Salvador Dali They were there 1931
“a wall high enough to keep out a vaccine”
BIDEN: "You can't build a wall high enough to keep out a vaccine, the vaccine can stop the spread of these diseases." pic.twitter.com/ngxYofqmBV
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 2, 2022
But yeah, Putin’s the one who’s crazy.
Putin nails it. pic.twitter.com/tWLSgnBlOs
— david kersten (@davidkersten) March 1, 2022
— Wittgenstein (@backtolife_2022) March 2, 2022
“..the Ukie military was 80% defeated on Day 1 [..] THAT is why they are blowing up bridges, distributing weapons and releasing convicted criminals. NOT because they are winning!”
My dear TV western armchair generals, I get it, I promise. I really do! Your entire life you have been trained to see a successful military operations like so: Begin by bombing the shit of the “hadjis” or “sand niggers” with bombs and missiles, then flatten their town à la Fallujah, then move in with heavy armor and shoot everything which still moves or breathes. Then distribute chewing-gums to a few kids while on video. Then take the city center, drop a statue in front your embedded presstitutes, and then declare victory. Then, after declaring victory, stay another 20 years or so (Blinken was clearly projecting!), ruin it completely, then leave it again and declare another brilliant victory. And don’t forget to declare urbi at orbi that you reserve the “right” to bomb the shit out of them anytime you deem it is needed.
And fuck their sovereignty or anybody else’s while we are at it! Lastly, once home, don’t forget to “thank” your “veterans” for their “service”. I get it. Now YOU try, please!! Now, in spite of this conditioning, please at least try to understand the following points: First, the Russians do not see Ukrainian as Hadjis but as their own brothers. Second many/most LDNR soliders have relatives in the Nazi occupied Ukraine. Third, yes, Russia can turn any Ukrainian city into Fallujah, but who do you think will then have to pay for its reconstruction? Fourth, please understand that the double goals of 1) denazification and 2) disarmament implies that any person which is not a Nazi or is not armed and hostile is not, repeat, NOT the target of the Russian armed forces.
Fifth, the Ukie military was 80% defeated on Day 1. Get that? It was gone as a coherent fighting force. THAT is why they are blowing up bridges, distributing weapons and releasing convicted criminals. NOT because they are winning! I mean – how stupid are you if you believe that? Ukie stupid? Seriously? Right now you are the object of probably the biggest PSYOP operation in history. If you realize that and treat these PSYOPs as you should, that is as “informational warfare from the bad guys” you will be able to tell your kind and grandkids “I never believed that crap”. Good for you!
This is a Ukrainian rocket fired from the Smerch MLRS. The rocket “arrived” from the North-West — there are no units of Russian troops in that direction, that means that there can be no Russian MLRS.
Russia doesn’t target civil infrastructure. Ukraine does. pic.twitter.com/wpH4JTUSxp
— Maria Dubovikova (@politblogme) March 1, 2022
Europe still is but a province of the US.
Only a Europe at peace with Russia, one that respects Russian security needs, could hope to free itself from the American embrace, so effectively renewed during the Ukrainian crisis. This, one presumes, is the reason why Macron insisted for so long on Russia being a part of Europe, and on the need for ‘Europe’, as represented of course by himself and France, to provide peace on its Eastern flank. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has for a long time, if not forever, put an end to this project. But then, it was never very promising to begin with, given Germany’s felt dependence on American nuclear protection, combined with German doubts about all-too-fanciful French global ambitions, re-defined as European ambitions to be funded by German economic power. And Russia may with some justification have questioned if, under these conditions, France would be able to push the US out of the European drivers’ seat.
So the winner is… the United States? The longer the war drags on, due to the successful resistance of Ukrainian citizens and their army, the more it will be noticed that the leader of ‘the West’, who spoke for ‘Europe’ as the war built up, is not intervening militarily on behalf of Ukraine. The US has given itself a special leave of absence, as Biden made clear from the start. Looking at its record, this is nothing new: when their mission gets unmanageable, they withdraw to their distant island. Nevertheless, as Germans look on, wondering where the US is, they may start to feel some doubt about the American commitment to come to their nuclear defence. That commitment, after all, underlies German membership in NATO, German adherence to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and the housing of 30,000 or so American troops on German soil.
