Non-local comunication of living cells proven by Michael Levin in regeneration phenomena

.

In this video Lance Hitchings describes dr. Michael Levin (Tuft's University, 2022) proving that cellular communication has a global nature with the morphogenetic/electromagnetic bio-network, rather than cell-to-cell. Cell-to-cell communication would not explain the full extent of the regeneration phenomena. 

My comment: 

1/ "bioelectric networks" = Sheldrake's "Morphogenetic Field". 

2/ In my opinion, the physics of the non-local morphogenetic network communication is based on the quantum condensate phenomenon and non-local quantum entanglement between a cell and the collective of cells, by the effect taking place in the cellullar membranes resonating in the samef quantum state forming a BE condensate among cells. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl7gLTL1pYc

Regeneration: the blueprint - Morphological Target is stored in the "biolelectric network". Triggering the regeneration process (of a missing limb, for example) is achieved by exposing the wound to "Amniotic Fluid" (LYMPH). Aging is caused by losing information and added noise into the Bioelectric Morphologic Network. The Bioelectric Morphologic Network is NOT stored in genetics!  Bioelectric Information is stored in cellular membranes.  Cellular membranes storing the Bioelectric Morphology are Bose Einstein Condensate connecting across 5D quantum space-time-phase, tapping an information across time and space barrier NONLOCALLY!

See my article on BE Condensate in biomembranes from 2015.
( you need a google account needed to view it, no password to read ):

 
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Af2ALbKUm9RMOT2gHae4Vvn6yU_y1gWwT_uV2yycoBg/edit?usp=sharing

C19 hospitalisation in NSW vs vax status 12/2022

.

Original data screenshot from the New South Wales (Australia) government website, data for the period ending 31 Dec 2022.

  BOMBSHELL – Pandemic of the vaccinated This is not looking good. by PETER IMANUELSEN, JAN 10, 2023

Malhotra's Study from India (1960) 19 times more animal fat 7 times less heart disease

.

"Epidemiology of ischaemic heart disease in India with special reference to causation.", S L Malhotra, Br Heart J. 1967 Nov; 29(6): 895–905. Old study but very memorable. S.L. Malhotra analyzed statistics of 1.15M employees of India Railways from 88 Railway company owned hospitals for the employees and their families. He found that the Southern employees consumed 19 times less animal fat than the Northern India, smoked 1/10-th of the cigarettes, ate less sugar - and had 7 times higher rate of ischaemic heart disease!

Igor Chudov - asociation between vax and excess mortality getting stronger

.

"Association Between Vaccines and EXCESS MORTALITY Getting Stronger -- and is Discussed in UK Parliament", by Igor Chudov, 6-Now-2022 

 Some quotes:

This is Counterintuitive and Concerning!

 

Please take a minute to understand that increasing the strength of association, as time passes after the event causing the association (vaccination), is very unusual very worrisome

 

What is going on? The clock is ticking; unvaccinated people are not really getting vaccinated anymore. And yet, as time goes on, more and more excess deaths are explained by vaccination rate (49% in weeks 20-44, instead of 27% 10 weeks prior). Vaccination rate, for the most part, refers to vaccinations that happened in the relatively distant past, a year ago or so. Something is happening in the bodies of people who were mostly vaccinated over a year ago that increases the degree of that association of vaccines vs. deaths as time goes on!

 

Stop. This is NOT normal.

 

Consider a typical poison like rat poison. Let’s say that a careless cook accidentally sprinkled varying amounts of rat poison over the salads of restaurant visitors. Some received more, some less, so some would die of rat poison. It would be understandable to expect that “restaurant visit” was associated with “excess mortality” of unfortunate diners within the first week or two after the visit. A year later, though, we would not be expecting any such relationship as the effects of poison wear off. However, the association of vaccination (distant past event) with mortality (present event) is increasing as time goes on!

 

What could explain it? To be honest, I am not certain. I can offer two explanations:

 

Vaccination has a delayed effect that causes excess mortality to increase. Regular poisons do not do that. Carcinogens do exactly that. They set a chain of biological processes in motion that lead to increased mortality down the road.

 

Vaccination had negative AND positive effects on mortality, and the positive effects are wearing out. Covid vaccines did, a while ago, provide some protection from Covid deaths. However, as time went on, that protection dwindled. So, as protective effects dwindle and negative effects continue, the explanatory power of vaccinations may be increasing.

