The lipids were known by moderna way back to be toxic, especially in multi dose applications.
Occams razor..
"For Moderna, that meant putting its Crigler-Najjar therapy in nanoparticles made of lipids. And for its chemists, those nanoparticles created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don’t get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients."
Thanks Latus, this is a good review of some basics.
"High cycle thresholds, or Ct values, in RT-qPCR test results have been widely acknowledged to lead to false positives." This means that if the Ct value was low there would be less false positives and more true positives, however that would meant there was actually a virus found which we know is untrue
Here we can see that the "covid" PCR can be positive on many organisms, and that NONE of the 7 prior said corona viruses were ever actually found: https://pastebin.com/PsXCQmGZ
Dr. Yeadon pushed false positives, variants, ADE, and bioweapons-all of which require a virus, his company Ziarco got $27mil from Pfizer. He's what they call "soft propaganda".
PM, these "basics" as you so quaintly refer to them are a collection of artfully conceived events (intentionally or otherwise) that unfolded around 2020 and thenceforward, (and earlier as you know). Predicated on these "basics" were instrumental actions by the NZ Government that insulated Pfizer and BioNTech from any consequences arising from their euphemistically named products before NZ MedSafe had even pronounced the products as 'safe and effective', which they did in short order. Likewise, predicated on the spruiked nonsense of a scamdemic, RT-PCR and RAT tests yielded the requisite "cases" required to promote a non-specific, clinical non-event. I laud Dr Yeadon and Dr. med. Wolfgang Wodarg for highlighting the many "problems" associated with the injections and the tests, whether they were manipulating 'conspirators' or not, as you appear to suggest. Since then and more recently, Dr Yeadon may have adjusted his position, as I understand it. That is to be welcomed? He gets the ethics. He knows the shots. He knows the wider consequences. You may not care much for the label of 'ADE', but it is clearly a described response ever since the biotech was initially tested on monkeys. I consider it a serious if not potentially fatal adverse reaction of useless, harmful biotech. Dismissing it as you suggest, does not help those that may have died or sickened from whatever it is that you wish to call it, a direct adverse event (that certainly requires no "virus"). Of the logical inconsistencies you highlight, I am abundantly well aware. It seems important to engage and lead, often one small step at a time, while also recognising a possibility that people may change, and even be open to change. It seems a triumph to alert a small minority to the danger of the shots they received. Acquainting some with the notion that they could never provide fully informed consent is yet another step forward. Eventually one leads to the sunshine in open space, no virus, no contagion. Thank you for your good work.
Thanks Latus, generally agree, but we can still be substack friends even if we disagree on some things. So with your kindness I will go into some crucial points.
On ADE, AS IT IS DEFINED, no it cannot exist, though I am not denying some other (toxic) reaction that might even involve what we think as antibodies, however there can be no virus involved because no purified isolated characterized virus has ever been found, if you have such evidence of finding, please share that with us godspeed. If Yeadon uses that word it means due to virus-Ab reaction-that is abject virus pushing, so he should stop using that word and say "toxic antibody reaction" or something. Look, he's a seasoned Pharma guy and he has a PhD in toxicology and got millions of $ from Pfizer, he knows exactly what he is doing with his talk of ADE etc.
"virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection."
👉On Yeadon, yes he pushes variants, ADE, false positives, and bioweapons all thru 2020-22 (now the op is over-its too late). Even after he was told and GIVEN the Fan Wu paper by myself, Massey and others, still he waffled. Do you know how easy it is to get HS and College students to understand there was no sars virus upon some discussion?
Sorry for the long comment. I don't require you reply or agree. Please simmer on it and I hope it will resound with you to some degree after a while. I also like your good comments and posts honestly hope we will stay in close touch!
Thank you PM. It is always a pleasure to engage with and to read your work.
The logical inconsistency that predicates the definition of ADE on the presence of a "virus" appears self-evident. I am unsure why you would continue to harken to that after my explanation? The paper you kindly provided (Tirado and Yoon 2004), I have on file. "Definition" notwithstanding, the abstract key take away is a predictable, "However, the mechanisms of ADE still remain to be better understood."
Whatever is taking place, and whatever model is used to hypothesize what is seen or understood around the phenomena of "ADE," awaits the rigour of a properly controlled and falsifiable process?
In response to your question, "Do you know how easy it is to get HS and College students to understand there was no sars virus [or any other virus] upon some discussion?"
Thanks very much Latus, it has always bee a pleasure to hear from you. This is actually a very interesting topic because there are clearly 2 issues that both me and you may have mutually been conflating:
1. The mechanism of ADE ex-virus, and 2. The propaganda usage of ADE, a. as cover for vax injury, and b. as a promotion for virus existence.
