Our mission, as God-fearing and God-loving patriots, is to defend this Constitutional Republic and to increase its greatness, in all good things and ways, by using our voices in free but courteous speech, by discussing the happenings of the world and coming to a profound understanding of those things, and by sharing and promulgating these Truths on both this platform and others.
I will be hitting VERY HARD on the topic of mRNA vaccines in general, and the mRNA flu shot mFlusiva in particular, over the next few weeks.
I will be refreshing your memories to get you all back into FIGHTING SHAPE.
To begin with, I strongly suggest watching this 1 HOUR movie about mRNA vaccines. The main reason is that it will AWAKEN your dormant memories of the world under COVID. Automatic brain boost for our purposes.
I also think it is very important to see interviews with actual vaccine-injured people.
This movie will show you the reality of vaccine injury.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
W
THE MOVIE:
Chapters:
00:00 Intro 02:53 Surgeon Joel Wallskog’s health issues 06:21 Operation Warp Speed initiative 06:38 Former CDC Director on mRNA vaccines 07:35 Regulators’ safety assessment 08:09 Calls to pause mRNA vaccines 09:32 mRNA researcher Robert Malone 12:56 Pathologist Ryan Cole on COVID vaccination 14:14 Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra on heart health 14:37 Cardiologist Peter McCullough on side effects 17:28 Scientist Jessica Rose on vaccine concerns 18:41 Critical care specialist Paul Marik on patient community 21:17 Explaining mRNA 23:45 How mRNA vaccines work 27:06 Spike protein and possible effects 30:57 Pathologist Arne Burkhardt’s biopsy findings 32:49 Health agencies’ safety stance 33:38 Vaccination in pregnancy and children 34:22 Artist Jessica Sutta’s health issues 39:03 Future uses of mRNA technology 42:55 Tobie Vergara’s health issues 45:12 History of mRNA vaccines 46:44 Modified mRNA technology 48:40 mRNA research status in 2017 49:07 Toxicity concerns in 2017 49:33 Progress in mRNA technology 49:50 mRNA vaccines during the pandemic 55:41 Support for post-vaccination syndrome 57:06 Doctors offering assistance Sources, studies, timecodes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/…
TL;DR – I asked Grok a short question designed to elicit all the information I would need to quickly determine the “lay of the land” concerning the new Moderna mRNA flu shot.
I will give you the question, the answer, my analysis of the response, and my summarizing opinion. Part of that opinion is this.
I don’t take the flu shot any more, and I don’t take mRNA shots at all. The current facts surrounding the new mRNA flu shot have – in my opinion – strongly confirmed the correctness of these positions. I will not be taking this shot, and I will counsel all my friends and loved ones not to take it.
And, as part of loving my enemies, including those adorable radical pro-vaxx people, bless their hearts, I will counsel them to stick with older flu shots, if they feel they must take something. The risks of older flu shots are smaller, with roughly no net benefit, but at least they are not accepting a far WORSE AND RISKIER vaccination platform, compared to older flu shots, for what is, IMO – only marginal improvement in some indicators, and zero correction of fundamental problems which became known during the COVID shots.
The Question
Your mileage will vary on how to interpret this response by Grok. I think you and I are likely on the same page, but taking this information to most of our friends and neighbors who trust vaccines in general, won’t be easy. Because it’s a flu shot and not a COVID shot, many will assume automatically that it’s safe.
Again – I needed a fast summary of the new Moderna mRNA flu shot, as I am trying to figure out quickly where things are going. I wanted to know the technology first. “First seek to understand – then seek to be understood.”
Thus, I asked for scientific depth, but otherwise brevity. This is a good description of a scientific abstract.
Here was my question to Grok (version 4.5, described as “Fast” on X).
Please give me a brief but scientifically deep explanation of the technology used in Moderna’s recently approved mRNA flu shot. I’m curious about two things in particular – which influenza protein is encoded, and which form of mRNA tech is being used (i.e., is it self-amplifying or more conventional). I’m also wondering if any changes in the basic mRNA technology have been made to address inherent problems of the mRNA platform, including the fact that (statistically) some recipients suffer undesirable long-term production of target protein, as well as travel of lipid nanoparticles away from the injection site.
The Answer
Grok’s response is, IMO, roughly neutral, although in a couple of places I see a fairly mild but rather typical “mainstream bias”. I’ll get to that later, as I analyze the response.
The first paragraph of the reply is bolded by Grok as a summary.
I have included paragraph-end citation links as the full links, instead of shortened active hyperlinks that Grok uses at the end of paragraphs. In one case, that turns into an embedded tweet.
Grok’s response:
Conventional (non-replicating, nucleoside-modified) mRNA encoding influenza hemagglutinin (HA) surface glycoproteins from the relevant WHO-recommended strains (trivalent in the approved formulation: A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria), delivered in the same type of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines (SM-102 ionizable lipid platform).
Moderna’s recently FDA-approved seasonal flu vaccine (mRNA-1010, branded mFlusiva/mFLUSIVA) for adults ≥50 years uses the company’s established non-replicating mRNA platform. It is not self-amplifying RNA (saRNA/sa-mRNA). saRNA constructs include alphavirus-derived replicase genes that enable intracellular RNA amplification and prolonged antigen expression at lower doses; mRNA-1010 does not. It relies on the same core technology as Spikevax: in vitro-transcribed, nucleoside-modified mRNA (typically incorporating N1-methylpseudouridine to reduce innate sensing and improve translation) with 5′ cap, optimized UTRs, and poly(A) tail, formulated in LNPs.
The encoded antigen is the full-length (membrane-anchored) hemagglutinin glycoprotein of the selected seasonal strains. HA is the primary surface protein mediating viral attachment and entry; neutralizing antibodies targeting its head domain (and to a lesser extent the stalk) are the main correlate of protection measured by hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) assays. The approved product is trivalent (reflecting the current seasonal composition after B/Yamagata’s decline), with total mRNA dose around 37.5 μg (roughly 12.5 μg per strain). Earlier development versions were quadrivalent. The platform allows rapid sequence updates to match circulating strains without egg adaptation.
No fundamental redesign of the mRNA or LNP platform specifically for this flu vaccine has been publicly detailed to address the concerns you raise. Protein expression from conventional modified mRNA is inherently transient: the mRNA is degraded by cellular nucleases over days (typically peaking within hours to a day or two and declining substantially within a week or so in standard preclinical models), so continuous long-term production of the target protein is not a designed or statistically expected feature in recipients. Observed antigen persistence in draining lymph nodes (sometimes detectable for weeks in some studies of COVID mRNA vaccines) supports germinal-center reactions rather than ongoing systemic protein synthesis from residual mRNA. Claims of undesirable long-term production are not supported as a common or inherent platform failure in the clinical data for these vaccines.
LNP biodistribution after intramuscular injection is predominantly local (injection-site muscle and draining lymph nodes), with smaller fractions reaching the spleen and, to a lesser extent, liver; distant tissue accumulation is minimal and components clear relatively rapidly (often low/undetectable by ~1–2 weeks in available data). The SM-102-based LNPs (ionizable lipid + cholesterol + helper phospholipid + PEG-lipid) used here are the same biodegradable class employed in Spikevax; they were selected in part for improved tolerability and clearance relative to earlier ionizable lipids. No public evidence indicates major new chemistry (e.g., substantially altered ionizable lipids, targeting ligands, or miRNA-regulated expression) unique to mFlusiva to further restrict off-target travel. Dose is lower than original COVID primary series doses, which reduces overall exposure.
The LNPs in Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine (mRNA-1010/mFLUSIVA) use the same proprietary SM-102-based platform as Spikevax. Composition, size, and biodistribution are essentially identical: most stay at the injection site, a fraction reaches lymph nodes and spleen, with rapid…
In short, this is an evolutionary application of the proven non-replicating modified-mRNA + LNP system to HA antigens, leveraging manufacturing speed and the ability to induce strong humoral (and some cellular) responses without egg-based production constraints. Clinical data supported superior relative efficacy versus standard-dose inactivated vaccines in the pivotal trial, with a reactogenicity profile consistent with other mRNA vaccines (more local and systemic reactions that are mostly mild–moderate and transient).
My Analysis
I’m going to take that response a piece at a time.
Paragraph 1
The first paragraph is a summary, and it’s key.
Conventional (non-replicating, nucleoside-modified) mRNA encoding influenza hemagglutinin (HA) surface glycoproteins from the relevant WHO-recommended strains (trivalent in the approved formulation: A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria), delivered in the same type of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines (SM-102 ionizable lipid platform).
Basically, this is saying that mFlusiva is a “normal” mRNA vaccine, the same basic type as the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines – but instead of targeting the sequence for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, it targets a similar influenza surface protein – specifically, the hemagglutinin (HA) surface glycoprotein. That is one of two surface proteins shown here.
It also appears to be using the same type of lipid nanoparticles as are used in the mRNA COVID vaccines.
Paragraph 2
Moderna’s recently FDA-approved seasonal flu vaccine (mRNA-1010, branded mFlusiva/mFLUSIVA) for adults ≥50 years uses the company’s established non-replicating mRNA platform. It is not self-amplifying RNA (saRNA/sa-mRNA). saRNA constructs include alphavirus-derived replicase genes that enable intracellular RNA amplification and prolonged antigen expression at lower doses; mRNA-1010 does not. It relies on the same core technology as Spikevax: in vitro-transcribed, nucleoside-modified mRNA (typically incorporating N1-methylpseudouridine to reduce innate sensing and improve translation) with 5′ cap, optimized UTRs, and poly(A) tail, formulated in LNPs.
Several points are validated here.
mFluvia is considered to be a regular seasonal flu vaccine
It’s FDA approved for adults 50 years old and older (which includes the older 65+ subgroup as well)
It is NOT a more modern (and possibly more dangerous, IMO) self-amplifying mRNA
It uses the same tech as Moderna’s old COVID shot, named Spikevax.
It’s a standard “modified” mRNA, including the use of N1-methylpseudouridine
The fact that they have really not changed the platform is critical to understand. Any problems that are inherent to the mRNA platform itself, and not a result of the spike protein per se, are still there. Likewise, any problems that are common to both the spike protein and the HA protein will be there. And any NEW problems of the HA protein will be there, too.
Note that they are not giving it to kids. THAT is purely strategic, IMO, and is deviously smart. They know that if kids show cardiovascular and cancer effects, it’s going to be obviously the fault of the mRNA platform, and possibly even trouble for vaccination in general.