Ivermectin Led Up to a 92% Reduction in COVID-19 Mortality

.

New Brazilian study: Kerr L, Baldi F, Lobo R, et al. (August 31, 2022) Regular Use of Ivermectin as Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Led Up to a 92% Reduction in COVID-19 Mortality Rate in a Dose-Response Manner: Results of a Prospective Observational Study of a Strictly Controlled Population of 88,012 Subjects. Cureus 14(8): e28624. doi:10.7759/cureus.28624 Quote:

Conclusion
Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.

History of Disinfo Campaign Against lvermectn

.History of global campaign to discredit, suppress and ultimately ban Ivermectin drug. Reposting from Dr. Pierre Kory's Substack blog 25-Aug-2022:

The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin - The "Fix" at the WHO Part 1

You can make a weak or moderate recommendation solely on observational trials data! Plus, the unparalleled safety profile of ivermectin combined with the existing highly positive data in over 1,000 patients and 12 randomized controlled trials should have led to at a minimum a weak recommendation in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe (the winter of 2020-2021 was particularly brutal in U.S hospitals). However, had they done that, the entire country’s (and world’s) doctors would have started treating all COVID patients with ivermectin. They knew they could not do provide any recommendation stronger than “neutral.” Plus Fauci would never let that happen (remember, as a public servant, it is well documented that he has worked in the service of the pharmaceutical industry his entire career). So that's what they did. There was a lot of attention on Ivermectin after my testimony so they had to do something. Knowing what I know now of the immense powers of Big Pharma, I suspect that even if they had delivered a “weak” recommendation for use, it may not have moved the needle much. I say this largely because the market competitors of ivermectin had many other tactics they could use (and did) to prevent widespread adoption (i.e. their devastatingly effective “horse dewormer” public relations campaign deployed using synchronized messaging amongst all major TV, radio, and print outlets. Plus they probably knew that the WHO was going to update their recommendations based on Andy and his team's continued research over the next two months, so they punted. I would argue that they knew the fix was in at the WHO already. But this is when things get even crazier.

Paul and I read his posted pre-print review and were shocked. The conclusions did not match the data. For the first time in my career, I found myself reading a scientific manuscript by a researcher presenting such profound and compelling data yet whose conclusions argued against the findings. If there is anything that scientists and researchers tend to do when publishing original work, is that they tend to over-interpret the potential importance and impact of their data. But here there was such overwhelmingly positive data yet the paper and conclusions read as if the conclusions were very uncertain and too “heterogenous” to act on. In addition, it was poorly written, with repeated expressions of the limitations of the data including false statements about how effective concentrations could not be reached with standard dosing (something we knew Andy knew was false). In addition the conclusion did not match the data presented. Paul and I immediately suspected scientific misconduct was occurring so we immediately wrote to Andy with our concerns and provided him with a complete peer-review of his paper containing our many comments and recommendations for changes. We demanded that he immediately take down his paper and implement the suggested revisions to be more consistent with the existing data. Among other demands, we asked that he remove the statements about how effective concentrations could not be reached in the blood with standard doses (we had as a group presented data disproving that to the NIH). Further we called out the numerous irregularities in his paper like the repetitive citation of the “limitations” of the data presented.

We knew something was off, like really off and so did Tess. But we didn’t know exactly what was going on “behind the scenes.” It was not until a year later when we found out who and what were behind these manipulations trying to distort and suppress the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin. Those details were uncovered by a man named Phil Harper. I consider him a polymath with a diverse background of interests and accomplishments having worked in journalism and documentary filmmaking among other pursuits. He was a UK citizen and had been living in India during the early pandemic and was shocked when he returned to UK in mid-to-late 2021 and found a country without any early treatment strategy that was instead attacking, suppressing, and legislating against ivermectin which was in wide use at the time in India. So he dug into the topic. Note his Substack is called “the Digger” and it is masterful. What he discovered about the events that occurred over those weeks is absolutely stunning. I credit his work and his publications on his Substack with much of the finer and personal details of what I will present as having happened over those weeks. Please read it. Please also consider donating to help fund his proposed documentary project called “The Research Cartel.” I believe it will have major impacts on exposing all that is rotten in medical research.

It is an astounding video. Andy actually admitted to Tess that his “sponsors” influenced the writing of the paper. Tess asked him for names but he refused. And we all know that whoever had altered that paper they were not listed as an author of the paper. This was clear scientific misconduct. She included the most relevant parts of this meeting in a devastatingly effective video called “A Letter to Andrew Hill” which essentially covers all of the most relevant and impactful events that I am detailing in these posts. I have included it at the end of Part 2. It is a must watch and likely communicates more than I ever can with words. Please hang in, hold, read this through, and then watch the video.