Actually I think we agree on these, let me know if I am mistaken. Our issue with Yeadon is #2b. Like Dr. Van Der Boob who loves to scream (acting) about ADE, Yeadon is not to be taken in isolation (no pun intended). Dr. Boob and his main host Del Bigthing have gone on and on about ADE even making a football diagram out of it to imprint on the American Joes and Janes that a virus exists. Even Alex Jones spoke about ADE. So when Yeadon talks about ADE (along with the variants, GOF, etc) he is one spoke in a bigger wheel of propaganda misfortune that we can now see is a well-oiled web of team players with different positions on the field, seeming to be independent but are buddies in their rancid sweaty locker room after the game.
I think you may find that Yeadon has opened up on virus/no virus. Ask some mutual friends. If this is the case, then ADE is mute, and perhaps we consider it as one of the many unpredictable events associated with the needled assault arising from anaphylaxis or LNPs.
The focus on "spike" needs to be properly demonstrated as it cannot be a 'thing' associated with a phantasmagorical "virus." As far as the shots are concerned, it isn't even certain that modRNA can be considered generalisable in shots.
Thanks for the conversation, appreciate it. I hope you will read the Omar link on Yeadon I sent you, it is fascinating even if you're not sure of it all, it's really only taken from his public sources.
-On ADE, we are not sure what "it" is or if it's a name for a group of AEs but the official story of ADE should not lead to immediate release of inflammatory mediators and should not be anaphylaxis in symptoms. Supposedly it is leading to increased viral cell penetration, that could lead to a building cytokine storm but not immediate.
-Related, is Denis Rancourt, lately stating no virus, however he still talks about pathogens (which ones?) and he has been very irrational on 9.11 vids and other things.
To me Yead and Ranc are pretend freedom fighters, "brilliant" but taking them 3-4 years to know what took me 20 min and I'm a nobody. I certainly don't run a Pfizer co with $27 investment (would I be writing silly posts on SS with that cash?). Now they have associated some crazy behavior with no-virus, this is called "discredit by association" and fomenting conflict in the rational no-virus camp because they have been irrational, argumentative (still are), and don't scream from the roof tops "hey there is no virus!", and waiting this long is standard kick the can down the road while the bombs drop then pick up the can after they're dropped and say, "See I've picked up the garbage now guys".
Thanks for letting me say my opinion on your SS and stay in touch. Yours Truly PM.
I think Yeadon suffers from his own education and career. Medicine has it's own language that restricts perception and interpretation of observed results. I've seen the same thing when disputing quantum theory with so called open minded physicists. They're adamant that qt is real based on double slit which itself has huge signs that it was done like virology with a lot of assumptions.
"The evolutionary psychologist William von Hippel found that humans use large parts of thinking power to navigate social world rather than perform independent analysis and decision making. For most people it is the mechanism that, in case of doubt, will prevent one from thinking what is right if, in return, it endangers one’s social status. This phenomenon occurs more strongly the higher a person’s social status. Another factor is that the more educated and more theoretically intelligent a person is, the more their brain is adept at selling them the biggest nonsense as a reasonable idea, as long as it elevates their social status. The upper educated class tends to be more inclined than ordinary people to chase some intellectual boondoggle. "
Rob, thank you for the link to COVID-19 VACCINES and INDUCED ANAPHYLAXIS J. E. Lukach, and the highly developed consideration of anaphylaxis, which I will devour.
The observation of Richet is priceless, "Each one of us, by our chemical make-up, above all by our blood and probably also by the protoplasm of each cell, is himself and no one else. In other words, he has a humoral personality. We all have a body of stored impressions which preclude our being confused with any other specimen of our kind. In the light of notions of immunity and of anaphylaxis, it is the humoral personality, which makes us different from other men by the chemical make-up of our humours."
Melanoma digs into the skin and can spread widely (or the same cancer is just growing widely), the others are only in the skin and grow slowly, they don't spread.
The lipids were known by moderna way back to be toxic, especially in multi dose applications.
Occams razor..
"For Moderna, that meant putting its Crigler-Najjar therapy in nanoparticles made of lipids. And for its chemists, those nanoparticles created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don’t get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients."
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
Thanks Latus, this is a good review of some basics.
"High cycle thresholds, or Ct values, in RT-qPCR test results have been widely acknowledged to lead to false positives." This means that if the Ct value was low there would be less false positives and more true positives, however that would meant there was actually a virus found which we know is untrue
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-virus-rouse-going-going-gonzo so there is no true positive for sars-cov-2 so that neither positives nor negatives nor the test itself has any diagnostic meaning.
