"It’s so bad that I regard it as axiomatic that being injected with anything purporting to be ‘based on mRNA technology’ will injure you. It cannot give rise to any other effect, in practise."
Anything that interferes with the day to day operations of your cells, anything that interferes with the unique and delicately timed genetic expression of your cell is deadly in the first place.
They KNOW this...
The reason to put it in your body was "covid" but there was no way this could work without primarily destroying cellular operations critical for day to day health.
Saying "But it produces antibodies" is akin to the line in Idiocracy where they keep saying "but it's got electrolytes" where they keep spraying sports drink on their crops, which kills their crops.
The antibodies are a secondary effect, the main effect is to critically damage your body at the cellular level.
Jonestown style arguments were used to push this poison from the outset... Replace "it's Kool Aid" with "it's a vaccine"... and you've conned half your victims already.
"For everyone's safety" was another underhand trick, when the substance on offer is toxic, therefore it's not safe for anyone, (and could never stop a respiratory pathogen... If indeed such a thing as covid ever existed in the first place).
They told half truths "it gives your body a message to make the antigen, so you can mount an immune response" rather than saying your cells will start making a foreign cytotoxic protein, which will cause your immune system to attack your own cells, your own cells will get conflicting messages interfering with important genetic expression and causing dysfunction... End result is likely cellular death, tissue necrosis, cellular dysfunction, autoimmunity and cancer, to name but a few... Plus your immune system is now preoccupied with a specific protein, so your immune system is compromised rather than enhanced...
It was poison from the outset and never a contender to fight a disease, they had a great story to make you volunteer to inject this poison.
You need IgA antibodies to prevent or tackle a respiratory illness, not blood borne IgG antibodies to Covid, which is what an injected vaccine will do. (If there is such a thing as a respiratory pathogen in the first place).
So there was no use poisoning your body in the hope you wouldn't catch whatever covid was in the first place.
Why? Profits are great but free human guinea pigs are even better ...
How else would you find out how well this poison might work than to have people volunteer their arms for it, albeit on false pretences...??
Then you can get great data on how well this covert poison works
Even better it was an opportunity to check out how good we've gotten with propaganda and psyop creation.
Did they want us all dead ? Maybe...
Sterilised? Maybe...
But did they want to see the effects of systemic wide distribution of errant mRNA codes in a human being? For sure they did...
And they wanted to see how it effects the very young to the very old.
I thought it was a mistake and about profits at first, but with all the known consequences already and for it not to be off the market AND for countries to expand mRNA in big dollar deals with western govt... It is not a mistake. It's deliberate.
Even if they are reluctant to admit mRNA vaccine's known dangers, governments should be backing away quietly, not ramping up supply with factories and billion dollar investments.
This is coming from someone who was blindly asleep and trusted our government implicitly to get us through.
Even the operation to push the sheep and opposition to focus solely on vaccines (rather than vaccines being some inconsequential thing that you rarely thought about) now they have engineered two sides, at each other's throats like sports team fans, this required planning. This wasn't some surprise disease (if it was anything at all).
Only had a vague memory of cellular biology from uni 30 years ago, but I was dumbfounded for all reasons above when they said they were injecting man made mRNA to tackle a respiratory infection...
It was deadly and dangerous in theory to do this, so why did we?
Then the side effects started to mount up, yet it was still on the market even though the benefits (none) did not outweigh the risk (death and injury).
My old textbook from uni sums up the critical importance of mRNA signalling in your cell, so critical it should never be interfered with...
Raven and Johnson "Biology" 2nd edition (1989) which had some great colour diagrams around page 302, and very clear explanations of our cellular operations.
Even better the few paragraph summary on page 309, spells everything out in basic terms...
"REGULATING GENE EXPRESSION... A CELL must know not only HOW to make a particular protein, but also WHEN. "It is important for an organism to be able to CONTROL WHICH of its GENES ARE BEING TRANSCRIBED, AND WHEN".
* Even at this point, the question arises why interfere with this system?
"From a broader perspective, the growth and development of multicellular organisms entails a long series of biochemical reactions, each DELICATELY TUNED to achieve a precise effect."
*Precise effect, delicately tuned...
Again why interfere in something so important?*
I won't go on but here's a link to the book, really worth checking out something published well before the plans were being hatched to modify science.