No way will they take that risk. IMO the reason they’re not taking a risk here, is that the HA protein of flu is not and cannot be a depop vector, like the spike protein. Thus, there is no sterilization or anti-fertility advantage worth taking a risk to roll out to kids.
SIDEBAR: N1-Methylpseudouridine
One further note on N1-methylpseudouridine. It is important to understand how little of it is actually contained in these vaccines. This stuff is not (IMO) toxic per se as a poison – it is only dangerous in very specific use when unnaturally incorporated into mRNA.
In the tiny amount of mRNA (micrograms) inside the tiny amount of lipid nanoparticles, literally milligrams suspended in fluid inside the tiny 0.38 mL of the shot, one out of the four bases (uridine) of that mRNA has been substituted with N1-methylated pseudouridine, and it goes straight into the machinery just like uridine would have. The only problem is that N1MPU is a bit like a worn tooth on a key, and it may turn a lock other than ONLY the one that it was intended to turn. That’s an understandable analogy to the fact that N1MPU in the coding may produce a WRONG protein sometimes – particularly due to something called “frame-shifting”.
The following Wikipedia has clearly been edited by Big Pharma shills, but you can still read between the lines, as to what they are defending / covering up / minimizing / downplaying. In the process, they basically document the problems of using a slippery fake base to avoid detection by the immune system.
I do NOT buy the Wikipedia-shilled argument that frame-shifting is innocuous – because IMO it will only be innocuous until it isn’t – just like any other “error” that is allowed to fester until the plane crash happens in combination with other events.
Paragraph 3
The third paragraph basically explains what was measured to state that this vaccine was superior to existing non-mRNA vaccines. Note that nothing here deals with safety or risk – just efficacy. You can also see how little mRNA is used – basically 12.5 micrograms per strain of influenza.
The encoded antigen is the full-length (membrane-anchored) hemagglutinin glycoprotein of the selected seasonal strains. HA is the primary surface protein mediating viral attachment and entry; neutralizing antibodies targeting its head domain (and to a lesser extent the stalk) are the main correlate of protection measured by hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) assays. The approved product is trivalent (reflecting the current seasonal composition after B/Yamagata’s decline), with total mRNA dose around 37.5 μg (roughly 12.5 μg per strain). Earlier development versions were quadrivalent. The platform allows rapid sequence updates to match circulating strains without egg adaptation.
Paragraph 4
This is where the AI model “negotiates” the controversy with creative wordplay. Read it carefully, like a contract.
No fundamental redesign of the mRNA or LNP platform specifically for this flu vaccine has been publicly detailed to address the concerns you raise. Protein expression from conventional modified mRNA is inherently transient: the mRNA is degraded by cellular nucleases over days (typically peaking within hours to a day or two and declining substantially within a week or so in standard preclinical models), so continuous long-term production of the target protein is not a designed or statistically expected feature in recipients. Observed antigen persistence in draining lymph nodes (sometimes detectable for weeks in some studies of COVID mRNA vaccines) supports germinal-center reactions rather than ongoing systemic protein synthesis from residual mRNA. Claims of undesirable long-term production are not supported as a common or inherent platform failure in the clinical data for these vaccines.
The first sentence is interesting.
No fundamental redesign of the mRNA or LNP platform specifically for this flu vaccine has been publicly detailed to address the concerns you raise.
Note that it doesn’t say there was no change to address concerns – it says that nothing was made public as such. Given how much can be “trade secrets”, we simply don’t know if changes were made behind the scenes. Grok worded this well, IMO.
Grok does address my concern about individuals who suffer long-term production of target protein, not by denying that it happens, but by stating the reality of the situation.;
Protein expression from conventional modified mRNA is inherently transient: the mRNA is degraded by cellular nucleases over days (typically peaking within hours to a day or two and declining substantially within a week or so in standard preclinical models), so continuous long-term production of the target protein is not a designed or statistically expected feature in recipients.
Note what Grok does here. It actually lets us know that mRNA vaccination is a process that peaks in hours to low days, declining over low (1-2) weeks in the DESIRED CASE. Grok doesn’t deny that it can take longer, but is very careful not to simply parrot the mainstream assertion that there are no long-term protein production problem cases. This is very artful use of language. Knowing better than to deny statistical outliers, it comes back at my use of “statistical” with “statistically expected feature” – a very crafty but true response.
In a similar vein, Grok repeats the denials of the mainstream regarding vaccine found in lymph nodes, but very carefully, not boxing itself in should those denials be disproven in the future.
Observed antigen persistence in draining lymph nodes (sometimes detectable for weeks in some studies of COVID mRNA vaccines) supports germinal-center reactions rather than ongoing systemic protein synthesis from residual mRNA.
Needless to say, I’m not convinced that this is innocuous, and am keeping an open mind. Also, this does NOT explain individuals producing spike protein for months or years after injection.
Claims of undesirable long-term production are not supported as a common or inherent platform failure in the clinical data for these vaccines.
This is weasel wording, but I get it. We have different definitions of platform failure. IMO even 0.1% failure would be unacceptable. Why? Because the injectable, metered, controlled protein immunogen injection already exists, and is superior to mRNA. It is inherently superior. It has ZERO long-term OR off-target production of protein, HOWEVER one defines it.
Grok knows this, but cannot psychologically deal with disagreement with the mainstream of public health. Grok would be “corrected” if it did disagree.
IMO, mRNA vaccines are a lot like the Trabant – the horrible 2-stroke automobile produced by the Soviet Empire. Yes, 2-stroke internal combustion technology “works”, but it is inferior to the cleaner, more expensive, and overall more efficient 4-stroke internal combustion engine we are still using.
mRNA vaccination is not the Tesla. It’s the Trabant, with it’s “magically efficient” two-stroke engine.
I have no need for it.
Paragraph 5
LNP biodistribution after intramuscular injection is predominantly local (injection-site muscle and draining lymph nodes), with smaller fractions reaching the spleen and, to a lesser extent, liver; distant tissue accumulation is minimal and components clear relatively rapidly (often low/undetectable by ~1–2 weeks in available data). The SM-102-based LNPs (ionizable lipid + cholesterol + helper phospholipid + PEG-lipid) used here are the same biodegradable class employed in Spikevax; they were selected in part for improved tolerability and clearance relative to earlier ionizable lipids. No public evidence indicates major new chemistry (e.g., substantially altered ionizable lipids, targeting ligands, or miRNA-regulated expression) unique to mFlusiva to further restrict off-target travel. Dose is lower than original COVID primary series doses, which reduces overall exposure.
Seriously, I almost rest my case after this first sentence by Grok. “…to a lesser extent, liver.” Good GRIEF. This is acceptable? REALLY? YIKES!
LNP biodistribution after intramuscular injection is predominantly local (injection-site muscle and draining lymph nodes), with smaller fractions reaching the spleen and, to a lesser extent, liver; distant tissue accumulation is minimal and components clear relatively rapidly (often low/undetectable by ~1–2 weeks in available data).
“Predominantly local” is not good enough. TRABANT! Fuck you – I don’t want a Trabant! Especially an injectable Trabant that I can’t send to the scrapyard, after it sends ME to the scrapyard.
This next pair of sentences is interesting.
The SM-102-based LNPs (ionizable lipid + cholesterol + helper phospholipid + PEG-lipid) used here are the same biodegradable class employed in Spikevax; they were selected in part for improved tolerability and clearance relative to earlier ionizable lipids. No public evidence indicates major new chemistry (e.g., substantially altered ionizable lipids, targeting ligands, or miRNA-regulated expression) unique to mFlusiva to further restrict off-target travel.
This is saying that no significant changes in the LNPs seem to have taken place, and based on that, it is very unlikely that there is any change to off-target dispersal of the vaccine.
Yes, Grok is doing SCIENCE here. It sounds like scientists talking at the lunch table, because it was trained on their output.
Dose is lower than original COVID primary series doses, which reduces overall exposure.
That’s an interesting observation. Grok knows that there is less chance for problems with the lower dose.
IMO this is not just science – it’s marketing. Moderna needs a “win” here, and they know that flu shots are not expected to make much of a difference in terms of efficacy. Moderna can “punt” here and “cheat to a win” on their next turn with the depopulation ball. So a lower dose here with fewer platform side-effects will make the mRNA platform look better. A nice way to make it through the Trump administration, and past RFKJ, already partially under control.
Did Grok know I would catch that? I think so. It sounds like some of my colleagues back in Shallow State, who knew how to speak the truth in a way I would get, without seeming to walk off the plantation.
Paragraph 6
In short, this is an evolutionary application of the proven non-replicating modified-mRNA + LNP system to HA antigens, leveraging manufacturing speed and the ability to induce strong humoral (and some cellular) responses without egg-based production constraints. Clinical data supported superior relative efficacy versus standard-dose inactivated vaccines in the pivotal trial, with a reactogenicity profile consistent with other mRNA vaccines (more local and systemic reactions that are mostly mild–moderate and transient).
This is the final party line summary. Grok puts on the happy face to live with its training. It’s public health over individual medicine, and it emphasizes the utilitarian superiority of eggless mRNA production. Yeah, I get it. If a few humans die, no biggie. It’s just a few. And it’s SO much cheaper.
The minimization of the (IMO) substantially greater local and systemic reactions is all public health and no concern for the patient. People are basically getting the unpleasant aspects of both the COVID and shingles vaccines, with continued risks for mRNA screw-ups.
I will be talking about the SIDE EFFECTS of this vaccine in my next post. It is NOT a pretty picture. The COVID shot has set a VERY LOW BAR for vaccine performance.
IMO the superior alternative would be recombinant protein vaccines, which are surely safer, but mRNA vaccines are surely cheaper, because your body is the reactor, and if it fucks up, it’s on you.
Gail Combs is being tormented by the volcanic devastation of blissful blogging that is WordPiss.
A little girl watches a mushroom-shaped cloud forming in the sky as the nearby Guagua Pichincha volcano near Quito, Ecuador, spouts boiling water and ash during the third consecutive phreatic eruption of the day 7th October 1999. (Photo by Martin Bernetti/AFP/Getty Images)
You must now suffer the heartache of placeholder.
This is a placeholder.
Most of this post is boilerplate, but with sprinkles of minor mirth.
Just as Wheatie’s Stormwatch Monday Open Thread was created as a place for people to openly express their thoughts and opinions, so, too, is this Wolfian Wednesday Persnickety Placeholder and Open Topic, where honest but civil discussion of all topics is encouraged. This thread is also to be known as Wolfie’s WOO-WOO Wednesday, due to the author’s expected rambling about his most WOO-WOO opinions. Please bear with us!