In this context the special budget of €100 billion, announced a few days into the war by the Scholz government and devoted to fulfilling the promise, going back to 2001, to spend 2 percent of Germany’s GDP on arms, looks like a ritual sacrifice to appease an angry God who one fears might abandon his less-than-true believers. Nobody thinks that had Germany actually lived up to the 2 percent NATO demand, Russia would have been deterred from invading Ukraine, or that Germany would have been able and willing to come to its aid. In any case it will take years for the new hardware, of course the latest on offer, to be made available to the troops. It will also be hardware of exactly the sort that the US, France and the UK already have in abundance.
Moreover, the entire German military is under the command of NATO, meaning the Pentagon, so the new arms will add to NATO’s, not Germany’s firepower. Technologically, they will be designed for deployment around the globe, on ‘missions’ like Afghanistan – or, most likely, in the environs of China, to assist the US in its emerging confrontation in the South China Sea. There was no debate at all in the Bundestag on exactly what new ‘capabilities’ would be needed, or what they will be used for. As in the past, under Merkel, this was left to ‘the allies’ to determine. One item could be the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), beloved by the French, which combines fighter bombers, drones and satellites for worldwide operations. There is scant hope that there will at some point be a strategic debate in Germany on what it means to defend your own territory, rather than attack the territory of others. Can the Ukrainian experience help start this discussion? Unlikely.
“Those with IQs over 50 in the European Union (EU) must have understood that Russia simply could not be totally excluded from SWIFT, but maybe only a few of its banks..”
So a congregation of NATO’s top brass ensconced in their echo chambers target the Russian Central Bank with sanctions and expect what? Cookies? What they got instead was Russia’s deterrence forces bumped up to “a special regime of duty” – which means the Northern and Pacific fleets, the Long-Range Aviation Command, strategic bombers and the entire Russian nuclear apparatus on maximum alert. One Pentagon general very quickly did the basic math on that, and mere minutes later, a Ukrainian delegation was dispatched to conduct negotiations with Russia in an undisclosed location in Gomel, Belarus.
Meanwhile, in the vassal realms, the German government was busy “setting limits to warmongers like Putin” – quite a rich undertaking considering that Berlin never set any such limits for western warmongers who bombed Yugoslavia, invaded Iraq, or destroyed Libya in complete violation of international law. While openly proclaiming their desire to “stop the development of Russian industry,” damage its economy, and “ruin Russia” – echoing American edicts on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, Venezuela and others in the Global South – the Germans could not possibly recognize a new categorical imperative. They were finally liberated from their WWII culpability complex by none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin. Germany is finally free to support and weaponize neo-Nazis out in the open all over again – now of the Ukrainian Azov battalion variety.
[..] So the US itself, in another massive strategic blunder, will speed up de-dollarization. As the managing director of Bocom International Hong Hao told the Global Times, with energy trade between Europe and Russia de-dollarized, “that will be the beginning of the disintegration of dollar hegemony.” It’s a refrain the US administration was quietly hearing last week from some of its own largest multinational banks, including notables like JPMorgan and Citigroup. A Bloomberg article sums up their collective fears: “Booting Russia from the critical global system – which handles 42 million messages a day and serves as a lifeline to some of the world’s biggest financial institutions – could backfire, sending inflation higher, pushing Russia closer to China, and shielding financial transactions from scrutiny by the west. It might also encourage the development of a SWIFT alternative that could eventually damage the supremacy of the US dollar.”
Those with IQs over 50 in the European Union (EU) must have understood that Russia simply could not be totally excluded from SWIFT, but maybe only a few of its banks: after all, European traders depend on Russian energy. From Moscow’s point of view, that’s a minor issue. A number of Russian banks are already connected to China’s CIPS system. For instance, if someone wants to buy Russian oil and gas with CIPS, payment must be in the Chinese yuan currency. CIPS is independent of SWIFT.
“We also see strong likelihood of technical default on Eurobonds at the sovereign level.”