The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin Part 2- The "Fix" at the WHO

So, who was the person making all the changes attacking ivermectin in Andy’s paper? Not mentioned during the recorded meeting with Tess Lawrie and Andrew Hill, but Hill later referenced a person named Dominique Costagliola. What is fascinating is that Phil Harper, acting as a journalist (which he is), actually got Andrew Hill to meet him for coffee in London to do an interview about ivermectin. He purposely gave Andy the sense that he was a “friendly” reporter doing a hit piece on ivermectin. By the time of that interview, Andy had been actively attacking the evidence in support of ivermectin. I suspect he was probably eager to take advantage of yet another opportunity to please his paymasters. Phil even got Andy to confirm that he had been discussing the paper with Dominique Costagliola during that earlier time period and that she had been advising him in some way. Twitter users quizzed her on it and she too confirmed it.

So what did Phil find out about Dominique Costagliola?

1. She is the Deputy Director of the Pierre Louis Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health in France.
2. She speaks English as a 2nd language (this is important as the other “influencer” of Andy that you will soon meet below is English)
3. She had a history of attacking ivermectin, starting very soon after my testimony on the 19th of December 2020, as evidenced in this article “fact checking” the idea that ivermectin was effective in COVID. That article essentially started the narrative refrain we hear about still to this day - “the trials were are small, low quality” and that “proper, large rigorous” (i.e. Pharma controlled) trials are needed to validate the findings.
4. She is a Pharma-conflicted individual just like all the other research and regulatory agency operatives working against ivermectin. She receives lecture fees from nearly every corporation with a competing product against ivermectin. Janssen, Gilead, Merck-Sharp and Dome (biopharmaceutical company), Viiv, Innavirvax and Merck Switzerland. She has taken money in the form of lecture fees, personal fees, and travel and meeting expenses.

I maintain that she is the one who inserted that bizarre weird phrase that no researcher or scientist would ever put in their conclusion, you know the one about “regulatory approval.” Phil discovered that in March 2021, she even used the same phrase in a tweet:

What Phil discovered next, to me, is the “Scoop of the Century” given that I call what these people and others (Hi Billy G!) did to ivermectin, the “Crime of the Century.” Phil discovered who was really in control of both Andy and the evidence supporting ivermectin. It was the Professor that Andy had mentioned to me in our first ever conversation. Phil discovered the Professor’s identity by simply looking at the “meta data” embedded in the PFD file of the preprint paper. It was finalized on the computer of Professor Andrew Owen of the University of Liverpool in the days leading up to the posting. Whoa. Thus, this was the same Professor that had suggested to Andy to “look into ivermectin” in November of 2020. On what evidence do I make this claim? Not only the fact that Andy’s paper was doctored on the computer of Professor Owen but also on his insane conflicts of interest against ivermectin. Again, I maintain he was getting Andy to do “opposition research” without Andy knowing he was working for the other side at the time. Owen’s Big Pharma conflicts with competing products to ivermectin are unparalleled. Costagliola’s pales in comparison.

They reported 70 deaths per 1000 in the standard-of-care treated patients vs. 14 deaths per 1000 in ivermectin treated patients. An 80% reduction in mortality. Let me repeat that. An 80% reduction in mortality. Remdesivir doesn’t do that. Paxlovid doesn’t do that. Molnupiravir doesn’t do that. Monoclonal antibodies don’t do that. And Owen had conflicts with three of these “competitors” (it was not even close to a competition, except in price and profit potential).

A letter to Dr Andrew Hill from Dr Tess Lawrie, March 4th, 2022

Uttar Pradesh - The Miracle of |\/еяместln performed by the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath

.

The Miracle Not-Heard Around The World: The Success of Uttar Pradesh - Part 1

\/ax, heat-shock protein, D-dimers and cardiovascular events

.