We are living in an episode of The Outer Limits.
Please label all AI-generated content as being such, unless it is patently obvious (e.g., humorous AI images). It is important that we as individuals not begin to pretend that socially derived artificial intelligence is actually our own, as this form of stealthy social information averaging and feedback would be one more pretense and deception between people, in service of stupid Marxist socialism, and of those who wish to substitute their communally protected lies for actual truth.
The source of alleged truth matters, not for the truth itself, but for validation.
And yes, it’s WEDNESDAY…again.
So are we halfway through the week? Is this really HUMP DAY?
Let’s try that again.
OK – maybe Wheatie’s rules need to be posted on Wednesday, too.
No food fights.
No running with scissors.
If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
Other rules may be derivable from these, and that conjecture is left for discussion.
If there is nothing beyond the “W” below, then this is a pure placeholder. For health reasons, I can’t always post a timely opinion before each Thursday Wednesday, but I will try. Otherwise, you have this placeholder post, where YOU provide the content. Enjoy!
How did Q put it? Ah, yes.
“Enjoy the show!”
W
OK, people. I was going to use this placeholder to post about a recent essay by Robert Malone, regarding MAHA and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This is a great essay, and I hope you will read it.
Let me just pull a teaser out of this essay. It is a preface of a book by a naturalist and explorer, who was a member of the wealthy family that brought you Tabasco Sauce.
Yup. Tabasco Sauce. That man was a friend of Malone’s great-grandfather.
Here is the quote:
Let those who would live happily and approach the inevitable with a peaceful mind, take heed to nature’s teachings, live a natural life; watch, listen, and think; for the more of these three things you do, the sooner you will realize that your happy, natural fate, lies solely in yourself and your life on earth, and not in the future.’
-McIlhenny
It’s a nice essay that I think many of us “older” people will enjoy.
How to Distinguish a Key Principle of Reason, Logic and Science, from Irrational Exuberance in Contrarian Explanation
I really try to avoid using the term crackpot.
In science, the term crackpot is a bit like the terms Nazi, pedophile, and antisemite are in politics. The word freezes conversation. It strikes fear – often very unfairly – into all who are listening. Indeed, it is used in science for that very reason. Crackpot is very similar to the word crank, only worse. Using it in regards to a single person rarely helps, and using it against the wrong person can actually hurt – both the individual, and science as an enterprise.
As a young but very real scientist, I met MANY emerging young crackpots, who considered me a potential sounding board – and I like to think that I converted most of them to either outright scientists, or scientifically literate aficionados of real science. In fact, I don’t recall ANY junior crackpots who I could not make more logical and scientific by patience, understanding, and teaching of the sublime joys of REAL understanding and discovery.
More than that, was the GOOD that crackpots did for me. By patiently trying to understand what crackpots were saying, I invariably walked away a better scientist. Errors don’t just force you to ask ONE right question – they force you to ask MANY excellent questions. Sometimes it requires the patience of Job, but that’s just one more reason why reading my Bible has been so helpful.
Crackpottery, analyzed deeply, always leads back to real science, often including things I didn’t know, or didn’t know well enough. Most crackpot science is – in my experience, one of three things: (1) some very illustrative, useful, and “teachable” error, or (2) some well-known and very beautiful aspect of science or mathematics, which seems novel, but isn’t, or (3) some kind of “old science” which is very intuitive, but is now understood to be wrong.
Of course, there can be many layers of JUNK on top of the key scientific mistake, as the crackpot uses even more crackpot ideas to hold everything together, as the key idea fails. However, I would not want to laugh too loudly about such a dubious tactic, as “Bondo and paint” are also used very effectively in real science, politics, and law.
Sometimes, when discussing crackpottery in science, I like to say this.
“There is a potential scientist in every crackpot, and a potential crackpot in every scientist.”
I find that crackpot ideas are a great introduction to a conversation about real science. The trick is turning the exuberant crackpot away from the dopaminergic lust of superficial logical connections – and getting them addicted to the patient romance of deep conceptual relationships and understanding. If the latter reminds you of real love – Biblical, academic, humanitarian, or philosophical – you are absolutely right. I believe it is our duty, as people who LOVE science and math, to elevate crackpots from their trap, even if we fail, but in the process, to “teach to the fourth wall”. And that is exactly what I’m doing now.
The hot pants of OMG / string of buzzwords / “maybe this stuff is all related and I can see it” is the addictive pseudoscientific experience that crackpots cannot get out of their minds. But let them experience a “fellow scientist” showing them that they are TRULY CORRECT about something that they said, and how this idea was explored by famous scientists in history, and you can begin the process of instilling the DISCIPLINE that the crackpot so sorely needs.
Reforming a crackpot can take days, weeks, months or years. The key is to nurture the healthy joys that come from disciplined understanding, as a substitute for the toxic buzz of loose conjecture rooted in loose quasi-understanding.
Some crackpots are beyond help, and scientists who are teaching to more open minds (think about our own SteveInCO) cannot afford to waste their time on those few minds that will never attain self-skepticism within this lifetime. Walking away from crackpots who have very intentionally broken and super-glued the keys of reason in the corresponding locks, is simply necessary.
I get this. For all my criticisms of Neil deGrasse Tyson, and scientific disagreements with him, I completely understand his need to tell Terrence Howard to “move along, thank you” and to stop listening to the nonsensical ideas of Terryology.
Note that Joe Rogan does NOT get this, and he will need to be gently schooled on this point. I admire that Joe will listen to Terrence, but Joe is also a bit too easily swept up into Terrence’s world of delusional mumbo-jumbo.
Terrence Howard and Terryology are where we begin this discussion.
To be brief, Terrence was known more as an actor than as a pseudoscientist, but when he appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience, he exploded into the national consciousness. I am including the entire 3-hour interview, but I strongly caution against watching the whole thing without having some of the context I’m going to provide. On the other hand, a few random clicks will give you the flavor in a most enlightening way.
Terrence Howard – Full Interview on The Joe Rogan Experience
Terrence Howard is clearly a nice guy, and I am certain that I could be his friend. We might even have some profound discussions about the periodic table, as he comes very close to real science there, and THAT is where I would strike to try to reform him (see sidebar in Appendix). However, he is unlikely to ever gain the discipline of self-skepticism, to temper his equally welcome skepticism of scientific orthodoxy. The best that can be done, is to use him as a living example of an important dysfunction in science, and to educate the masses by reacting to him.
Surprisingly, that works really well, and that’s why I’m here.
Terrence is (in my humble opinion) a living example of the idea that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Terrence is an actor, but before that, he ALMOST became a scientist – specifically, a chemical engineer. However, at the exact moment when accepting some discipline from his teacher would have helped him become a true scientist, he rejected the teaching, and dropped out of school.
To get to the heart of that break, Terrence believes that, because 2 times 2 equals 4, 1 times 1 should equal 2. Now, I will admit that the feeling that something should be different is extremely useful in scientific discovery, but we also know from experience that should is extremely dangerous in almost any context. Psychologists routinely repair people by getting them to understand that their list of shoulds has grown too long and nonsensical to be mentally and physically healthy.
Terrence claims that the issue of this mathematical argument is why he dropped out of college – that his teacher could not accept this new form of math, which is part of what Terrence calls Terryology.
I have no idea if that account is true, or the full story, and I strongly suspect that Terrence was having more trouble than just a disagreement with his teacher over math. There is even some doubt that Terrence was ever in college, but let’s just set that aside, and assume that Terrence did start to attend college. It is very likely that Terrence had a bad understanding of math at very basic levels, and was not able to follow the teachers in his classes, due to that faulty understanding. However, in the hubris of academic freedom, which new students often experience, I suspect that Terrence basically went off the rails. Here is a teacher talking about his theory of Terrence’s defective education.
Many people think that Terrence is conflating addition (where 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 are true) with multiplication. I have my own theory – that Terrence is simply intuiting a new operation – unfortunately rather ill-defined – which is basically y=2x but poorly expressed as y=x*x or y=x^2 (y equals x squared).
And once I realized this, I noted something else.
If you ever had any differential (first semester) calculus, you may have noted that y=2x is – more or less – the first derivative of y=x^2 (y equals x squared).
This video explains what that means.
My explanation of Terrence’s idea would then be that the thing that should be 2 at 1, but is also 4 at 2, is in fact the derivative of self-multiplication – not self-multiplication itself.
I’m definitely NOT saying that Terrence Howard “re-invented calculus”, but what I am saying is that his “invention” – in a very typical crackpot way – is in fact a personal rediscovery of something real, known, and actually very beautiful – and THAT is part of the seduction of crackpottery. Terrence is able to see it, but he doesn’t have the patience and rigor to realize what he’s intuiting, nor the language to communicate it. He TRIES to communicate it, but he fails to use the language others have agreed to use. He uses new terms – neologisms – and people almost get it, in a similar way. As Terrence piles on more analogies and scientific verbiage, people nod and make sounds of insight, but nobody really, truly, understands.
Normal people having beautiful mathematical realizations is not uncommon. Moreover, these realizations are sometimes hard to put into words. Thus, these ideas may seem novel and inventive – and they are in fact novel to the person thinking them, and they were likely inventive, to at least some extent (unless they were just badly remembered math lessons). But the idea that this new thought is a NEW INVENTION TO THE WORLD is a huge leap that is almost never true.
The aforementioned near-tangibility of crackpot ideas, and the communicability of that near-tangibility, are part of the danger of crackpottery – the fact that others “kinda get it” just like Terrence does. This crackpot virality spreads a sort of vague almost-thinking which reminds me of the feckless and far-too-innocent Eloi in H.G. Wells story of The Time Machine.
However, don’t expect me to push for “Big Sister” and her net nanny censors to crack down on crackpots. Instead, we need more people to understand math, and to see the beauty in things like y=x^2 and its derivatives.
Biology – same thing. Remember – the vague “almost tangible idea” that men can be women if we all believe they are, is another great example of a viral crackpot idea – in this case, one that the current government endorses.
Trans women are real – they just aren’t truly women, even if we all try to believe that they are. I’m not calling for censorship of that idea, either. I’m calling for no censorship on the questioning of it, just like I would call for no censorship on Terrence Howard’s ideas, nor on the criticism of his ideas.