More than two decades ago, on August 17, 1998, Russia defaulted on its debt and devalued the ruble, sparking a political crisis that culminated with Vladimir Putin replacing Boris Yeltsin and which also eventually resulted in the spectacular implosion of a then little known hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management (which was staffed to the gills with “brilliant” Nobel prize winners) which after receiving a Fed-led Wall Street bailout, ushered in the era of too big to fail. We bring this up because in just a few hours, Russia will be in another technical default. Amid the flurry of capital controls imposed by Moscow today, the Russian central bank banned coupon payments to foreign owners of ruble bonds known as OFZs in what it said was a temporary step to shore up markets in the wake of international sanctions.
What it really is, is a technical default on upcoming interest and maturity payments, with a trigger due as soon as tomorrow. The Bank of Russia issued the instruction to depositaries and registries as part of a raft of measures announced this week that included a freeze on local security sales by foreigners. It could leave foreign investors who held almost 3 trillion rubles ($29 billion) in the debt at the start of February unable to collect income on their holdings, which are already blocked from sale by restrictions. “Issuers have the right to make decisions on the payment of dividends and the making of other payments on securities and transfer them to the accounting system,” the central bank said in an emailed reply to questions. “However, the payments themselves will not be made by depositories and registrars to foreign clients. This also applies to OFZ.”
The decision by the central bank was taken to “avoid mass sales of Russian securities, the withdrawal of funds from the Russian financial market and to support financial stability,” it said. With as much as half of its foreign reserves frozen abroad by sanctions aimed at punishing the Kremlin for invading Ukraine, the Bank of Russia said Monday it would harden capital controls with a ban on transferring foreign currency abroad. While initially it clarified that the step wasn’t aimed at stopping the servicing of debt, some investors and economists said the phrasing of the decree could amount to a default.
“Game over? I think they underestimated how far sanctions will go and now don’t have much left to do,” Viktor Szabo, a fund manager at Aberdeen Asset Management in London told Bloomberg. “All Russian markets have fallen apart.” “This will likely be a technical default, we’ll see how long it goes on for,” said Nick Eisinger, co-head of emerging-markets active fixed income at Vanguard Asset Management in London. “We also see strong likelihood of technical default on Eurobonds at the sovereign level.”
“Putin the Madman is the new talking point, the elite opinion that is approved for the masses.”
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls Putin’s behavior “erratic,” his views “delusional.” James Clapper says Putin is “unhinged.” Clapper suggests the possibility that Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Fiona Hill, the Regime’s favorite “Russia expert,” believes “Putin is increasingly operating emotionally and likely to use all the weapons at his disposal, including nuclear ones.” There’s a couple goals in questioning Putin’s state of mind. First, it serves to defend America from criticisms that potential NATO expansion and continued American meddling in Ukraine helped spark this conflict. (“Blame the crazy man, not us.”) Second, it justifies the escalation of the West’s involvement in the war between Ukraine and Russia.
Talks about the potential for the use of nuclear weapons – “the crazy man in has nukes!” – only make intervention more compelling (though that doesn’t guarantee Biden would take the bait). Already U.S. Senators are calling for a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Escalation leads to dangerous questions and unknown answers, such as what happens when the U.S. and Russia are in direct conflict. Missing from the media’s coverage is push-back on these statements about Putin’s state of mind or the potential use of nuclear weapons. Their skepticism isn’t missing – it’s dead. Putin the Madman is the new talking point, the elite opinion that is approved for the masses. There’s little basis for their new talking point – certainly not in Putin’s February 24, 2022 speech where he calmly outlines Russia’s grievances and concerns, and their plans for Ukraine.
In fact, while Fiona Hill questions Putin’s mental state, she admits they assessed years ago that there was “a real, genuine risk of preemptive Russian military action” against Ukraine in response to NATO’s Open Door promise to welcome any European democracy (including Ukraine). Such predictions don’t square with craziness. Hill and Clapper’s inflammatory statements about the potential for Russia to use nuclear weapons makes zero sense in context of the conflict in Ukraine and Putin’s demands. Putin is winning the war. At the time I’m writing this, Russia is surrounding major Ukrainian cities and the Russian convoy headed to Kyiv is estimated to be 40 miles long.