"As I understand it, it is not understood how & why it (AI) occasionally & unpredictably tells you things that are not only not correct but things it “knows” are incorrect. We can tell it “knows”, because if it’s challenged, it immediately concedes."
I discovered the truth of this a few weeks ago when doing research for a Substack article I was writing. I asked who funded a certain alternative media personality and the AI that automatically pops up on my browser gave me a name that was different to my previous research. I asked the AI for the source document used to come by the name. It immediately told me it had made a mistake. I thought that very strange.
AI can't be trusted. I think they (the ones used by prowsers anyway) are intentionally programmed to do this periodically because we are easier to control when we don't know what to believe or how to find the truth in all the noise out there. It shepherds people towards "trusted sources" like media and government.
I have added you to my recommendation list and added the following text to the recommendation:
"She is someone who can write amazingly convincingly. I recommend her texts for enlightenment purposes, to send to people who have not yet understood the political-medical fraud."
If you want, you can adapt my text according to your wishes.
mRNA products are as much vaccines as any other mixture of heterogeneous, unstable, foreign biological matter injected into a living body. In my view, mRNA products are simply a variety of vaccine, and probably not very different in composition from pre-2020 forms, or if different, mostly due to changes in the lipid carriers. So I would disagree with Mike's position that mRNA products are not vaccines. mRNA products, countermeasures and all vaccines are all not subject to regulation, because all are not defined or definable, stable, purifiable products.
Thank you for your correction. However, I must admit that I did not fully understand why the definition of "vaccination" should only be viewed from a single perspective. Is it because I always think slower on Mondays?
Would it be possible in this case for us to agree on the broad definition of vaccines that people use most often? That is, they are substances that are intended to protect against future disease. If a substance cannot protect against anything and only causes harm, then it is not a vaccine. Given this definition, I suggest not deducting any points from Mike's score and showing leniency. Would you agree with that?
By the way, I don't think either of us knows a single substance that can be called a real (i.e. helpful) vaccine. However, you are so well versed in the details and technological and legal subtleties that I would never dare to think that your criticism could have something to do with the day of the week (Monday), and that today is a day of negation. But joking aside, the truth is that I have not understood the criteria by which the harmful mRNA gene injection against "Covid" should meet the definition of a vaccination. As for the so-called "vaccination" against cancer, I don't know enough about that. The bio-distribution study published above shows that the pharmaceutical industry has so far had great problems in getting the mRNA to the desired cells. Even if I were to protect myself from cancer using mRNA technology, but went blind as a result (that's what happened to my neighbor after a "Covid vaccination"), I wouldn't want to call this "Bourla's soup" a "vaccination" either. The term "genetic therapy", which was used before 2020, is also not appropriate because poisoning cannot be a "therapy". A chance for therapy can only exist if the injection could be used specifically against the cancer cells or other desired cells, for example. Katherine, please forgive me if I misunderstood something, because I'm not as good a professional as you, and I can never compare my knowledge in this regard with your professional knowledge.
I understood Katherine Watt's comment to mean the small differences between the mRNA products. These have been around since 1990 and were never approved before 2020 due to their high toxicity. What is unclear to me, however, is Katherine's subsequent conclusion that these products (due to the minimal differences?) are "vaccines". I don't understand it, because gene therapies were never allowed to be called "vaccines" before 2020, and in my opinion, they are not even similar to vaccines. However, I have a suspicion.
This comment can be considered a kind of "thinking out loud" because I have a puzzle to solve that is related to Katherine Watt's comment. However, I don't know if my guess is correct.
Since I can't think of a better explanation for Katherine's point of view at the moment, I imagine the following. I don't know whether that is exactly correct. Perhaps she meant the similarity of the effects attributed to these products by the pharmaceutical industry, such as the production of antibodies, etc., which will prove to be false upon closer inspection. From the point of view of the "no virus community", the question arises: antibodies against what? And from the point of view of conventional medicine, we can point out that the conventional "vaccines" have never worked either, and that the level of antibodies could never provide an accurate picture of immunity, because this area is also fraudulent. (I have already prepared a corresponding article on antibodies). This means that Katherine was only referring to the similarities that have been attributed to mRNA technology by the pharmaceutical industry, but which turn out to be misrepresentations.