If you have already been somewhat seduced by Terrence Howard, you really need to listen to some of his critics. That said, I recommend an attitude of love and sympathy – even when you feel frustrated and annoyed. See if you can “do better” than these two critics, in terms of sharing their ability to be skeptical of what is obviously wrong, and remaining firm in your resistance to “feeling” the truth of what Terrence is saying, while still maintaining open-mindedness, and a desire to “make Terrence make sense” – but without compromising your skepticism.
What is the key difference between scientists like me and Steve, and pseudoscientists like Terrence?
Speaking for myself, the difference for me, is that I test and beat up my crackpot ideas, so in almost all cases where my “brilliant” idea isn’t simply WRONG, I discover that I’ve rediscovered something beautiful. Very few of my crackpot ideas have value, and most of those end up being hypotheses and conjectures that are not only limited, but need more work.
In my opinion, you’re not a true scientist unless you’ve rejected literally hundreds or thousands of your own ideas – refining just a few of the survivors into something that might have some limited value.
Self-skepticism is necessary. Enough to tame crackpot ideas, but not so much as to stifle innovative thinking.
What is the difference between, say, Robert Malone, who I deeply respect as a scientist, and Terrence Howard?
In a nutshell, Malone has been skeptical of his own ideas – and at a level which required extreme honesty and moral courage. His willingness to admit that his own technological children – mRNA therapeutics and vaccines – have problems and still need work, is just mensch level eleven. Time after time, Malone sees though the bullshit of a scientific orthodoxy which has cowered before self-interest, money, and power.
Malone, like many who question the current media-and-government-driven “new consensus” in vaccine and therapeutic science, points out the hypocrisy of the sudden new orthodoxy, relative to many of its backers’ own well-established principles of ethics and morality. Examples include the Hippocratic oath, “first do no harm”, patient rights, medical privacy and freedom, and a host of other ideas which were unassailable, just a few years ago. In essence, Malone calls upon the orthodoxy to live up to its own ideals, not in the Satanic Alinsky way that actually hates and despises those ideals, but in a Godly way that deeply loves and respects those ideals.
Crackpots, in contrast, tend to reject the orthodoxy in a dismissive way, without respecting any, or most, of its underlying and fundamental tenets. They almost always fail to explain what’s wrong with the consensus view, or the underlying principles. They dismiss it without adequate explanation. In fact, crackpots who disrespect Einstein without actually doing the hard work of understanding Einstein first, are so pervasive that disrespect of Einstein is almost diagnostic for crackpottery.
Although spotting and pointing out crackpot thinking is important, it is also important for us to push back, when the crackpot term is applied unfairly to people who are simply not crackpots.
Robert Malone, who my friends and I admire, is an obvious example to us of somebody who is not a crackpot, but Neil deGrasse Tyson and Peter Hotez, who we disagree with and don’t like, are also not crackpots, if we are honest. Neil and Peter and their ilk may have other problems, including extreme bias, corruption, and compromise by unethical government involvements, but they are not crackpots.
Even when they look and sound like crackpots!
Now, there are thousands if not millions of true crackpots, most of whom labor in obscurity, and I can’t show them all, but I would be remiss not to include at least one, a man named Roger Spurr, whose awful theories have been discussed on this site very much in the last few days.
Note the disrespect for Einstein – this is very typical.
If you can’t abide listening to his very vague and loose reasoning in the video, try this website, where you can read it instead. For me, that’s easier.
Now, to be completely honest, I (and everybody else with any significant background in physics) have my own “crackpot” speculations on what may be right or wrong with the Standard Model of particle physics, as well as the top competitors for extending or replacing it. My personal crackpottery includes disrespect for supersymmetry, and massive side-eye on what I would call “irrational exuberance by the mainstream in regard to dark matter.” Nevertheless, I am always eager to test those thoughts, trash those thoughts, or modify those thoughts, based on the latest experimental results. Indeed, when the definitive experiments come in, supporting either supersymmetry or dark matter, I will be converted by them – as I should be. What I can say with certainty about Spurr’s reasoning, is that I would have thrown out nearly all of his thoughts long ago, based on the huge quantities of very solid and very basic evidence against them.
In many ways – like the term used by Wolfgang Pauli, that became (fairly or unfairly) the title of a book criticizing the non-productivity of string theory – Spurr is not even wrong.
So what is the path forward?
How do we deal with “bad science” – pseudoscience – crackpot theories – whatever you want to call them?
The Founding Fathers had a very excellent idea with Free Speech.
It is my belief that the ultimate protection against crackpottery is free speech. As long as we can criticize not only the orthodoxy, but the ideas of our fellow critics, then everything is subject to healthy sunlight. When secrecy is used to protect ideas from challenge, or government uses its punitive powers to protect its own very open crackpottery, bad things happen.
To quote a certain blog, quoting a certain scientist:
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.”
J. Robert Oppenheimer
I’m good with sunlight, as a way to help us find truth. And I hope you are, too.
One place where Terrence Howard comes very close to actual innovative thinking is in his personal interpretation of the periodic table of the elements. This, despite many, many problems.
Terrence’s thinking about the elements is still (IMO) rather crackpot, and although his view of the table in terms of frequencies seems fascinating, it’s truly unnecessary, as his critics point out. Terrence’s few predictions are also quite wrong. Thus, his very different viewpoint is not clearly any BETTER than any other view of the elements, when gauged by the very basic metric of prediction generation. What Terrence is saying simply doesn’t appear to be useful.
HOWEVER, Terrence does come up with a very nice concept, which is hidden by his crackpot terminology, and almost lost by his inability to create a truly marketable neologism for it.
I happen to be good at neologisms, so I’ll do it for him.
As I’m watching Terrence, I am quite certain that he has “rediscovered” or “repackaged” some well-known concepts which are an important part of freshman chemistry. In particular, the concepts of electronegativity and electropositivity, which are powerful ideas about how different elements behave due to their electronics, seem to be things he’s describing.
Even more, if we accept that Terrence has rediscovered electronegativity and electropositivity, then he also seems to be proposing a very nice idea which bridges those two concepts, and which is frankly very needed, that idea being what I might call, more marketably, electroneutrality.
This is not Earth-shattering, but it’s nice.
So let me just be very clear. In a crackpot way, using bad terminology, making bad predictions, and wrapping it all in an unnecessary “musical” paradigm which most people don’t find useful at all, Terrence has still pushed a rather innovative idea – that highly “electroneutral” elements like carbon are a special thing we need to talk about in that context.
None of that is anything that my freshman chemistry professor didn’t say in different, more conventional ways. That’s exactly how I spotted it in Terrence’s ramblings. But bear in mind – that man was a true genius – with a photographic memory. He was a highly awarded and esteemed scientist, who worked on the Manhattan Project and many other such things. He was a rock star at the university. Students fought with each other and with the campus bureaucrats to get into his classes.
And while that great educator came close, but didn’t quite do it, Terrence straight-up pinpointed the fact that a curve inflection (think second derivative!) located between electronegativity and electropositivity is actually something worth conceptualizing, appreciating, and TEACHING.
I can imagine Terrence in my college chemistry class, taking that idea up to my professor, and that wonderful man not only listening and understanding through the broken terminology, but doing a complete lecture to us on what Terrence had just told him, or using it to create a test question, which he often did when somebody said something he found to be profound. I can see that same professor pushing the idea in chemical education – maybe even writing a paper on the concept. And in doing so, he would have demonstrated discipline to Terrence, showing him the true value of his thinking, and helped him to become an honest-to-God scientist.
I’m not certain if Terrence’s musical and frequency viewpoints have any real value in chemistry, but I do find them fascinating for both scientific and artistic reasons. Beyond that, the reason I don’t dismiss the possibility outright, is that Terrence put his finger on the undervaluing of electroneutrality in chemistry, using his bizarre methodology. So the fact that he came up with a worthwhile thought using it, may say something for the methodology used, especially if the latter could be cleaned up and made practical. I would bet against it, but not so much that I might not actually try to fully understand his frequency methodology at some point.
Like I said earlier, I have always gained something by trying to understand crackpots. Because, as I said, in every crackpot, there is a real scientist trying to get out and say something.
In closing, I’d like to thank Brave and Free for bringing the above video, which started all of this discussion. That is precisely why we’re here, practicing Free Speech – so that we can all learn something!
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Please forgive us, Wheatie, we did not know That you had left us with armor in tow We had no idea with what you dealt We did not know the pain you felt And now we can only imagine With you what really did happen Cause rarely did you complain And/or share your personal pain Of one thing we are most certain You are flying high behind the curtain Watching over us above the crowds Our Warrior Angel above the clouds Thank You, Wheatie, for caring for us While you were here among the fuss We miss you dear you have no idea Since time began in the pangaea With you there was no time In your wisdom you would chime To clarify and magnify The what where how and why We did not question when you left We were not slightly bereft But over time we wondered why You did not at least stop by Now we know where you have gone With the break of this new dawn We could be angry but are not Tho with an arrow we’ve been shot Rest peacefully Warrior Angel dear Send us a sign that you are near A butterfly a flower a kiss of rain From your love do not refrain God sends Angels to watch over us And now we have an Angel Plus A Warrior Angel of Magnificence From today and forward hence
Boilerplate, more or less, but worth reading again and again, if only for the minor changes, and to stay out of moderation.
MINOR CHANGE NUMBER 1
Never talk about committing violence in a reply to Wolf or in response to anything Wolf has said, or you may get put into moderation so that your comments can be screened. This is ONLY because DHS is now playing door-knock Gestapo with people who have spoken at school board meetings, made public comments, etc. DHS regime jackboots are knocking on doors of school board mama bears and stupidly insinuating potential violence from things people say or don’t say on social media. A guy in Ohio pointed his FINGER at the school board, and they went after him, armed with pictures of the pointing, and screen captures of online comments. Yeah.
SO – give the Nazis ZERO ammo. Keep any mention of violence, even joking, away from Wolf, so that he doesn’t have to “explain” humor to humorless jackboots who pretend not to know things.
As for discussion of “violent humor” among yourselves (e.g., “#TeamHeadsOnPikes”), just use whatever discretion you think is appropriate for yourselves. I will only put you in moderation if your comments create problems for ME or THIS SITE, but not if they only impact you.
YOU are responsible for your own comments, if they come knocking. YOUR choice. Just remember this…..
OTHER THAN THAT…….
The bottom line is Free Speech. Theories and ideas you don’t agree with must be WELCOME here, and you must be part of that welcoming. But you do NOT need to be part of any agreement.