When people flee east, they are not refugees, they’re migrants. And the NYT makes them hard to find too…
“So of course it was to the US that Russia’s demands for written “security guarantees” were officially submitted last December — not to China, or the EU, or Botswana, or anyone else.”
It’s of course possible that Vladimir Putin was always hell-bent on invading Ukraine, that his decision was taken months if not years ago, and that no diplomatic intervention would have made any difference. Yes, that is possible. But it is also the case that the only country capable of making any difference in addressing the “security” concerns Putin claimed were driving his behavior — and thus, the only relevant diplomatic player in the situation — was the US. Many have pointed out that China’s tacit support for the invasion makes them a relevant diplomatic player, and that’s certainly feasible. But in terms of the core grievances that Putin repeatedly identified as his motives for this invasion — Ukraine’s potential accession into NATO, the already-existing moves to facilitate “interoperability” between the Ukraine military and the US/NATO, and the conversion of Ukraine since 2014 into a de facto US military outpost — the only relevant diplomatic player was the US.
For the chorus of people who will fulminate for the rest of their lives that any consideration of US culpability in this fiasco is somehow an “apology” for Putin, or a denial of his agency, or any other assorted nonsense: feel free to live in your black-and-white moral universe where tales of Good versus Evil always result in the princess being rescued by the knight, or whichever other comforting myths you need to tell yourself. The US deliberately chose — across administrations of both parties — to subsidize and “train” Ukraine’s military, flood the country with weapons, and otherwise assume the role of primary foreign sponsor. That’s the indisputable reality. Last week, Putin called Ukraine a “colony” or “puppet” of the US. Why do you think everyone from Hunter Biden to Rudy Giuliani correctly ascertained that they could secure huge sums of money from shady Ukrainian financial interests for doing next to nothing, other than having prominent political connections in the US?
So of course it was to the US that Russia’s demands for written “security guarantees” were officially submitted last December — not to China, or the EU, or Botswana, or anyone else. They were submitted to the US. Hence the clear-as-day centrality of the US in the progression of this conflict — a fact which now gets bizarrely denied on the regular by political-blackmailers who scream that there is absolutely no acceptable response to this invasion other than to condemn Putin about 15 billion times (even if you’ve already done so, emphatically). There is a certain point when these endless calls for condemnation function as nothing more than a coercive disciplinary tactic to preclude any further debate, and that point has arrived.
Liz Truss. Where did she come from? Must be Schwab.
The White House said Monday that the US sees “no reasons” to change its nuclear alert levels after Russian President Vladimir Putin placed Russia’s nuclear forces on a “special” alert. According to Interfax, Russia’s Defense Ministry said Monday that its nuclear missile forces in its Northern and Pacific fleets have been placed on “enhanced combat duty” in response to Putin’s order. “We are assessing President Putin’s directive and at this time, we see no reasons to change our own alert levels,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters. Later in the day, President Biden was asked if Americans should worry about nuclear war, to which he simply replied, “no.” Psaki claimed that the US and NATO had no “appetite or desire” for a conflict with Russia even as the Western powers are pledging to funnel more weapons into Ukraine and have imposed a series of harsh sanctions on Russia.
According to BBC, the Kremlin later explained its change in nuclear forces posture was due to comments made by UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “unacceptable” remarks were made about possible “clashes” between Nato and Moscow over Russia’s attack on Ukraine. It is unclear precisely which comments by Ms Truss Russia objects to. On Sunday, she said if Russia was not stopped, other states may be threatened and it could end in conflict with Nato. A Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office source told the BBC: “I don’t think anything Liz has said warrants that sort of rhetoric or escalation.” Peskov said Monday: “Statements were made by various representatives at various levels on possible altercations or even collisions and clashes between Nato and Russia.” “We believe that such statements are absolutely unacceptable. I would not call the authors of these statements by name, although it was the British foreign minister.”
Increasingly starting to look like Russia roulette.