The question of the general ineffectiveness and toxicity of these substances does not have to be taken into account in this consideration, and the difference to conventional "vaccines" is also irrelevant at this point. The theoretically attributed effect that the pharmaceutical industry is talking about seems to be the decisive factor from Katherine's point of view. I can only hope that I have understood this correctly, because I am only relying on assumptions. Because "vaccines" are (unfortunately) understood in common parlance as "protective immunizations," I have suggested this simplified definition.
Since these substances cannot protect a healthy person from future diseases, I found the term "vaccine" inappropriate. Although I personally would be very reluctant to refer to gene therapy substances as "vaccines," I do not deny that there can be other points of view. Because so far it has been pure poison, I also find the term "therapeutic" inappropriate and propose that the conventional "vaccinations" should also be written in quotation marks.
I was one of those who was very worried about the consequences of the "no virus" narrative. This certainly does not make communicating the "no Covid" narrative any easier. However, I suggest that no one should automatically reject the “no virus” narrative, but instead take some time to educate themselves. I am aware that it can be very difficult for the human imagination to understand how it is possible that all the virology can turn out to be a fraud when this "science" has been considered axiomatically true for so long and by so many smart people. However, there are good explanations for this, very good ones in fact. Any curious person can take the time to do this, or not. It is up to you what you invest your time in. With the "viruses" everything can be explained very well point by point. In the end, you will laugh at the easy way in which humanity can be fooled. The most important keyword may be: “The holding of untested assumptions, which are then overlaid with further assumptions.” I assume you haven't had time to read the "No virus" series of articles on my Substack yet.
That's completely fine. The only thing I regret is the fact that you are surprised about the use of mRNA "vaccines" instead of understanding that we are dealing with real murderers and well-organized fraudsters. How long do you want to be surprised? You yourself can see that there is no "ordinary logic" to be found in the use of mRNA. These substances were also recommended for children and pregnant women, without "Covid" ever having existed. Or to put it another way: 2020, there was no exceptional disease that had a higher mortality rate than moderate flu. Whatever way you look at it, a special approach would have to be applied here, but not an ordinary one. No "mistakes" were made here. How long do you want to wonder?
Anything that interferes with the day to day operations of your cells, anything that interferes with the unique and delicately timed genetic expression of your cell is deadly in the first place.
They KNOW this...
The reason to put it in your body was "covid" but there was no way this could work without primarily destroying cellular operations critical for day to day health.
Saying "But it produces antibodies" is akin to the line in Idiocracy where they keep saying "but it's got electrolytes" where they keep spraying sports drink on their crops, which kills their crops.
The antibodies are a secondary effect, the main effect is to critically damage your body at the cellular level.
Jonestown style arguments were used to push this poison from the outset... Replace "it's Kool Aid" with "it's a vaccine"... and you've conned half your victims already.
"For everyone's safety" was another underhand trick, when the substance on offer is toxic, therefore it's not safe for anyone, (and could never stop a respiratory pathogen... If indeed such a thing as covid ever existed in the first place).
They told half truths "it gives your body a message to make the antigen, so you can mount an immune response" rather than saying your cells will start making a foreign cytotoxic protein, which will cause your immune system to attack your own cells, your own cells will get conflicting messages interfering with important genetic expression and causing dysfunction... End result is likely cellular death, tissue necrosis, cellular dysfunction, autoimmunity and cancer, to name but a few... Plus your immune system is now preoccupied with a specific protein, so your immune system is compromised rather than enhanced...
It was poison from the outset and never a contender to fight a disease, they had a great story to make you volunteer to inject this poison.
You need IgA antibodies to prevent or tackle a respiratory illness, not blood borne IgG antibodies to Covid, which is what an injected vaccine will do. (If there is such a thing as a respiratory pathogen in the first place).
So there was no use poisoning your body in the hope you wouldn't catch whatever covid was in the first place.
Why? Profits are great but free human guinea pigs are even better ...
How else would you find out how well this poison might work than to have people volunteer their arms for it, albeit on false pretences...??
Then you can get great data on how well this covert poison works
Even better it was an opportunity to check out how good we've gotten with propaganda and psyop creation.
Did they want us all dead ? Maybe...
Sterilised? Maybe...
But did they want to see the effects of systemic wide distribution of errant mRNA codes in a human being? For sure they did...
And they wanted to see how it effects the very young to the very old.