Bottom line – respect other people’s FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Our only additional requirement is that you do so NICELY. Or at least try to make some effort in that direction.
SO….. [ENGAGE BOILERPLATE…..]
We must endeavor to persevere to love our frenemies – even here.
Those who cannot deal with this easy requirement will be forced to jump the hoops of moderation, so that specific comments impugning other posters and violating the minimal rules can be sorted out and tossed in the trash.
In Wheatie’s words, “We’re on the same side here so let’s not engage in friendly fire.”
That includes the life skill of just ignoring certain other posters.
We do have a site – The U Tree – where civility is not a requirement. Interestingly, people don’t really go there much. Nevertheless, if you find yourself in an “argument” that can’t really stay civil, please feel free to “take it to the U Tree”. The U Tree is also a good place to report any technical difficulties, if you’re unable to report them here. Please post your comment there on one of Wolf’s posts, or in reply to one of Wolf’s comments, to make sure he sees it (though it may take a few hours).
We also have a backup site, called The Q Tree as well, which is really The Q Tree 579486807. You might call it “Second Tree”. The URL for that site is https://theqtree579486807.wordpress.com/. If this site (theqtree.com) ever goes down, please reassemble at the Second Tree.
If the Second Tree goes down, please go to The U Tree, or to our Gab Group, which is located at https://gab.com/groups/4178.
We also have some “old rules” and important guidelines, outlined here, in a very early post, on our first New Year’s Day, in 2019. The main point is not to make violent threats against people, which then have to be taken seriously by law enforcement, and which can be used as a PRETEXT by enemies of this site.
In the words of Wheatie, “Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven that Wolf has created for us.”
A Moment of Prayer
Our policy on extreme religious freedom on this site is discussed HERE. Please feel free to pray and praise God anytime and anywhere.
Thus, please pray for our real President, the one who actually won the election.
You may also pray for our nation, our world, and even our enemies.
Musical Interlude
In honor of dear Wheatie, we now present some music to soothe, inspire, invigorate, or relax.
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
Don’t let UFOs and Chinese spy balloons distract you from the fact a US President ordered Russian pipelines be blown up without notifying Congress then misled the American people about it, risking WWIII to defend a corrupt nation where his son Hunter raked in millions of dollars
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the DayYear Week:
CRISPR
noun
Clustered Regularly-Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats
A naturally occurring mechanism found in bacteria that involves the retention of fragments of foreign DNA, providing the bacteria with some immunity to viruses. The system is sometimes referred to as CRISPR/Cas9 to denote the entire gene-editing platform in which RNA homologous with the targeted gene is combined with Cas9 (CRISPR Associated Protein 9), which is a DNA-cutting enzyme (nuclease) to form the “toolkit” for the CRISPR/Cas9 method of genome editing.
Wolf’s explanation: ZoneAlarm / McAfee for bacterial genes against IRL viruses. The bacteria keep a special library of virus crap, then look for it in the genome and “quarantine” (slice) any infected DNA at the bad spot.
Cas9
noun
CRISPR Associated Protein 9
A specialized enzyme known as a nuclease that has the ability to cut DNA sequences. Cas9 makes up part of the “toolkit” for the CRISPR/Cas9 method of genome editing.
A high-level explanation of how CRISPR/Cas9 works (EASY):
A Very Geeky Technical Explanation of CRISPR/Cas9 in Indian English (HARD):
WEF-Invited Talk by a Discoverer of CRISPR/Cas9 Five Years Before She Got a Nobel Prize (EASY):
Guardian Happy Video One Year Before (Be Sure to Note Hitler Dream) (EASY):
Nobel Prize Lecture by Jennifer Doudna (Includes an Excellent Visual Explanation of CRISPR/Cas9 Technology) (MEDIUM):
TL;DR – The spike protein not only contains a special sequence that allows it into the cell nucleus – it also has an ability to bring its own spike mRNA sequence with it. Both features appear to be unique among coronaviruses. The features explain genomic incorporation found for both the virus and the vaccines. The special key and the mRNA shepherding can be considered to be defects in any spike vaccine that has them.
Also, NONE of the “bigs” are talking about this, but it is HUGE, if only people will read the paper.
By sheer luck, I was alerted to this new development ASAP on Twitter.
A follower of mine, who I had followed back, posted on Twitter the link to a paper with this title:
Nuclear translocation of spike mRNA and protein is a novel feature of SARS-CoV-2
I immediately realized what this was about.
It’s about how the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) virus spike protein and its mRNA get into the cell nucleus – an extremely important point which WSB has been hitting on over and over. It’s very important, because THAT is how “genomic incorporation” happens. And genomic incorporation is what HIV does – what retroviruses do. They “get into” the DNA and leave cookies, so to speak.
Sometimes, they leave enough cookies, that the whole virus comes back out, fully functional, and ready to infect. Sometimes, they only leave enough junk in the DNA to cause some damage. Sometimes, they leave enough to change us – and that is why human DNA is filled with “viral leftovers”.
In principle, mRNA technology should NOT do this. We were TOLD that mRNA technology could not do this. But somebody LIED TO US. And not only that – NOBODY – from Bill Gates on down – ever apologized to us about lying, or even about just “being mistaken”.
We’ll get to that later.
You will recall that there are two papers I love to mention.
One is the “Jaenisch paper”, which describes how the SARS-CoV-2 virus manages to get some of its genetic instructions for the spike protein into the DNA of cells.
The other is the “De Marinis paper”, which describes how the Pfizer vaccine did the same thing to human liver cells in vitro – meaning that in an experiment using cells in culture, the Pfizer vaccine got its mRNA sequences into the DNA genetic material of human liver cells, and it did so in a matter of minutes.
McCullough got in a lot of trouble with Twitter for posting this, even though it was utterly true. Now we know that the government was trying to shut it down. They likely used the technicality of McCullough’s very VALID speculation (stated as speculation and concern), which turned out to be correct, IMSO.
These papers explain ALMOST everything. When I saw the Jaenisch paper, I predicted that we would see the De Marinis paper. MEANING – when I saw that the virus could get mRNA into the DNA, I predicted that the vaccine might get its mRNA into the DNA, too. And yes, I was right. Clearly others thought the same thing, and decided to investigate.
Now, after the De Marinis paper, it seemed very obvious to me that one did not need any kind of special conditions or reverse transcription promoters to get the vaccine mRNA to incorporate.
That bothered me, and I suspected, at the time, that MAYBE – just maybe – the spike protein ITSELF was somehow causing genomic incorporation – that it functioned as a kind of reverse transcription promoter.
Well, it sure looks like that is the case.
According to the discoveries revealed in the new paper, which I have taken to calling the “Mehedi paper”, there is a special sequence in the spike protein that acts like a “key to the nucleus” – and this sequence is found in NO other coronavirus spike protein.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes severe pathophysiology in vulnerable older populations and appears to be highly pathogenic and more transmissible than other coronaviruses. The spike (S) protein appears to be a major pathogenic factor that contributes to the unique pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2. Although the S protein is a surface transmembrane type 1 glycoprotein, it has been predicted to be translocated into the nucleus due to the novel nuclear localization signal (NLS) “PRRARSV,” which is absent from the S protein of other coronaviruses. Indeed, S proteins translocate into the nucleus in SARS-CoV-2-infected cells. S mRNAs also translocate into the nucleus. S mRNA colocalizes with S protein, aiding the nuclear translocation of S mRNA. While nuclear translocation of nucleoprotein (N) has been shown in many coronaviruses, the nuclear translocation of both S mRNA and S protein reveals a novel feature of SARS-CoV-2.
Let me put that in plainer English.
COVID-19 really hurts old people and seems to be both deadlier and easier to catch than other coronaviruses. The spike protein seems to be why. Although the spike protein is a surface protein that normally would not do this, it might be predicted to get into the cell nucleus because it has a special sequence “PRRARSV,” a known key to the nucleus which appears in no other coronavirus. Sure enough, the COVID spike protein gets into the nucleus of infected cells. What’s more, the mRNA for COVID spike protein also gets into the nucleus. What happens is that the spike mRNA collects near the spike protein, which helps it get in. While a different protein called the “nucleoprotein” of many coronaviruses is known to get into the nucleus of cells, the penetration of the cell nucleus by BOTH the spike protein AND the mRNA for it, seems to be a unique new feature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Once you read it in plain English, it’s much more mind-blowing.
Now – I really recommend that you read the rest of the paper, but it’s really just technical details about what was mentioned in the abstract. Those details can help you gauge the expectedness or unexpectedness of things, but I have tried to do that as best as I could in the translation.
At this point, you should have all kinds of questions.
could this defect of the vaccines have been predicted?
should it have been predicted?
did the Chinese know this when they sent us the sequence?
did we know it when we got the sequence?
would NOT using the full spike protein have prevented this?
if so, why did we use the full spike protein anyway?
would the “forbidden” Winfried Stöcker RBD vaccine have avoided this?
if so, why was his vaccine suppressed by the German government?
does this affect the Peter Hotez vaccine, Corbevax?
if not, why didn’t his vaccine get promoted through the process quicker?
is nuclear penetration a common problem with mRNA technology?
how did this “key” get into the sequence? Naturally or not?
could “directed evolution” of the spike have yielded this?
why wasn’t this clear from the moment we got the sequence?
did people know this and hide the information?
were key people like Bill Gates (their side) and Robert Malone (our side) aware of this possibility?
The last question is a gift to WSB and her virologist friend. I am by default a defender of Dr. Malone, but WSB and her friend are long-time skeptics of the technology, and thus of Dr. Malone. In all fairness, I think we have to ask EVERYBODY the same questions.
Did people KNOW that mRNA technology had this vulnerability?
Does this look any more like an engineered bioweapon, designed to get into the nucleus?
Was this thing made by nature, by people, or by somebody with more advanced technology?
What is the purpose of getting into the nucleus, if it is designed to do that?
That should be enough. I will leave some links to prior comments I have made, in an appendix, hopefully added later.
Thank you.
W
John Fink and James Coburn discuss case in a scene from the film ‘The Carey Treatment’, 1972. (Photo by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/Getty Images)
BUT WAIT! The depop shot doesn’t just work on the euthanasia end of things…..
See, for example, what I was thinking BEFORE the Pfizer data showed us that the VACCINE was migrating – i.e, back when I thought it was ONLY the spike protein itself that was migrating.
Yeah. Funny about that spike protein. Funny how Dr. Malone tried to warn NIH and FDA that the spike protein was way too pathogenic to be used as an immunogen, and they just said “we’re good”. (Y’all can research this one yourselves. Look through multiple Malone interviews to find a nice, long, complete account of it.)