That’s my latest “best guess” when it comes to people who took the jabs for permanent and material impairment of their health. One in thirty. Incidentally that might be conservative; I would not be surprised if its worse than that. My estimates in this regard keep going the “wrong” way; what was a couple months ago one in a couple hundred is now close to ten times worse than that. This is yet another data set, this time from Israel and Pfizer which was intentionally suppressed and is still being intentionally suppressed. 1 in 30 is about 3% of all recipients. There will be a skew but exactly where it lands is not yet known. There is a furious attempt at present to deflect the most-obvious and outrageous examples of harm, specifically cardiac damage in young men, with the claim that “its transitory.”
That’s flat-out BS; heart damage is nearly always both cumulative and permanent. What’s also in the data and extremely serious is this: Additionally, roughly 24% of people with pre-existing autoimmune disorders, and 5%-10% of those with diabetes, hypertension, and lung and heart disease, also reported a worsening of their condition. That’s not 1 in 30 — its anywhere from one in 20 to one in FOUR! These are not transient problems folks; they’re disability-enhancing or even disability-causing health problems. Nor is the one in ten women under 54 reporting menstrual changes. This is not normal and again is wildly greater than one in thirty. I warned people before the mass jab-fest kicked off that there were very concerning issues with doing this in the first place and as time went on the data got worse rather than better.
There are always unknowns when you do something new and this was clearly new, but in addition as with Run-Death-Is-Near the history of this particular path (vector-based jabs, whether viral or mRNA) is one of serious problems and, in the context of mRNA, failures. Typically as time goes on you qualify some of the concerns and they drop off. That didn’t happen this time; instead what occurred is that the concerns got much worse. As soon as that started to show up in the data, which was evident by last March, the entire program should have been immediately scrapped until the issues were run to the ground and fully understood, bounded and qualified with the public choosing based on truthful and clearly-communicated information.
This was not only not done it was deliberately concealed with “Big Tech”, so-called “public health” and political organizations all lying through their teeth while refusing to examine or even publish truthful data sets.
New Zealand: 3% fatality rate for Pfizer vaccine
Daily Exposé tries to cram too much info per article.
The problem we’re seeing here is that the immune system isn’t returning to its original and natural state. If it was then the outcomes of infection with Covid-19 would be similar to the outcomes among the not-vaccinated/one dose vaccinated population. Instead, it continues to decline at a rate that means the not-vaccinated population have a better performing immune system, so this means the Covid-19 injections are decimating the immune systems of the fully vaccinated. But to work out immune system performance we have to alter the calculation used to work out vaccine effectiveness slightly and divide our answer by either the largest of the vaccinated or unvaccinated case rate.
Unvaccinated case rate – Vaccinated case rate / largest of the unvaccinated / vaccinated case rate = Immune System Performance The following chart shows the real-world immune system performance of the fully vaccinated population in New Zealand between 6th Jan and 11th Feb, and between 12th Feb and 24th Feb 22 compared to the immune system performance of the unvaccinated population –
Between 6th Jan and 11th Feb, the immune system performance of the fully vaccinated equated to -49%, meaning they were down to the last 51% of their immune system. But fast forward to 24th Feb, and we find that the immune system performance of the fully vaccinated in New Zealand has fallen to -74%, meaning the fully vaccinated populations immune systems have degraded by a further 25% in just 13 days, and they are now down to the last 26% of their immune system. If the fully vaccinated population continues to degrade at the same rate, then they could have developed full blow AIDS by the middle of March 2022. AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is the name used to describe a number of potentially life-threatening infections and illnesses that happen when your immune system has been severely damaged.
Unfortunately, the New Zealand Ministry of Health data shows that the fully vaccinated population are now just weeks away from developing Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, (AIDS) or a novel condition with similar attributes that can only be described as Covid-19 Vaccine Induced Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS), and the repurcussions of this are already being seen in the official Covid-19 hospitalisation statistics for New Zealand –
New Pfizer data dump: 9 pages of adverse reactions.
The messenger RNA (mRNA) from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA, according to Swedish researchers at Lund University. The researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA. The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA. Reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus.