I am reading a lot of papers indicating a connection between skin irritation by heat or by UV, production of Heat-Shock Protein HSP70, D-dimers, autoimmune cascade and cardiovascular infarction due to clotting. See for example this:

1) "S100ß, Matrix Metalloproteinase-9, D-dimer, and Heat Shock Protein 70 Are Serologic Biomarkers of Acute Cerebral Infarction in a Mouse Model of Transient MCA Occlusion" - Jong-Il Choi 1, Sung-Kon Ha 2, Dong-Jun Lim 2, Sang-Dae Kim 2, Se-Hoon Kim 2 J Korean Neurosurg Soc, 2018 Sep;61(5):548-558. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29724092/

2) "Heatstroke-induced coagulopathy: Biomarkers, mechanistic insights, and patient management", Toshiaki Iba, Jean Marie Connors, Marcel Levi, Jerrold H. Levy The Lancet, Open AccessPublished:January 22, 2022 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00006-2/fulltext

Quote from the Lancet paper: "Platelet count, D-dimer, soluble thrombomodulin, and inflammation biomarkers such as interleukin-6 and histone H3 are promising markers for HSIC [Heat-Stroke Induced Coagulopathy]".

IL6 and D-dimers are also the predictor markers for the cardiovascular events in double or more - vaccinated patients reported by dr. Shankar Chetty in the link I sent 3 days ago.

3) Interview of dr. Shankara Chetty (South Africa) by dr. Peter McCullough on McCullough Report made in the beginning of July 2022. https://content.blubrry.com/mcculloughreport/Evidence-Based_Medicine_Supports_the_Practice_of_the_Art_of_Medicine.mp3 https://www.americaoutloud.com/?powerpress_pinw=100209-podcast

He is describing lots of clinical detail from his practice. He mentions two early warning factors in his patients forecasting the possibility of cardiac events: IL6 and D-dimer test.

What is interesting, is that he is saying that the cardiac arrest event follows a few days after the covid symptoms which are generally very mild! It goes counterintuitively since it is not the severe flu-like symptoms which may forebode the poor outcome or cardiovascular death during what he calls the "Second Stage" of the omicron infection, but the mild symptoms or even no symptoms! CDr. Chetty is saying that he did NOT notice any significant correlation between the poor Second Stage cardiac outcome and any of the usual comorbidities such as obesity, prediabetes, hypertension etc. He was basically observing healthy patients experiencing unexpected cardiac events! What foreshadows the cardiac event outcome is a very high Interleukin-6 and D-dimer test and also correlation with the covid-vaccinated status, especially double+boosted! He mentions the remarkably effective treatment in those cases with: Promethazine + Aspirine.

Pfoizon's postmarketing experience

.The data is not fully verified.  I used the reference links and borrowed some words from this post Comment by Captain Sunset on Hyperlipid 

BNT162b2 / 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports

Spike protein and cancer

"SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro" by Hui Jiang, Ya-Fang Mei, 2021 Oct 13

"53BP1: A key player of DNA damage response with critical functions in cancer", by Mohammad Mirza-Aghazadeh-Attariet al. Epub 2018 Nov 20

The Lancet paper on Ivermectin

 

The study found no difference between the treated group versus the control group in the viral load detected by PCR, but treated patients recovered twice as fast.  

Title:  "The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial", by Carlos Chaccour et al., The Lancet, January 19, 2021

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext

The Lancet article on c19 spread by vac people

.

The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing

An article published by Günter Kampf in The Lancet, Letters, 19-Nov-2021.

Quote:

High COVID-19 vaccination rates were expected to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in populations by reducing the number of possible sources for transmission and thereby to reduce the burden of COVID-19 disease. Recent data, however, indicate that the epidemiological relevance of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals is increasing. In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated). 12 of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases. Peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type [[1]]. In Germany, the rate of symptomatic COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated (“breakthrough infections”) is reported weekly since 21. July 2021 and was 16.9% at that time among patients of 60 years and older [[2]]. This proportion is increasing week by week and was 58.9% on 27. October 2021 (Figure 1) providing clear evidence of the increasing relevance of the fully vaccinated as a possible source of transmission. A similar situation was described for the UK. Between week 39 and 42, a total of 100.160 COVID-19 cases were reported among citizens of 60 years or older. 89.821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7%), 3.395 among the unvaccinated (3.4%) [[3]]. One week before, the COVID-19 case rate per 100.000 was higher among the subgroup of the vaccinated compared to the subgroup of the unvaccinated in all age groups of 30 years or more. In Israel a nosocomial outbreak was reported involving 16 healthcare workers, 23 exposed patients and two family members. The source was a fully vaccinated COVID-19 patient. The vaccination rate was 96.2% among all exposed individuals (151 healthcare workers and 97 patients). Fourteen fully vaccinated patients became severely ill or died, the two unvaccinated patients developed mild disease [[4]]. The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies four of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (99.9–84.3%) as “high” transmission counties [[5]]. Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.