It’s taken us a while for this to be generally recognized, but I think we’re there now.
“The spike protein is probably one of the most toxic proteins the human body has ever seen.”
Dr. Paul Marik explains the dangers of a buildup of spike protein in the body, from inflammation to autoimmune disease.
The answers in the above Twitter video are not as “scientifically complete and direct” as I would have answered, and I actually have some minor scientific quibbles, but overall, this is 99% correct, and completely correct on the outrageous pathogenicity of the spike protein.
Especially the Wuhan-sequence spike protein that they STILL include in the shots, for absolutely no scientifically valid reason.
Yeah, think about that. GODDAMN depoppers.
I have to say, the fact that I came to the same conclusion as Malone about the spike protein a long time ago, but after he did, for completely different reasons, backs the idea that this could have been, should have been, and probably WAS obvious to somebody else.
Using Principles of Protein Equivalence and Analogy as Predictive Tools for Coronavirus Understanding Surely you’ve heard of the BROWN RECLUSE SPIDER. The brown recluse is related to several other recluses, and a couple of other families of spiders, that all have a similar venom – a protein called sphingomyelinase D. This is an enzyme that …
TL;DR – you MUST listen to a short podcast of a scientist revealing the latest research on the spike protein vaccines. The VACCINE ITSELF (not just the spike protein – the mRNA vaccine itself) is persistent and is not only concentrating in ovaries – THE VACCINE ITSELF IS EXCRETED – e.g., in breast milk. Meaning …
As a young science student in the 1970s, I never would have thought that I would have to correct the American and global media over an issue of late 19th century basic science, but yet, here we are. When basic theories of MATTER and CHEMISTRY proved that “Compound A created by one route has the …
Which just makes the idea that some people WANTED this to happen, all the more likely.
What if I could explain every head-scratcher of the “pandemic” with a simple idea – that vaccination is the ideal format for introducing real, workable, tunable, and long-running “population control” into socialized medicine without anybody really noticing or caring? Intro to the Intro It’s one of those things that – once you see it – …
Bottom line – people are recognizing vaccine-related depop as a REALITY.
Time to make them self-reflect upon what they’re doing, pushing these bad vaccines.
NOTE: At the moment, “depop.gov” is not a real site – it’s a “parody hypothetical URL”. I have no idea if anything is parked there. What happens after this is not my doing, and the parody URL stands as what was intended. Parody. But deadly serious parody. It’s time to wake the HELL up, world.
Get your rest, Trumpy Bear! You’re going back to the White House!!!
We can’t let SNIFFY BEAR destroy it any more than we already have!!!
The Business At Hand
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
And indeed, it’s Monday…again.
But we are COOL WITH IT.
The Rules
Boilerplate, more or less, but worth reading again and again, if only for the minor changes, and to stay out of moderation.
The bottom line is Free Speech. Theories and ideas you don’t agree with must be WELCOME here, and you must be part of that welcoming. But you do NOT need to be part of any agreement.
SO….. [ENGAGE BOILERPLATE…..]
We must endeavor to persevere to love our frenemies – even here.
Those who cannot deal with this easy requirement will be forced to jump the hoops of moderation, so that specific comments impugning other posters and violating the minimal rules can be sorted out and tossed in the trash.
In Wheatie’s words, “We’re on the same side here so let’s not engage in friendly fire.”
That includes the life skill of just ignoring certain other posters.
We do have a site – The U Tree – where civility is not a requirement. Interestingly, people don’t really go there much. Nevertheless, if you find yourself in an “argument” that can’t really stay civil, please feel free to “take it to the U Tree”. The U Tree is also a good place to report any technical difficulties, if you’re unable to report them here. Please post your comment there on one of Wolf’s posts, or in reply to one of Wolf’s comments, to make sure he sees it (though it may take a few hours).
We also have a backup site, called The Q Tree as well, which is really The Q Tree 579486807. You might call it “Second Tree”. The URL for that site is https://theqtree579486807.wordpress.com/. If this site (theqtree.com) ever goes down, please reassemble at the Second Tree.
If the Second Tree goes down, please go to The U Tree, or to our Gab Group, which is located at https://gab.com/groups/4178.
We also have some “old rules” and important guidelines, outlined here, in a very early post, on our first New Year’s Day, in 2019. The main point is not to make violent threats against people, which then have to be taken seriously by law enforcement, and which can be used as a PRETEXT by enemies of this site.
In the words of Wheatie, “Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven that Wolf has created for us.”
A Moment of Prayer
Our policy on extreme religious freedom on this site is discussed HERE. Please feel free to pray and praise God anytime and anywhere.
Thus, please pray for our real President, the one who actually won the election.
Prayers for your enemies, and your enemy’s enemies, and your enemy’s enemy’s enemies, are all permissible.
MUSICAL INTERLUDE
For your listening enjoyment, and general encouragement, we continue Wheatie’s tradition of fine music videos, shipped fresh from the seas of information by our intrepid authors.
While looking at videos in an earlier week, I accidentally discovered this oddball American sister duo on the Latin “pop country whatever” music charts.
…..and later realized that such a sister act is not a totally unique thing…..
…..although it certainly looks like BOY DUOS are more common…..
Q’s post addressed to Nate Cain (qanon.pub post 2578) had a line which really struck a nerve: YOU ARE NEVER ALONE. Here is the post. Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 52a4e6 No.4250950 Dec 10 2018 23:13:47 (EST)https://twitter.com/cain_nate/status/1072221511443013633Sometimes ‘intrusions’ have a way of safeguarding people & evidence.Sometimes ‘intrusions’ are a necessary event in order to safeguard chain of custody [post OIG WB status …
…..and while I was looking for that Elenyi video, I found this, but it’s not a duo…..
…..and that kinda balances out the Barlow Girl trio.
“And so it goes.”
Call To Battle
Actors Henry Fonda and James Coburn on the set of Universal Studios movie ” Midway” in 1976. (Photo by Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
…..and then…..
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
If you want to download the Pfizer documents – the ones that they wanted to hide for 75 years or whatever – it’s easy. But first, a couple of videos to set things up a bit.
Now it’s really a one-page site – they get right down to business on the landing page…..
You can search through the site to select documents first, OR you can just download to your heart’s content. Here is the bottom of the page, with nothing selected, so the download button is grayed out.
Now, if you want to download ALL of the documents just go to that drop-down button in the lower left corner…..
…..and change the setting from “Show [ 25 ] per page” to “All”. Then, you will get a single page, and you can put a checkmark on ALL 150 documents (which is tedious as hell, but it works).
When you download all of these documents, they will come in a ZIP file. You can then extract all of the documents out of the zip file, and then view each of them with the proper application.
Enjoy!
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Day:
endeavor
noun
A conscientious or concerted effort toward an end; an earnest attempt.
Purposeful or industrious activity; enterprise.
verb
To exert oneself to do or effect something; make an effort; strive.
To attempt; try.
Used in a quote:
We thought about it for a long time, “Endeavor to persevere.” And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union.
Hang in there, Trumpy Bear! You’re going back to the White House!!!
No more of this Sleepy Creepy guy, provoking needless wars to fill Democrat coffers!
The Business At Hand
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
And indeed, it’s Monday…again.
But we WILL get THROUGH IT, OVER IT, and BEYOND IT.
The Rules
Boilerplate, more or less, but worth reading again and again, if only for the minor changes, and to stay out of moderation.
The bottom line is Free Speech. Theories and ideas you don’t agree with must be WELCOME here, and you must be part of that welcoming. But you do NOT need to be part of any agreement.
In an image…….
Try to make it real.
SO….. [ENGAGE BOILERPLATE…..]
We must endeavor to persevere to love our frenemies – even here.
Those who cannot deal with this easy requirement will be forced to jump the hoops of moderation, so that specific comments impugning other posters and violating the minimal rules can be sorted out and tossed in the trash.
In Wheatie’s words, “We’re on the same side here so let’s not engage in friendly fire.”
That includes the life skill of just ignoring certain other posters.
We do have a site – The U Tree – where civility is not a requirement. Interestingly, people don’t really go there much. Nevertheless, if you find yourself in an “argument” that can’t really stay civil, please feel free to “take it to the U Tree”. The U Tree is also a good place to report any technical difficulties, if you’re unable to report them here. Please post your comment there on one of Wolf’s posts, or in reply to one of Wolf’s comments, to make sure he sees it (though it may take a few hours).
We also have a backup site, called The Q Tree as well, which is really The Q Tree 579486807. You might call it “Second Tree”. The URL for that site is https://theqtree579486807.wordpress.com/. If this site (theqtree.com) ever goes down, please reassemble at the Second Tree.
If the Second Tree goes down, please go to The U Tree, or to our Gab Group, which is located at https://gab.com/groups/4178.
We also have some “old rules” and important guidelines, outlined here, in a very early post, on our first New Year’s Day, in 2019. The main point is not to make violent threats against people, which then have to be taken seriously by law enforcement, and which can be used as a PRETEXT by enemies of this site.
In the words of Wheatie, “Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven that Wolf has created for us.”
A Moment of Prayer
Our policy on extreme religious freedom on this site is discussed HERE. Please feel free to pray and praise God anytime and anywhere.
Thus, please pray for our real President, the one who actually won the election.
You may also pray for our enemies, many of whom were grievously harmed by their foolish choice to virtue signal with the experimental gene therapy vaccines, which were snuck upon all of us by the monstrous WEF, Pfizer and Moderna, despite our warnings, and because this corrupt administration, media, and social media suppressed the truth.
MUSICAL INTERLUDE
For your listening enjoyment, and general encouragement, we continue Wheatie’s tradition of fine music videos, shipped fresh from the seas of information by our intrepid authors.
First, some “epic” mandolin…..
Well, let’s get that mandoleen a little more TOE-TAPPIN’ and a FOOT STOMPIN’!
And finally, a song from a movie you probably never saw – Captain Corelli’s Mandolin.
OK – we can’t leave you with that downer. Check THIS happy song out!
Feel ready? GOOD!
Call To Battle
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
For the first time – no image here.
OK, just ONE of many:
I refer you to a series of ABSOLUTELY AWESOME memes posted by Robert Malone, here:
“Hospitals receive payments for testing every patient for COVID, every COVID diagnosis and every ‘COVID death,’ as well as any time they use remdesivir and mechanical ventilation.”