Here we can see that the "covid" PCR can be positive on many organisms, and that NONE of the 7 prior said corona viruses were ever actually found: https://pastebin.com/PsXCQmGZ
Dr. Yeadon pushed false positives, variants, ADE, and bioweapons-all of which require a virus, his company Ziarco got $27mil from Pfizer. He's what they call "soft propaganda".
PM, these "basics" as you so quaintly refer to them are a collection of artfully conceived events (intentionally or otherwise) that unfolded around 2020 and thenceforward, (and earlier as you know). Predicated on these "basics" were instrumental actions by the NZ Government that insulated Pfizer and BioNTech from any consequences arising from their euphemistically named products before NZ MedSafe had even pronounced the products as 'safe and effective', which they did in short order. Likewise, predicated on the spruiked nonsense of a scamdemic, RT-PCR and RAT tests yielded the requisite "cases" required to promote a non-specific, clinical non-event. I laud Dr Yeadon and Dr. med. Wolfgang Wodarg for highlighting the many "problems" associated with the injections and the tests, whether they were manipulating 'conspirators' or not, as you appear to suggest. Since then and more recently, Dr Yeadon may have adjusted his position, as I understand it. That is to be welcomed? He gets the ethics. He knows the shots. He knows the wider consequences. You may not care much for the label of 'ADE', but it is clearly a described response ever since the biotech was initially tested on monkeys. I consider it a serious if not potentially fatal adverse reaction of useless, harmful biotech. Dismissing it as you suggest, does not help those that may have died or sickened from whatever it is that you wish to call it, a direct adverse event (that certainly requires no "virus"). Of the logical inconsistencies you highlight, I am abundantly well aware. It seems important to engage and lead, often one small step at a time, while also recognising a possibility that people may change, and even be open to change. It seems a triumph to alert a small minority to the danger of the shots they received. Acquainting some with the notion that they could never provide fully informed consent is yet another step forward. Eventually one leads to the sunshine in open space, no virus, no contagion. Thank you for your good work.
Thanks Latus, generally agree, but we can still be substack friends even if we disagree on some things. So with your kindness I will go into some crucial points.
On ADE, AS IT IS DEFINED, no it cannot exist, though I am not denying some other (toxic) reaction that might even involve what we think as antibodies, however there can be no virus involved because no purified isolated characterized virus has ever been found, if you have such evidence of finding, please share that with us godspeed. If Yeadon uses that word it means due to virus-Ab reaction-that is abject virus pushing, so he should stop using that word and say "toxic antibody reaction" or something. Look, he's a seasoned Pharma guy and he has a PhD in toxicology and got millions of $ from Pfizer, he knows exactly what he is doing with his talk of ADE etc.
Here is one of hundreds of papers noting that the definition of ADE clearly means there is a virus : https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/088282403763635465
"virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection."
👉On Yeadon, yes he pushes variants, ADE, false positives, and bioweapons all thru 2020-22 (now the op is over-its too late). Even after he was told and GIVEN the Fan Wu paper by myself, Massey and others, still he waffled. Do you know how easy it is to get HS and College students to understand there was no sars virus upon some discussion?
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/yeadon-disappears-thru-brick-wall
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/my-open-exchange-with-michael-yeadon-may-8-2022
Omar's Yeadon a to z:
https://mega.nz/file/MEI2XSDb#dqHqCI7rjZbm-AyLsWdi3zRutf2MiKb1OLILQ7gmnGE
Sorry for the long comment. I don't require you reply or agree. Please simmer on it and I hope it will resound with you to some degree after a while. I also like your good comments and posts honestly hope we will stay in close touch!
Thank you PM. It is always a pleasure to engage with and to read your work.
The logical inconsistency that predicates the definition of ADE on the presence of a "virus" appears self-evident. I am unsure why you would continue to harken to that after my explanation? The paper you kindly provided (Tirado and Yoon 2004), I have on file. "Definition" notwithstanding, the abstract key take away is a predictable, "However, the mechanisms of ADE still remain to be better understood."
Whatever is taking place, and whatever model is used to hypothesize what is seen or understood around the phenomena of "ADE," awaits the rigour of a properly controlled and falsifiable process?
In response to your question, "Do you know how easy it is to get HS and College students to understand there was no sars virus [or any other virus] upon some discussion?"
YES.
Thanks very much Latus, it has always bee a pleasure to hear from you. This is actually a very interesting topic because there are clearly 2 issues that both me and you may have mutually been conflating:
1. The mechanism of ADE ex-virus, and 2. The propaganda usage of ADE, a. as cover for vax injury, and b. as a promotion for virus existence.