I thought it was a mistake and about profits at first, but with all the known consequences already and for it not to be off the market AND for countries to expand mRNA in big dollar deals with western govt... It is not a mistake. It's deliberate.
Even if they are reluctant to admit mRNA vaccine's known dangers, governments should be backing away quietly, not ramping up supply with factories and billion dollar investments.
This is coming from someone who was blindly asleep and trusted our government implicitly to get us through.
Even the operation to push the sheep and opposition to focus solely on vaccines (rather than vaccines being some inconsequential thing that you rarely thought about) now they have engineered two sides, at each other's throats like sports team fans, this required planning. This wasn't some surprise disease (if it was anything at all).
Only had a vague memory of cellular biology from uni 30 years ago, but I was dumbfounded for all reasons above when they said they were injecting man made mRNA to tackle a respiratory infection...
It was deadly and dangerous in theory to do this, so why did we?
Then the side effects started to mount up, yet it was still on the market even though the benefits (none) did not outweigh the risk (death and injury).
My old textbook from uni sums up the critical importance of mRNA signalling in your cell, so critical it should never be interfered with...
Raven and Johnson "Biology" 2nd edition (1989) which had some great colour diagrams around page 302, and very clear explanations of our cellular operations.
Even better the few paragraph summary on page 309, spells everything out in basic terms...
"REGULATING GENE EXPRESSION... A CELL must know not only HOW to make a particular protein, but also WHEN. "It is important for an organism to be able to CONTROL WHICH of its GENES ARE BEING TRANSCRIBED, AND WHEN".
* Even at this point, the question arises why interfere with this system?
"From a broader perspective, the growth and development of multicellular organisms entails a long series of biochemical reactions, each DELICATELY TUNED to achieve a precise effect."
*Precise effect, delicately tuned...
Again why interfere in something so important?*
I won't go on but here's a link to the book, really worth checking out something published well before the plans were being hatched to modify science.
https://archive.org/details/biology0000rave_02ed/mode/1up
Thank you for the great article, and giving Dr Yeadon a voice in this heavily censored landscape 🙏
"As I understand it, it is not understood how & why it (AI) occasionally & unpredictably tells you things that are not only not correct but things it “knows” are incorrect. We can tell it “knows”, because if it’s challenged, it immediately concedes."
I discovered the truth of this a few weeks ago when doing research for a Substack article I was writing. I asked who funded a certain alternative media personality and the AI that automatically pops up on my browser gave me a name that was different to my previous research. I asked the AI for the source document used to come by the name. It immediately told me it had made a mistake. I thought that very strange.
AI can't be trusted. I think they (the ones used by prowsers anyway) are intentionally programmed to do this periodically because we are easier to control when we don't know what to believe or how to find the truth in all the noise out there. It shepherds people towards "trusted sources" like media and government.
Hello Bird's Brain,
I have added you to my recommendation list and added the following text to the recommendation:
"She is someone who can write amazingly convincingly. I recommend her texts for enlightenment purposes, to send to people who have not yet understood the political-medical fraud."
If you want, you can adapt my text according to your wishes.
Best wishes,
Suavek
That's amazing! Thank you!
mRNA products are as much vaccines as any other mixture of heterogeneous, unstable, foreign biological matter injected into a living body. In my view, mRNA products are simply a variety of vaccine, and probably not very different in composition from pre-2020 forms, or if different, mostly due to changes in the lipid carriers. So I would disagree with Mike's position that mRNA products are not vaccines. mRNA products, countermeasures and all vaccines are all not subject to regulation, because all are not defined or definable, stable, purifiable products.
Dear Katherine,
Thank you for your correction. However, I must admit that I did not fully understand why the definition of "vaccination" should only be viewed from a single perspective. Is it because I always think slower on Mondays?
Would it be possible in this case for us to agree on the broad definition of vaccines that people use most often? That is, they are substances that are intended to protect against future disease. If a substance cannot protect against anything and only causes harm, then it is not a vaccine. Given this definition, I suggest not deducting any points from Mike's score and showing leniency. Would you agree with that?