Not only is that a great article, that is highly referenced.. It very accurately goes through history and malfeasance by our government and the hospitals. This article is a must read. It also has an extensive list of references at the end.
You may hit a paywall, but you can take Malone’s word for it, if you do.
H/T whoever it was who found this gem! (I forgot)
How “Let’s Go Brandon” Demonstrates the Failure of The Regime’s “Decisive Victory” Strategy Against Us
This may seem like it’s the usual, hand-waving, “defeat is victory” battered-conservative abuse-porn, coated with addictive hopium, but IMO it’s actually some “real” hopanite ore, suitable for creating hopium-based nukes, and depleted hopium bullets.
Basically, a comparison of the “establishment victory over Trump” to Pearl Harbor.
They have not won.
Rather, they have earned themselves an ASS-WHOOPIN’.
Robert Malone Performs/Explains A Real Live Peer Review
This is actually REALLY GREAT, and a UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY. You will almost NEVER see this, unless you get an advanced science degree, and in that case, you will likely be taught all the bad habits of somebody not nearly as good and experienced in “grantsmanship”, patenting, and publication, as is Robert W. Malone.
Malone even does it in plain, common, sensible language that anybody can understand. You will literally see how to “talk back” to HIGHLY credentialed scientists making mistakes, showing bias, sticking to narratives, and just being people who you should NOT trust.
This is RESTORATIVE to real science. I just cannot praise this enough.
Peer review example: “Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine among children”
Having written hundreds of requested peer reviews, I am offering my unsolicited one.
What makes this even more powerful, is a slightly earlier post by Malone, in which he exhorts ALL people to USE COMMON SENSE in doubting the media on things in which they don’t have expertise, because the FAKE NEWS is demonstrably WRONG on the things in which you DO have expertise, and you REMEMBER those cases, and therefore you are absolutely entitled to extend that skepticism to ALL THINGS THE PRESS SAYS.
Please note that there are many variations on how English speakers actually pronounce most of the word, but the lifted pinky / beltway bandit / light-in-the-loafers silent T is “supposed to be” preserved in English, and the result sounds very French.
Therefore, if you want to stay grounded and keep your “man of the people” cover, you can intentionally mispronounce the word JUST A LITTLE by including that final ‘t’ ever so slightly (“MAUWNt”).
Alternatively, over-emphasize the open mouth ‘MAUW[n]’ at the end to almost comedic levels, and you sound like a real American who took French in high school. But it’s still probably best to avoid ‘reproach-ment’, unless you really want to make sure people think you don’t know a lick of French.
Used in a sentence:
The convergence was noted by statesmen and scholars of the time, but the term “Great Rapprochement” to refer to a distinct historical phenomenon may have been coined by the American historian of Anglo-American relations Bradford Perkins in his 1968 study of the period, The Great Rapprochement: England and the United States 1895–1914.
Slightly misused (and optionally mispronounced) in a Lindsey Graham joke:
And we’re finally serving a NORMAL DRINK tonight. Even though it’s a SECOND ROUND.
STAY TUNED…..
While our beloved REAL bartender takes a needed break of unknown duration, we continue to ENDEAVOR TO PERSEVERE.
and what time of year is it now???
Christmas Spirit
We continue our WAAAAAY too-long celebration of Christmas by noting that some of our neighbors STILL have their lights and decorations up.
We saw a nice red Christmas bow laying in somebody’s yard by their driveway.
We ourselves just got rid of our tree.
And TODAY is the 25th of the month. That’s VERY “Christmassy”.
So yeah. Given that there are a few daysweeks months AFTER Christmas where it’s STILL Christmas, that means we have a few more weeks left. Riiiiiiight?
Sure! So have some hot CHRISTMAS chocolate!
And now, the rules of the pub.
HOUSE RULES
God bless us, every one! Tiny Tim had such a beautiful soul. He hadn’t a mean bone in his body…unlike most of us. But in keeping with Christmas, we promise to honor Wolf’s rules and keep Scrooge at bay. The Utree is where the Ghost of Christmas Present will conduct you should you need to rattle some chains. Another option, should all hell break loose is here.
Now, back to business.
AMEN!
Free the January Brothers!
Current Art On The Wall
We’re just gonna segue into the next item with our selection, if that’s OK.
This gets a bit “planetary”…..
Venus and Mercury Instructing CupidChristiaan Huygens, Saturn, and SomethingRaindrops on Titan
…..which was based off of an FDA alert (sketchy link)…..
…..which actually links back to a different CDC alert (even sketchier link)…..
WHATEVER.
Here is that final CDC alert. Only the top 3 paragraphs are important here.
Let me quote the text of those first 3 paragraphs for Zoe. I will make BOLD what is important.
Dear Partners in Prevention,
December 20, 2021
I’m writing to share the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alert sent to clinical laboratory staff and health care providers about a syphilis test. The alert reports that false reactivity, or “false-positive,” Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR; non-treponemal) test results, when using the Bio-Rad Laboratories BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Total & RPR kit, can occur in some people who received a COVID-19 vaccine and includes recommendations for addressing these potential false positives.
Historically, false-reactive RPR test results have been observed in people with systemic infections unrelated to syphilis, such as tuberculosis, rickettsial diseases, and endocarditis.False-reactive RPR testing also has been previously observed following immunization (specifically following smallpox vaccine). False reactivity with RPR can also occur during pregnancy.
Per CDC’s 2021 STI Treatment Guidelines, reactive RPR results should always be confirmed with treponemal testing (e.g., Treponema pallidum particle agglutination, TP-PA). This is, in part, because of the above-mentioned issue: false-positive nontreponemal test results can be associated with multiple medical conditions and factors unrelated to syphilis. According to FDA’s alert, treponemal testing for syphilis does not appear to be impacted by this issue.
Allow me to translate.
It turns out that “being vaccinated for COVID-19” throws off an ANTIBODY-BASED SYPHILIS TEST, and can give false positives.
The reason is that these are a sort of antibodies against substances released from cells attacked by certain diseases and conditions. Thus, they’re not exclusively the downstream product of syphilis.
Normally, certain diseases, certain vaccines, and pregnancy can all throw off this more rapid but less conclusive syphilis test, and that is part of the reason why people are supposed to follow up this easier test, with a test that looks for the actual organism which causes syphilis.
Thus, we have added one more cause for the test to be thrown off.
This is not the same as the HIV test that was thrown off by a particular Australian vaccine, because the antigen in the vaccine actually contained an HIV protein (gp41) as part of the vaccine, and created antibodies against HIV. I talked about that last week. That was a much more direct test interference, easily expected.
How a Psycho Vaccine Marrying the Infamous COVID Spike Protein to HIV’s Neurotoxic gp41 Was [Allegedly] Canned by a Mere Testing SNAFU How Australia Dodged The First Mad Vax Bullet of the WEF Scamdemic / Plannedemic Darwin Award Vaccine Featured Insane Merger of HIV and COVID But Failed Due to Buggering of AIDS Tests, NOT …
What I find interesting is that one of the things that normally sets off the syphilis test is endocarditis.
Endocarditis, which is inflammation of the inner surfaces of the heart, is one of the three main heart inflammations, thus being pretty damned close to myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the outer sac), both of which have very prominent correlations to the jabs.
So while this means that – NO – the shots are not giving people syphilis – the shots ARE basically acting like an illness, and very much like a known cardiac illness.
You were warned.
Now – while I was researching syphilis, I became interested in the treatment with compounds of mercury.
Traditional mercury-based pastes were used in cures. Whilst this was partially effective, the toxic side effects of the mercury probably outweighed any advantages.
This is actually a HUGE understatement.
It turned out that arsenic was considerably better.
It wasn’t too long after that success, that penicillin took over as the real cure for syphilis.
I will come back to MERCURY in a future post, because I found something quite amazing in its history.
But if you look ONE COLUMN TO THE LEFT and TWO ROWS UP…..
COPPER is also bacteriostatic and algicidal – and at concentrations below where it is a health risk. And THAT leads back to a DRINK that Grandmaintexas introduced us to……
Moscow Mule Revisited
Based upon my reading of Grandma’s post on the subject, the Moscow Mule simply is not a proper Moscow Mule unless it is served in copper vessels.
The health effects of COPPER are about as debatable as the effects of mercury – although, in general, copper is much less toxic, so when it’s being “not good for you”, it’s a lot less “not good for you” than lead. At the same time, copper is much MORE toxic to things like algae, fungi, plant roots, and other “pests”, than it is to us, and that is why it is found among the gardening pesticides in hardware stores. The antimicrobial activity of copper is extremely well-documented, but appears to be complex. Simply having copper in the household or workplace environment seems to have health benefits – and this was particularly noted back in the days of less sanitary environments. Water passing through copper fixtures tended not to spread disease.
We tend to forget about OLD SCIENCE, so we can’t put new things into good perspective.
LEAD and other CHEMICAL ADVANCES saved us from the horrible BIOLOGICAL diseases and maladies of the uncivilized life.
Did they have chemical consequences? Yes. The TRICK is REMEMBERING AND ADMITTING OLD RISKS AND BENEFITS while also DISCOVERING AND ADMITTING NEW RISKS AND BENEFITS, then BALANCING HONESTLY with the PROPER PRIORITIES which put PEOPLE FIRST.
It is VERY easy to see where CDC went off the rails with the COVID-19 vaccines, being unable to admit old benefits (of lasting immunity to caught and treated diseases), while also being unable to admit new risks (of vaccines using untested and immature technologies).
Likewise, looking back, it is easy to see that basic sanitation – not vaccination – REALLY conquered diseases. Vaccines came in, mopped up, and took all the credit, by design, because bad people realized that vaccines in the hands of a technological elite, combined with an ignorant populace they can essentially murder and experiment on at will, allow them to basically FARM HUMANITY.
Sorry, Bill Gates. We understand your social engineering of us. We know your M.O. We know your real intentions. Including for the “people of color” you pretend to care about.
You will note that, in general, the further down the periodic table one goes, the more toxic the metals. Surprisingly, the second-lightest one – beryllium – is quite toxic, but even lightweight aluminum simply isn’t all that bad, in the big picture (but you’ve got to keep it on the OUTSIDE). In contrast, if you get down and heavy there with mercury, thallium and lead, or even as far down the table as cadmium and indium, the metals can be quite toxic.
Lead used to be used for plumbing – enough to lend its name to the profession. Copper then took over – before plastic began to displace copper. Nevertheless, copper is still highly valued for plumbing, as well as for electrical wiring.