AHA paper on cov. vac. - dramatic increase of cardiac risk markers

.

Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning

Steven R Gundry

Originally published8 Nov 2021Circulation. 2021;144:A10712

Quote: 

Abstract

Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.

Scotland-UK gov report for Aug-Sep shows v. have very little effect on c. deaths

.

It is interesting to note that "The Age Standardised Mortality Rate per 100,000" figures given in Table 18 (i.e. 8.38, 4.93, 1.93 for the unv., 1-va and 2-va, for the 11-17 of September) are inconsistent with the population va rates and the number of deaths in each category. These rates are probably adjusted and corrected for other factors. Unfortunately they did not explain (or I missed it) how exactly they were adjusted and corrected.

That's why I re-ran the numbers myself to verify them. I took the number of unv'ed people who died of c. (59) in the period, dividing them by the total number of people who died of c. (59+10+233=302, that is the total of unv'ed plus 1-v'ed plus 2-v'ed who died).  Divide 59 by 302 - you will get 20%. The actual percentage of those who died of c. and were double-v'ed is 77% (that is 233 by 302).

If you google the population stats for Scotland, for September, you will find that 22% are unv'ed, 78% are at least once v'ed (therefore 7% are exactly once-v.) and 71% are double v'ed.

To summarize it, 22% of the entire population are unv'ed and constitute 20% of those who died on c.

Double v'ed constitute 71% of the entire population and 77% of those who died on c.

Note that the percentage figures of 20% and 22% are statistically the same, within the statistical error (=+/- square root of N divided by N, for Gaussian distribution), so are the figures 70% and 77% - which indicates that the v. are not really effective in averting the c. deaths in Scotland.

Reference:

1/ SeeTable 18 in "Public Health Scotland C-XIX Statistical Report As at 27 September 2021"

Table 18 (from the above-report)

Age-Standardised Mortality Rate referenced in Table 18.

2/ C-XIX va. rates in Scotland, up to 10-Oct-2021, by Google search:

---- Update 24-Oct-2021 ----

Similar figures emerged from Israel.  Note: the following table provided by Dr. R. Malone has not been independently verified, as far as I know.

Update 3-Nov-2021, more references. 

3/ The UK data, similar to Scottish:

"COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 42"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf

4/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mystery-rise-in-heart-attacks-from-blocked-arteries-m253drrnf

5/  https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/blog/2021/10/23/natural-immunity-vs-vaccination

6/ Updated 22/11/2021

Total deaths rates per 100k, for vaccinated and unvaccinated sub-populations. Allegedly based on the England's government sources, unverified!  [will add the source data reference later when I find them]

Vaccines and the innate and adaptive immune systems

.

This is my first stab at learning about vaccines. How exactly they work, what do the "adjuvants" do?

Reference:

"Stabilising the Code" by Dr.Mike Williams, UKCOLUMN, 12th September 2021

"Impact of Polymer-TLR-7/8 Agonist (Adjuvant) Morphology on the Potency and Mechanism of CD8 T Cell Induction", Geoffrey M Lynn et al., Biomacromolecules. 2019 Feb 11;20(2):854-870.

In a nutshell - modification of the mRNA (nucleoside uridine code) in covid vaccine acts similar to  adjuvants (in other vaccines) weakening the innate immune system in order to give the chance for the adaptive immune system to activate, recognize and store the pathogen's signature.

That explains why vaccinating against a specific pathogen may make one vulnerable (for a time) to some secondary "opportunistic" infections. Or cancer...

Quotes:

In 2005, Drs. Weissman and Kariko discovered a way to protect foreign mRNA from the body’s immune system. That scientific milestone would be key to the advancement of the mRNA vaccines in 2020.

Recently, the University of Pennsylvania Tweeted a picture of the Drs. Weissman and Kariko receiving their Covid vaccination, and reminding us of that milestone. One tweet commenting that they should receive the Nobel prize for their discovery.

The fundamental change discovered by Weissman and Kariko was that nucleoside modification could protect mRNA from the body’s immune defences:

[picture]

Their key discovery, that by modifying the RNA code (modifying the nucleoside uridine), resulted in ablating the innate immune response, involved toll-like receptors (TLR).