Actually I think we agree on these, let me know if I am mistaken. Our issue with Yeadon is #2b. Like Dr. Van Der Boob who loves to scream (acting) about ADE, Yeadon is not to be taken in isolation (no pun intended). Dr. Boob and his main host Del Bigthing have gone on and on about ADE even making a football diagram out of it to imprint on the American Joes and Janes that a virus exists. Even Alex Jones spoke about ADE. So when Yeadon talks about ADE (along with the variants, GOF, etc) he is one spoke in a bigger wheel of propaganda misfortune that we can now see is a well-oiled web of team players with different positions on the field, seeming to be independent but are buddies in their rancid sweaty locker room after the game.
We do indeed agree :-) thank you PM
I think you may find that Yeadon has opened up on virus/no virus. Ask some mutual friends. If this is the case, then ADE is mute, and perhaps we consider it as one of the many unpredictable events associated with the needled assault arising from anaphylaxis or LNPs.
The focus on "spike" needs to be properly demonstrated as it cannot be a 'thing' associated with a phantasmagorical "virus." As far as the shots are concerned, it isn't even certain that modRNA can be considered generalisable in shots.
Thanks for the conversation, appreciate it. I hope you will read the Omar link on Yeadon I sent you, it is fascinating even if you're not sure of it all, it's really only taken from his public sources.
-On ADE, we are not sure what "it" is or if it's a name for a group of AEs but the official story of ADE should not lead to immediate release of inflammatory mediators and should not be anaphylaxis in symptoms. Supposedly it is leading to increased viral cell penetration, that could lead to a building cytokine storm but not immediate.
-Related, is Denis Rancourt, lately stating no virus, however he still talks about pathogens (which ones?) and he has been very irrational on 9.11 vids and other things.
https://substack.com/profile/109183783-yulia/note/c-49227460?utm_source=activity_item
To me Yead and Ranc are pretend freedom fighters, "brilliant" but taking them 3-4 years to know what took me 20 min and I'm a nobody. I certainly don't run a Pfizer co with $27 investment (would I be writing silly posts on SS with that cash?). Now they have associated some crazy behavior with no-virus, this is called "discredit by association" and fomenting conflict in the rational no-virus camp because they have been irrational, argumentative (still are), and don't scream from the roof tops "hey there is no virus!", and waiting this long is standard kick the can down the road while the bombs drop then pick up the can after they're dropped and say, "See I've picked up the garbage now guys".
Thanks for letting me say my opinion on your SS and stay in touch. Yours Truly PM.
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2022/02/26/anaphylaxis-the-real-bio-weapon/
I think Yeadon suffers from his own education and career. Medicine has it's own language that restricts perception and interpretation of observed results. I've seen the same thing when disputing quantum theory with so called open minded physicists. They're adamant that qt is real based on double slit which itself has huge signs that it was done like virology with a lot of assumptions.
"The evolutionary psychologist William von Hippel found that humans use large parts of thinking power to navigate social world rather than perform independent analysis and decision making. For most people it is the mechanism that, in case of doubt, will prevent one from thinking what is right if, in return, it endangers one’s social status. This phenomenon occurs more strongly the higher a person’s social status. Another factor is that the more educated and more theoretically intelligent a person is, the more their brain is adept at selling them the biggest nonsense as a reasonable idea, as long as it elevates their social status. The upper educated class tends to be more inclined than ordinary people to chase some intellectual boondoggle. "
-Sasha Latypova
Rob, thank you for the link to COVID-19 VACCINES and INDUCED ANAPHYLAXIS J. E. Lukach, and the highly developed consideration of anaphylaxis, which I will devour.
The observation of Richet is priceless, "Each one of us, by our chemical make-up, above all by our blood and probably also by the protoplasm of each cell, is himself and no one else. In other words, he has a humoral personality. We all have a body of stored impressions which preclude our being confused with any other specimen of our kind. In the light of notions of immunity and of anaphylaxis, it is the humoral personality, which makes us different from other men by the chemical make-up of our humours."
Thanks Rob anaphylaxis is one truth of vax harm yes! It's sudden and immediately deadly, but it's not the same an "ADE" symptom. Keep in touch.
Think how peanut allergies can kill or be mild.
Same thing different magnitude.
Tom Cowan fell for that with melanoma vs benign. What's the difference between melanoma and a benign that spreads?
I think people get hung up on words and not the actual reality.
Melanoma digs into the skin and can spread widely (or the same cancer is just growing widely), the others are only in the skin and grow slowly, they don't spread.