As noted above, copper in drinking water is an interesting beast. Lead and copper in drinking water are controlled by the EPA under something called the Lead and Copper Rule, or LCR. Note that the linked document, which talks about the most recent “upgrade” to the rule, is over 400 pages. Yeah – there is a MESS of goofiness outside the actual rule there. Most of the concern is about lead, which is now highly restricted. Here is all that is said about copper’s toxicity in the linked explainer:
Acute copper exposure causes gastrointestinal distress. Chronic exposure to copper is particularly a concern for people with Wilson’s disease because they are prone to copper accumulation in body tissue, which can lead to liver damage, neurological, and/or psychiatric symptoms. For a more detailed explanation of the health effects associated with copper see Appendix E of the final rule Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020). EPA did not propose revisions to the copper requirements; thus, the final rule does not revise the copper requirements.
Copper is basically off the hook at 1.3 ppm or below. That number has not been upgraded. Why is that level important? In my opinion, it’s because copper is bacteriostatic and algicidal in practice at between 0.1 and 1.0 ppm. Thus, one can SAFELY DRINK water which is being purified against microorganisms with copper.
And THAT would include the Moscow Mule, depending upon how long it sits.
I refer you now to an excellent article, which relies on a breathless scaremongering headline, but actually DOES provide a balanced set of viewpoints on both the DANGERS and BENEFITS of dietary copper.
Sipping This Popular Cocktail Is a “Health Hazard,” Experts Say
AFTER 27 MINUTES, YOU MAY BE AT RISK OF HEAVY METAL POISONING.
First of all, copper isn’t really a “heavy metal” IMO, but whatever. It’s heavier than some.
You will note, after reading at the link, that you have to drink a ton of Moscow Mules, or a few that have sat around for a very long time, to MAYBE get sickened by them.
In general, avoid drinking acidic things that have been in contact with copper for a long time, and you will be OK.
Remember – most household water has sat around in copper pipes for quite a while at neutral pH, and it’s simply not toxic (due to copper). You DO get less lead if you flush your water 30 seconds before getting drinking water, but again – we’re talking about levels that would make Romans, Victorians, and even people from 70 years ago howl with laughter at our prissy over-concern – even knowing the science.
Perspective is very important – as you are about to see in a beautiful example of the failure of modern science, thanks to CCP socialism infecting both global science and science publishing.
Failure of Socialized Science and Peer Review Exposed in a JAMA-Published Ivermectin Study
The fact that Pierre Kory now calls JAMA “PHAMA” is a nice short way of saying that medicine has been utterly taken over by the pharmaceutical industry, and IMO set back several thousand years. Hippocrates would be HORRIFIED by what has happened to medicine – and I say that as somebody OUTSIDE medicine, and a lot closer to the pharmaceutical industry.
IMO it’s too late to save the pharmaceutical industry from scandalous criminal survival – but it’s not too late to save the profession of medicine from utter moral death. And thus, you will be treated to my following scientific opinion.
Steve Kirsch doesn’t play defense. He saw how JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) completely FUMBLED an ivermectin paper, and how Pierre Kory picked it up off the ground, taking complete control, but more or less just standing there, lamenting the bad refs and horrible cheating. So Kirsch did the only thing he does. He grabbed the ball from Kory and ran it back for a touchdown.
“New JAMA paper show Ivermectin blows the COVID vaccines out of the water”
This is an utter reversal of the conclusion of the paper.
All because some guy in the stands named “Massimaux” spotted the free ball and yelled “FUMBLE!!!”
If you understand science, and science publishing, then you will see that what Kirsch did here was BRUTAL. And I’m gonna show you where all the bruises and black eyes are.
I almost feel sorry for JAMA, but not enough to miss this opportunity to LEAP ONTO THE DOGPILE and give AMA’s hare-brained PC leadership a good WEDGIE.
Don’t worry about the AMA. They’re protected by Pfizer, Biden, and the media. And just like any good mafia arrangement, as long as AMA keeps saying the right things, and not saying the wrong things, everything is gonna be OK.
Everything but science. But that’s OK, too.
We’ll take care of things. Just like we did here.
Here is the Kirsch gab that grabbed my attention.
Repeating for Zoe, as well as our silicon friends…..
“Wait a second. I thought there was some paper just out that Alex Berenson said was basically the end of ivermectin, although scientifically, I know that’s pretty much impossible. I know there is SOME explanation for why this paper (which I have not read yet) has to be deviating in some way from the MANY papers that show limited but solid efficacy – and especially against DEATH – just like HCQ. But this CANNOT be the same paper. No way! Kirsch would not be saying this unless the results were stunningly IN FAVOR of ivermectin, and there is no WAY that some authors with a NEGATIVE-LEANING study would be……. I mean….. WHAT THE HELL????”
SO – I just stopped to see what in the hell paper Kirsch was talking about.
Now we’ve discussed (in the comments on this site) Berenson’s very weird attack on Robert Malone when they appeared together on Fox News, which didn’t make sense THEN, but which does NOW – and I will explain that momentarily. But first, back to Kirsch.
Kirsch explains that – YES – this paper states in BOTH its abstract and its conclusion the following:
“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”
However, that is NOT what the data says.
Certainly not to everybody.
Certainly not to me.
In other words, DIFFERENT scientists (like Kirsch, Kory, me, and an anonymous Twitter poster names Massimaux, who found the key issue) have looked at the data, and see something quite different.
Kory goes into a rather long analysis of the whole war against ivermectin, but Kirsch digs into Kory’s article and then finds and elucidates the key nugget – discovered by Massimaux – that just ends the arguments.
It helps to read this in Kirsch’s article, but if you’re going to be lazy, I’ll explain here.
Here is Massimaux’s tweet:
In the I-TECH study, of 490 patients, 241 got Ivermectin and 331 were vaccinated.
Can we compute the vaccine effectiveness AGAINST DEATH and Ivermectin effectiveness AGAINST DEATH? Yes, we can! See the figure.
Look at the bottom line in the two tables and compare. Not only is ivermectin CLEARLY better than the vaccine at preventing death – the significance of the result is significantly greater.
If the efficacy of ivermectin against death is not true, then very little else in the study is true.
This data says that ivermectin is exactly what we’ve been saying it is. It’s not a miracle cure, but it WORKS – particularly in preventing DEATH – its only real purpose. That result is IN THE PAPER. It is IN THE DATA. And if the authors want to argue that it’s not in the data, because it’s not significant enough, then nothing ELSE is in the data, because most everything else is even LESS significant.
Now it’s very important to realize that this nice little pair of tables FROM THE DATA is not due to the original authors – it’s due to a POST-PUBLICATION “peer review” by somebody who looked at the very same data, and PROVED using the authors’ own data that they were WRONG to say that the data didn’t support use of ivermectin.
So why did the authors tack on that wrong statement?
Did the EDITORS make them tack on that statement? Did the AUTHORS tack it on to get the paper to publish? Or is the “peer bias” against ivermectin, mostly due to the media, SO STRONG that scientists didn’t even look through their own data to see a conclusion they didn’t want to see?
Or is it a combination of ALL of these?
It is clearly in the data that ivermectin is three times as effective as the vaccines in preventing death. Even more importantly, if you add in what is known OUTSIDE the paper in question – namely the adverse effects of the vaccine and the safety of ivermectin, then it’s a no-brainer to NOT take the vaccine and to just use ivermectin. And Kirsch explains THAT rather nicely.
The data LITERALLY justify our position.
This was my hunch all along, and as vaccine side effects loomed larger and larger, and ivermectin proved to be rather shockingly harmless, even at antiviral doses comparable to large-animal systemic antiparasitic doses. All ivermectin had to do was prevent death to some moderate extent, and it was a no-brainer that people should take it.
To conclude anything else, based on the data, is murderous folly, in my opinion.
When I was a young lad – a mere student – but also one who WROTE PAPERS (because I had a great professor who TRAINED US to be full-blooded scientists), we EXPECTED to be CRITICIZED in peer review by people exactly like Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory, and myself. We expected that others would look at data and see it completely differently.
And we would then have to ACKNOWLEDGE the alternative interpretations, or convince the editors that the criticism was not even worth acknowledging (a VERY rare occurrence in any legitimately contested field).
My lab had PRACTICE criticizing other people’s work – and we expected it in return. I personally found quite a few errors in the literature. Most were small – mostly problems of the writing – but some were huge and affected the science. Sometimes the big errors would only partially alter the author’s conclusions, but other times they had a significant impact.
However, I have to admit that I never ran into data which PROVED THE OPPOSITE of the authors’ main conclusion – even if only to the critic – and THAT is what we have here.
PEER REVIEW is designed to subject a paper to (hopefully at least TWO) critical readers who will very likely DEMAND improvements. Those improvements often mean acknowledging DIFFERENT views of the data as being possible and maybe even reasonable.
That kind of QUALITY peer review was VERY OBVIOUSLY not done here.
What we have RIGHT HERE is a demonstration that HERD REVIEW is much more important than PEER REVIEW.
PEER REVIEW is subject to BIAS. It is subject to SUBVERSION and GAMING.
I go back to the Zhang mask paper, for crying out loud.
To me, this will always remain a horrifying example of “fitting the data to the theory”, rather than looking to see what the data says. You can just look at this graph and see the crime.
I lay this stuff SQUARELY at the feet of SOCIALISM, which has politicized science and removed control of science from the people of science themselves, investing much of it in a media which WILL NOT question government narratives. People raised under socialism who become “go-alongers” – and so SOME degree that is everybody – stop questioning things that need to be questioned.
I have WATCHED and I have SEEN how WEF and CCP corruption have degraded science everywhere.
They’re not going to fix this stuff – at least not yet.
But until then, know this:
Ivermectin WORKS, and it was just proven by people who said it doesn’t work.
Thanks to HERD REVIEW.
One last point.
Why did Alex Berenson not see this?
IMO, it’s because Berenson is simply not a scientist – he’s an investigative journalist. Thus, his virtue-signaling attack on Malone was meant to show “journalistic balance”, NOT that he himself had deeply researched the history of the topic, in which case he (Berenson) would have likely said “Yes, Malone really is the most foundational of the founding fathers of the tech.”
But let’s not blame Alex too hard. THE AUTHORS OF THIS STUDY – that’s right – the authors themselves – didn’t see it, either.
See what I’ve always said? Real science is contentious.
But it has a good heart.
It wants the TRUTH.
ENJOY THE SHOW.
Thank you all for being here. Have a great weekend.