“In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro,” the researchers wrote in the study, published in Current Issues of Molecular Biology. “BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 [hours] after BNT162b2 exposure.” BNT162b2 is another name for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that is marketed under the brand name Comirnaty. The whole process occurred rapidly within six hours. The vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said would not happen. “The genetic material delivered by mRNA vaccines never enters the nucleus of your cells,” the CDC said on its web page titled “Myths and Facts about COVID-19 Vaccines.”
[..] The Swedish study also found spike proteins expressed on the surface of the liver cells that researchers say may be targeted by the immune system and possibly cause autoimmune hepatitis, as “there [have] been case reports on individuals who developed autoimmune hepatitis after BNT162b2 vaccination.” The authors of the first reported case of a healthy 35-year-old female who developed autoimmune hepatitis a week after her first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine said that there is a possibility that “spike-directed antibodies induced by vaccination may also trigger autoimmune conditions in predisposed individuals” [..] Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, wrote on Twitter that the Swedish study’s findings have “enormous implications of permanent chromosomal change and long-term constitutive spike synthesis driving the pathogenesis of a whole new genre of chronic disease.”
New Pfizer data dump: 9 pages of adverse reactions
“The reason for failure has always been dose-related toxicity that has overtaken the benefit when used in sufficient quantity to actually deliver a therapeutic effect.”
Oh, mRNA won’t get taken up into cell lines and thus can’t propagate on a permanent basis in the human body, we were told. Indeed that’s rather important. Mutagenic (cancer), cytotoxic (you’re ****ed) and teratogenic (any child you give birth to or sire is ****ed) things that get into cellular DNA can lead to irreversible damage because most cells in the body are replaced on regular basis. There’s an infamous quote that is in fact wrong: Our body fully replaces itself every seven years. That’s not true. It came out of a study that looked at the average age of cells in a human, using Carbon-14 dating. Anyone who has done any sort of statistical work knows the problem with averages: They are just that, and the statistical outliers are there but unaccounted for with such simplistic tripe.
There are several types of cells that are never replaced. Certain ones in the cerebellum, for example, that deal with coordination and balance, those in the ocular lenses and the eggs in a woman’s ovaries. There are also cells that are much more-frequently replaced. Red blood cells, for example, have a roughly 90 day life cycle. This is why an A1c test, which measures glycated hemoglobin (that is, red cells that have been damaged by glucose) will tell you what your average blood glucose level has been over the last three months. The epithelial cells in your intestines last only about five days, and the live (dermal) part of your skin is replaced in about 2 weeks. Skeletal muscle and the rest of your intestines, on the other hand, are good for around 15 years.
But with few exceptions it is indeed true that most cells are in fact replaced. This is why you can get cancer; when there is an error in that replication the result can be a cell that has wildly damaged regulatory mechanisms on self-replication. If that damage kills the cell immediately then there’s no real foul, but if it leads to much more rapid reproduction…… that’s cancer. We have known for quite a while that viruses can and do in some cases infiltrate into DNA. We know this because we’ve found pieces of viral RNA in our genome and not a few of them either; they’re literally all over the human genomic code. It’s wildly improbable that said congruence happened by random alignment of the various codons in our genetic code; ergo, it got in there at some point in evolution and then got into either the eggs of a developing female fetus or the sperm of a male and thus propagated.
We only know, of course, about the integrations that weren’t fatal to offspring or the person in question. We also know that in general genetic mutation is harmful or fatal nearly all the time, so that we have said evidence in our genome means this sort of thing happens quite frequently and most of the time it screws the person who has it happen to them. Indeed some cancers are blamed on viral infections where the viral RNA gets transcribed into the DNA of the cells and causes said errors. mRNA is not really “new” technology; Moderna has been trying to make it work for cancer, for example, for a long time — without success. The reason for failure has always been dose-related toxicity that has overtaken the benefit when used in sufficient quantity to actually deliver a therapeutic effect. This is not an uncommon reason for drug and therapy failure; in fact that too happens all the time.
I can’t wrap my mind around the existence of this clip. pic.twitter.com/1XvBYWlMxg
— Vera Bergengruen (@VeraMBergen) March 2, 2022
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.