trick or the two-week black hole, as you call it,
was a stealth way of taking damage from a technology about which we should have had every choice as to whether or not to take it, and to cryptically move the harm over to a disease in which we are still fighting about what its origin story is.
But nonetheless, It will be not as obvious to lay people but the fact is to the extent that you know in 2020 we didn't have these so-called vaccines so whatever harm would have arisen from COVID or from lockdowns or something like that
The fact that the vaccine campaign starts in earnest in 2021 allows us to see those harms uniquely, and to the extent that there has been all of this effort to blame COVID itself for those harms, people should realize that there are some natural processes that argue against that.
Those who were most vulnerable to COVID would likely have succumbed in the early years, leaving people who were more robust.
So, selection itself ought to have left a more robust population in the wake of COVID, removing those who were most susceptible.
But also, even more importantly, the fact of natural immunity, which was denied for so long by the CDC and others, Would mean that the level at which people were vulnerable would be dropping even if there weren't some natural kind of culling taking place as a result of the vulnerable succumbing first.
So you would expect those harms to drop off.
Instead, we see harm skyrocket.
And yes, it could be something other than the vaccines, but vaccines would be a prime suspect on that list.
And our avoidance of Simply seeking an answer to that question is nothing if not conspicuous.
Is there anything else that we are missing that should be put on the table here?
And You know, just sort of a capper discussion for later, which is getting a lot of attention right now, but I think we can't leave without mentioning it at least, is beyond the primary immune reaction that we've been talking about today, the cytotoxic attack of target transfected cells.
There are longer-term issues here which have to do with Kevin McKernan's finding and others' reproducing of the fact that there is DNA contamination in both the Pfizer and Moderna shots because of their E. coli manufacturing process.
And there's a lot of debate right now.
There's a lot of research being done.
But this is just yet another of so many different real and potential problems with these new technologies that absolutely has to be addressed in a very serious way.
It's not a joke.
We don't know the extent of the harms it might cause, but we're finding out every day the reality of this DNA, which could cause, you know, Things like cancer can cause all sorts of immune dysregulations in and of itself, and it absolutely needs to be fixed.
Yes, not just the DNA contamination, but also the many apparently harmful consequences of the pseudouridine Enrichment of the mRNA messages which not only creates these hyperstabilized molecules which are not being metabolized in a normal way by the body but also apparently causes the ribosomes to stutter in their translation which means that
Basically you're kicking out these random or arbitrary proteins that have unknown effect when they accumulate in the body.
It's like imagine that the printer of a book moved the spaces between the words one letter to the right so that all the words were new.
What is going to be spelled?
Well, it's not going to be helpful, and if you're using it as an instruction for something, who's to say what?
You know, it's like throwing a bunch of monkey wrenches into the works of an elegant, complex system, the human body.
And so we don't know what the consequences of that are.
So all of these technologies have the sort of sorcerer's apprentice kind of feel to them where there was an ability to do something without the proper wisdom to regulate its application and we are going to be dealing with the consequences for Generations to come.
Will we do so in a forthright way, where we actually try to take care of the injured, or are we going to pretend that this is all in our heads?
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, and I was wondering as we're, you know, watching our friends with Dan Wilson again here, again not to Only single them out because this phenomenon has happened across the board in so many ways over the last several years.
But I think all of us have been struggling to come up with explanations for why our sense-making institutions and individuals didn't see what we see, why we saw something different, why things seemed to break down, as I think they very clearly did, whatever your view on this.
And I wonder if one of the reasons, again looking at our immunologist friends there who are again much more expert than I am in this field, if there's a
A factor of sort of the barbarism of specialization, which was a term from Jose Ortega y Gasset, where he talked about the more technical our society becomes and specialized, we have people that know more and more and more about less and less.
And if you can't see the whole playing field, If you know everything about your one specialty, but you're not seeing the data that's coming from the disability data rolls or the life insurers or a doctor in Europe who's being censored.
You're not going to be able to formulate the full picture, and the thing that you learned in your textbook during your, you know, terrific studies is still going to be the thing that you hold on to.
And I think this also gets back to the necessity for us to, you know, fight for free speech, fight for open science, because although this may always be a A weakness of humans, this, you know, barbarians of specialization.