This discovery was adopted in the mRNA technology used in Covid vaccines, in order that the foreign vaccine mRNA could enter cells without being destroyed.
...

By modifying the Uridine in the Pfizer vaccine mRNA code, the foreign mRNA is able to bypass part of the body’s first line of defence — the Innate Immune System.

The body possesses two broad parts to its immune system: innate and specific. The innate is the first to go into action against foreign invaders, including foreign mRNA from a vaccine.

How does that simple removal of one letter of code from mRNA achieve that? It does so by affecting Toll Like Receptors (TLR): the alarm signal of the Innate Immune System.

The key TLRs affected are TLR 3, TLR 7 and TLR 8. They act as sentries, whose job is to recognise foreign invaders by way of their form or patterns;
...

Dominguez-Andres et al addressed that question May 6th 2021. They state: ...

...
BNT162b2 vaccine also modulated the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells upon stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli. The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination.
...

We observed a significant reduction in the production if IFN-α secreted after stimulation with poly I:C and R848 after the administration of the second dose of the vaccine (Figure 1H, 1I). This may hamper the initial innate immune response against the virus, as defects in TLR7 have been shown to result in and increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in young males (Van Der Made et al., 2020). These results collectively demonstrate that the effects of the BNT162b2 vaccine go beyond the adaptive immune system and can also modulate innate immune responses.

Three concerns are raised by the above.

1. The ability of the immune system to fight viruses has been diminished; specifically, the ability to fight SARS-CoV-2 may be affected;
2. Vaccine-induced innate immune tolerance may affect other vaccines; and finally
3. What other parts of the immune system may be affected.

...
Dr Ryan Cole, a Pathologist, in a recent presentation, stated that he is observing a 20 x uptick in endometrial cancer, and increases in other cancers post SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
...

The toll-like receptors 7 & 8 are described in the literature as important in eliciting the vital CD8 T cell response. With that in mind, let us remind ourselves what Drs. Weissman and Kariko wrote in 2005 in Suppression of RNA recognition by Toll-like receptors: the impact of nucleoside modification and the evolutionary origin of RNA:

We show that RNA signals through human TLR3, TLR7, and TLR8, but incorporation of modified nucleosides m5C, m6A, m5U, s2U, or pseudouridine ablates activity.

That very technology is being used in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: It switches off TLR 7 & 8 signalling, that the immune system needs to fight infection and cancer.

Summary

Changes to key parts of the mRNA code in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may be causal in changing the innate immune response via toll-like receptors. Toll-like receptors are important components in defence against infection and downstream effects may also include inhibition of CD8 T cell response. CD8 is a vital part of the immune system’s ability to eradicate infection and cancer. Those changes may be reflected in recent reactivated Varicella Zoster infections although specific mechanisms are unclear at the moment. Anecdotal reports of significant uptick in cancer presenting to medical consultants may be consistent with aberrant toll-like receptor and dendritic cell changes leading to an inhibition of the anti-cancer CD8 effector response. Further data are required but the prospect of an altered CD8 response to infection and cancer is very concerning and should prompt urgent investigation.
...

-------------------

Updated 2-Oct-2021

Another issue to investigate is cytokine storm and ADE (Anti-body Dependent Enhancement)

See the references in: "Mechanism behind rona virus damage"

smokers hospitalized less often for covid

.

Smokers Hospitalized Less Often for COVID-19 By Carolyn Crist

The hypothesis comes from Konstantinos Farsalinos, a cardiologist in Greece who focuses on tobacco-use reduction. Farsalinos noticed that few COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized in China were smokers, though about half of men in the country smoke.
Farsalinos and colleagues wrote a new paper available as a preprint and scheduled to be published in Internal and Emergency Medicine. They found that among 13 studies in China with nearly 6,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the rate of smokers ranged from 1.4% to 12.6%. No studies recorded e-cigarette use.
“The results were remarkably consistent across all studies and were recently verified in the first case series of COVID-19 cases in the U.S.,” the authors wrote, calling for an “urgent investigation.”
Of course, Farsalinos doesn't recommend that people should begin smoking simply to attempt to avoid a severe case of COVID-19.

Physical activity increases cardiovascular calcium score

.