By the way, I don't think either of us knows a single substance that can be called a real (i.e. helpful) vaccine. However, you are so well versed in the details and technological and legal subtleties that I would never dare to think that your criticism could have something to do with the day of the week (Monday), and that today is a day of negation. But joking aside, the truth is that I have not understood the criteria by which the harmful mRNA gene injection against "Covid" should meet the definition of a vaccination. As for the so-called "vaccination" against cancer, I don't know enough about that. The bio-distribution study published above shows that the pharmaceutical industry has so far had great problems in getting the mRNA to the desired cells. Even if I were to protect myself from cancer using mRNA technology, but went blind as a result (that's what happened to my neighbor after a "Covid vaccination"), I wouldn't want to call this "Bourla's soup" a "vaccination" either. The term "genetic therapy", which was used before 2020, is also not appropriate because poisoning cannot be a "therapy". A chance for therapy can only exist if the injection could be used specifically against the cancer cells or other desired cells, for example. Katherine, please forgive me if I misunderstood something, because I'm not as good a professional as you, and I can never compare my knowledge in this regard with your professional knowledge.
Best wishes,
Suavek
I understood Katherine Watt's comment to mean the small differences between the mRNA products. These have been around since 1990 and were never approved before 2020 due to their high toxicity. What is unclear to me, however, is Katherine's subsequent conclusion that these products (due to the minimal differences?) are "vaccines". I don't understand it, because gene therapies were never allowed to be called "vaccines" before 2020, and in my opinion, they are not even similar to vaccines. However, I have a suspicion.
This comment can be considered a kind of "thinking out loud" because I have a puzzle to solve that is related to Katherine Watt's comment. However, I don't know if my guess is correct.
Since I can't think of a better explanation for Katherine's point of view at the moment, I imagine the following. I don't know whether that is exactly correct. Perhaps she meant the similarity of the effects attributed to these products by the pharmaceutical industry, such as the production of antibodies, etc., which will prove to be false upon closer inspection. From the point of view of the "no virus community", the question arises: antibodies against what? And from the point of view of conventional medicine, we can point out that the conventional "vaccines" have never worked either, and that the level of antibodies could never provide an accurate picture of immunity, because this area is also fraudulent. (I have already prepared a corresponding article on antibodies). This means that Katherine was only referring to the similarities that have been attributed to mRNA technology by the pharmaceutical industry, but which turn out to be misrepresentations.
The question of the general ineffectiveness and toxicity of these substances does not have to be taken into account in this consideration, and the difference to conventional "vaccines" is also irrelevant at this point. The theoretically attributed effect that the pharmaceutical industry is talking about seems to be the decisive factor from Katherine's point of view. I can only hope that I have understood this correctly, because I am only relying on assumptions. Because "vaccines" are (unfortunately) understood in common parlance as "protective immunizations," I have suggested this simplified definition.
Since these substances cannot protect a healthy person from future diseases, I found the term "vaccine" inappropriate. Although I personally would be very reluctant to refer to gene therapy substances as "vaccines," I do not deny that there can be other points of view. Because so far it has been pure poison, I also find the term "therapeutic" inappropriate and propose that the conventional "vaccinations" should also be written in quotation marks.
I have written well over 350 articles on Substack specifically to answer and explain these questions.
Dear Currer,
I was one of those who was very worried about the consequences of the "no virus" narrative. This certainly does not make communicating the "no Covid" narrative any easier. However, I suggest that no one should automatically reject the “no virus” narrative, but instead take some time to educate themselves. I am aware that it can be very difficult for the human imagination to understand how it is possible that all the virology can turn out to be a fraud when this "science" has been considered axiomatically true for so long and by so many smart people. However, there are good explanations for this, very good ones in fact. Any curious person can take the time to do this, or not. It is up to you what you invest your time in. With the "viruses" everything can be explained very well point by point. In the end, you will laugh at the easy way in which humanity can be fooled. The most important keyword may be: “The holding of untested assumptions, which are then overlaid with further assumptions.” I assume you haven't had time to read the "No virus" series of articles on my Substack yet.
No. I accept the existence of viruses.
That's completely fine. The only thing I regret is the fact that you are surprised about the use of mRNA "vaccines" instead of understanding that we are dealing with real murderers and well-organized fraudsters. How long do you want to be surprised? You yourself can see that there is no "ordinary logic" to be found in the use of mRNA. These substances were also recommended for children and pregnant women, without "Covid" ever having existed. Or to put it another way: 2020, there was no exceptional disease that had a higher mortality rate than moderate flu. Whatever way you look at it, a special approach would have to be applied here, but not an ordinary one. No "mistakes" were made here. How long do you want to wonder?