To the extent we're exposed to more ideas, to the extent we have debates, discussions, arguments, it will tend to lessen that tendency.
And it may not be easy individually, right?
All of us have been wrong about things.
I've been wrong about tons over the last couple of years and going back further.
But it's certainly good for the world.
Yeah, of course I 100% agree, and the implications are exactly as you describe them.
I'm wrestling a little bit with the question you raise about specialization, and I'm wondering if it does cause people within these specialties to become consumers of the cartoons in their textbooks rather than critical thinkers who derive their understanding of how complex systems work from, you know, multiple different sources.
Because they do seem devoted to a picture of COVID and these shots that really just looks like the sales brochure.
And it's hard to imagine how people who have dedicated themselves to a relevant field could not have been awakened by something that just didn't fit what they had been told.
They should all be awake, and yet they clearly aren't.
I largely blame censorship and propaganda for the problem we have now because a lot of the studies that we're talking about are in prestigious journals, you know.
And I think they often don't get emphasized in the science media, you know, these studies showing these harms from vaccines.
And I mean, another one I was just looking at was...
It was published in Nature and they found that the risk of retinovascular occlusion, which is like blood clots in the eyes, was 2.19 times higher in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.
So that was Nature, right?
We've seen papers in Science, you know, other high profile journals and stuff.
And they, I never see those being the headlines in the New York Times.
You know, it's always like the New York Times is always talking about like some modeling study instead about how many lives were saved because of the vaccines.
So unless you're going out and looking, you know, specifically looking for these kinds of papers, like you're just not going to be exposed to them.
So To some extent, it's how these papers are not emphasized in the media, and then also censorship, of course.
Yeah, the transmission mechanism from science to the public, but even to the scientific community itself, is totally broken down.
You know, I think this really gets to the point where, you know, I was really looking heavily into the Internet's censorship issues beginning in the, you know, 20-teens, and, you know, one so-called obnoxious person would get picked off here or there, and it would be too bad, and you could complain about it, but people would say, well, what?
It doesn't make a big difference.
I think we've seen in the last couple of years That with the legacy media and social media and all these other institutions and NGOs and different professional communities basically working hand in glove, you really can shut down our open society in a way that I didn't think was quite possible before.
Although, as Brett has said, We continue to find ways around it.
So as they shut down Facebook and Twitter and YouTube for a time, podcasting went undetected and became this amazing thing they didn't figure.
Another maybe little white pill, though, too, is that all of the science that we've been discussing today, all these hundreds and hundreds of thousands of papers, That we can list more fully elsewhere means that actually there was some good science getting done.
But it was suppressed.
You have to say it.
And it made the world less healthy.
Yeah, it was suppressed and those who attempted to surface it were demonized, were penalized, were slandered.
It's shocking how How broad the effort was to prevent certain obvious questions from being asked and that does tell us that the system which is ostensibly trying to make us more enlightened is functioning to some other purpose.
I think it's a top priority for us to address that because we're just flying blind until we do.
Absolutely.
All right.
Well, anything else that's pressing and should be here?
That's good for me.
I just want to thank both of you.
I've learned so much from you over the last couple of years, and I appreciate the chance to come on and talk about this.
Likewise, I've learned a tremendous amount from both of you, and I really appreciate your willingness to sort this matter out.
And I hope it will wake people up because now that you know what the evidence suggests about this, it raises all sorts of questions about what those who were charged with protecting us were actually doing over the course of COVID.
All right.
So with that, I will thank everyone for joining us.
I will thank Jumi Kim, who writes the substack Let's Be Clear, and Brett Swanson, who I think I forgot to mention was at the American Enterprise Institute for 10 years and was a co-founder of the Technological Reason program.
Is that it?
Yeah, their technology research program.
Technology research.
Well, that's interesting.
I'm trying to read it from across the desk and it doesn't read correctly, but now we've got it correct.
Sorry about that, Brett.
All right.
Thanks to both of you.
I hope people will sign up for your substacks and benefit from your wisdom in a way that I know I have been.
And I look forward to seeing what happens when people see this analysis.