"Physical activity may increase heart attack risk, study suggests", The Irish Times, Sep 20, 2021, Paul Cullen

Note: "Calcium Score" they are refering to is also refered to as CAC Scan or Agatston Calcium Score. The reason Dr. Angie Brown quoted in the article was downplaying the "Calcium Score" method is, IMHO, because the results obtained by it are often contradictory to the prevailing medical paradigm. In spite of many cardiologists using it as very reliable diagnostics and risk assessment method. Quote:

The results suggested an overreliance on calcium scores and imaging alone may not be the best way to assess cardiovascular risk, said Dr Brown, a consultant cardiologist.

Unfortunately I was not yet able to locate the original (Korean) study, I will post the link when I find it.

Quote from the article:

To explore the issue further, the researchers studied healthy adults attending for check-ups in South Korea over a six-year period.
Those who were more physically active tended to be older and less likely to smoke than less physically active participants. They also had lower total cholesterol, more high blood pressure, and existing evidence of calcium deposits in their coronary arteries.
An association between physical activity level and the prevalence and progression of coronary artery calcification emerged over time. Higher physical activity was associated with faster progression of calcification scores.
Experts said the new study may mean that exercise increases the risk of a heart attack, or it may be that calcium build-up is not a good measure of heart attack risk.

Curious lack of discussion on natural immunity

.

"Why ''Natural Immunity'' Is A Political Problem For The Regime", by CD Media StaffSeptember 24, 2021

Both the Mayo Clinic website and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, for example, insist that “research has not yet shown” that people who have recovered from covid have any sort of reliable protection. Moreover, the CDC page points to a single study from Kentucky claiming that people with natural immunity are more than twice as likely to contract covid again, compared to people who have been vaccinated.

More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.

The policy bias in favor of vaccines ignores many other facts as well, such as the relative risks of vaccines, especially for the young:

The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention position about vaccinating children also dismisses the benefits of natural immunity. The Los Angeles County School District recently mandated vaccines for students ages 12 and up who want to learn in person. But young people are less likely to suffer severe or long-lasting symptoms from covid-19 than adults, and have experienced rare heart complications from the vaccines. In Israel, heart inflammation has been observed in between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 6,000 males age 16 to 24; the CDC has confirmed 854 reports nationally in people age 30 and younger who got the vaccine. ...

... For comparison, the CDC has long recommended that kids do not get the chickenpox vaccine if they had chickenpox infection in the past.

The nonscientific, ideology-induced blind spot for natural immunity also prompted The BMJ (the journal of the British Medical Association) to note that “[w]hen the vaccine rollout began in mid-December 2020, more than one quarter of Americans—91 million—had been infected with SARS-CoV-2…. As of this May, that proportion had risen to more than a third of the population, including 44% of adults aged 18–59.”

And yet, the authors note this fact doesn’t appear to be a part of any policy discussion at all:

The substantial number of infections, coupled with the increasing scientific evidence that natural immunity was durable, led some medical observers to ask why natural immunity didn’t seem to be factored into decisions about prioritising vaccination.

Dairy fat could PREVENT a heart attack

.

Dairy fat from milk, butter, and cheese could actually PREVENT a heart attack SEPTEMBER 21,2021

“Many studies have relied on people being able to remember and record the amounts and types of dairy foods they have eaten, which is especially difficult given dairy is commonly used in a variety of foods,” says study co-author Dr. Matti Marklund from Uppsala University, in a statement.
“Instead, we measured blood levels of certain fatty acids, or fat ‘building blocks’ that are found in dairy foods, which gives a more objective measure of dairy fat intake that doesn’t rely on memory or the quality of food databases,” Dr. Marklund continues. “We found those with the highest levels actually had the lowest risk of CVD.”
... Researchers assessed dairy fat consumption in the group of Swedish 60-year-olds by measuring blood levels of a particular fatty acid. This substance generally appears in dairy foods and is therefore useful in reflecting intake of dairy fat. Study authors tracked the group for an average of 16 years to see how many had heart attacks, strokes, and other serious circulatory events. They also looked at how many died from any cause during this time.
The CVD risk was lowest for those with high levels of the fatty acid, coming from a high intake of dairy fats. The results remained the same after accounting for factors including age, income, lifestyle, dietary habits, and other illnesses. Moreover, those with the highest levels had no increased risk of death from all causes.

Reference
"Biomarkers of dairy fat intake, incident cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality: A cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis", Kathy Trieu , et al., PLOS MEDICINE, Published: September 21, 2021

Dr. Richard Urso on the smartest drug in history

"SMARTEST DRUG IN HISTORY", Dr. Richard Urso, first published at 16:02 UTC on May 27th, 2021.