Dear KMAG: 20260817 ❀ Wheatie Monday ❀ Open Topic | Let’s Talk About Virus, Vaccine, and Protein Shedding

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 yes, it’s Monday…again.

But we WILL get through it!

We will always remember Wheatie,

Pray for Trump,

Yet have fun,

and HOLD ON when things get crazy!

We will follow the RULES of civility that Wheatie left for us:

Wheatie’s Rules:

No food fights.
No running with scissors.
If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

And while we engage in vigorous free speech, we will remember Wheatie’s advice on civility, non-violence, and site unity:

“We’re on the same side here so let’s not engage in friendly fire.”

“Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven that Wolf has created for us.”

If this site gets shut down, please remember various ways to get back in touch with the rest of the gang:

Our backup site, The Q Tree 579486807, https://theqtree579486807.wordpress.com/
Our old alternative site, The U Tree, where civility is not a requirement
Our Gab Group, which is located at https://gab.com/groups/4178
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar

Our beloved country is STILL under DIRECT THREATS by hostile forces – notably COMMUNISTS – and they’re HERE IN AMERICA.

Daily outrage and commie phuckery still abound.

We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.

Commies won’t win!

And we will keep saying COMMIES OUT until we get their FRAUD and INSANITY out of our country!

THE STUFF

Let’s Talk About Virus, Vaccine, and Protein Shedding

I have noticed something very interesting about the “shedding” phenomenon.

The “vaxxes can do no wrong” side doesn’t like to talk about shedding. They don’t bring shedding up, and they frequently change the subject when an argument about shedding gets started.

It’s easy to dismiss “shedding” as a conspiracy theory, but once one sees actual Pfizer documentation on the topic (link now dead, curiously), the reality of “shedding” in the vaccine world hits one square in the face. Media shills for vaccines may be crowing on TV that “shedding” is all a big lie, but when the vaccine manufacturer is testing the vaccine, suddenly it’s the greatest danger of the study, and test participants find themselves separated if not isolated from spouses, infants, relatives and friends. Yet another reason people cannot stand the lying fake news media.

The most disingenuous current deflection of the problem in vaccines, is that the FDA has a HUGE concern with the shedding of “gene therapy” products – which often use mRNA in lipid nanoparticles – but then says that it’s not a problem in mRNA vaccines because they’re not classified as gene therapy products. Robert Malone has always been highly critical of this teenager-level dodge of responsibility, and frankly I think anybody involved in that scandal needs to be fired from government and possibly prosecuted for fraud. It’s the same weak chutzpah as the 17-year-old murderer of his parents, demanding first leniency as an orphan, and then prosecution as a juvenile, when the initial lunacy doesn’t prevail.

I recall the first time I read documentation of how shedding of a vaccine was to be guarded against in a major vaccine clinical trial, by significant restrictions of the participants from close contact with other people during the observation period.

“So – you mean shedding is REAL?” Oh yes. It’s real. The FDA has always had significant discussions of it. The big question is this – what is being shed? THAT makes all the difference.

Shedding of Viruses

Shedding of a virus – why – that’s just DISEASE. Communicable disease. We are all familiar with THAT.

Well, vaccines can be a virus – including weakened and incompletely deactivated viruses. It can even be a normal but less pathogenic virus, like cowpox, used as a literal vaccine against a more dangerous virus like smallpox. A weak but “live” virus may be difficult to transmit, but in many cases, transmission is still possible.

Shedding of a virus per se is the most potentially dangerous form of shedding, but it’s also the most well-known, and the easiest to understand. A limited number of viral particles is all that is necessary to start a disease in a new host. Being a victim of viral shedding is literally catching a disease. This is reality – something that happens all the time with common colds and influenza-like diseases (ILIs). Catching a shed virus is vaccination against catching the exact same form again – but not against sufficiently mutated forms. We are familiar with THAT from COVID-19.

So when people catch a communicable viral disease, they catch a shed virus, start constructing the virus, and then shed the virus again. Simple, and very real. But the outcome of viral infection is very uncertain, and that unpredictability ends up being a liability of using sheddable viruses as vaccines.

There is a reason I’m harping on this form of shedding. One needs to keep shedding of vaccine in perspective with the more dangerous, more likely, and more consequential shedding of virus. If you suddenly experience symptoms of a disease, including symptoms of the protein produced by that disease, then it is far more likely that you are a victim of shedding of the actual virus, than shedding of the vaccine. This is a simple reality, which I believe has led many patriots, including Deplorable Patriot, astray, in losing focus on relative risks. It is important to keep ALL forms of shedding in mind.

Shedding of Proteins

At the other end of danger, is the shedding of viral proteins, but not the virus itself. Let’s consider that.

Viral proteins can’t reproduce, but they CAN show all the bad properties of other nasty, dangerous, pathogenic proteins.

For example, the spike proteins of corona viruses are notoriously pathogenic, and when they are administered to test animals in an aerosol, they create immediate pulmonary disease, and can even kill the test animals. Yes, it’s shocking.

Example: https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1096/fasebj.2021.35.S1.04183

Still not convinced that a small amount of “shed” protein can be dangerous? Let’s talk about snake venoms.

Snake venoms are mostly dangerous because of pathogenic proteins, and these proteins are often very similar to bacterial or viral proteins, or arthropod venoms, as well as powerful digestive enzymes.

The thing is – and you likely didn’t know this – venomous snakes “shed” not only their skin, but also their VENOM. That fact is why people who care for venomous reptiles need to wear gloves and respirators when they clean cages. Shake venom gets into the cage dust, and cleaning it out exposes workers to skin and respiratory dangers pretty much like test animals breathing corona virus spike proteins in an aerosol.

So, again, shedding of pathogenic proteins can be real.

The only questions are, what viral protein is it, how is one being exposed to it, and how much of it is one being exposed to.

I’ve discussed this in the past, when we talked about the possibility of shed spike protein having the potency to cause symptoms in a person being shed upon. You can refresh yourself with the discussion in the following post and other linked posts here.

Spike Protein = Spike Protein ≈ Snake Protein

Or this one…..

Is The Abortion Vaccine Right For You?

But if you go a bit too far and think that maybe they’re putting snake venom in the water supply, take a look here…..

Watching The Water – And Learning To Laugh At The Frogs Jumping In To Get Away

How much exposure to pathogenic protein is allowable? That is a HUGE question – and between the extremes of total neglect and total fear, lies something called “exposure and immunity”. Including “natural immunity”. We’ll return to that topic later.

Shedding of Vaccines

In between the shedding of intact viruses, and the shedding of viral proteins, lies an intermediate possibility – the shedding of what in nature are called “virus-like particles”, or what in medicine are called “lipid nanoparticles”.

These are mRNA or DNA enclosed in something like a lipid nanoparticle, or the outer shell of a different virus.

These are, bluntly, mRNA vaccines.

In terms of both danger and safety, lipid nanoparticle vaccines are intermediate between live viral vaccines (always dangerous, IMO) and protein vaccines (least dangerous, IMO). Why is this? Well, bluntly, viruses propagate as a chain reaction, and have very little control over outcome. In contrast, a metered amount of a dead protein has great control over the outcome. mRNA vaccines are in between. They don’t reproduce, but they do create a greater but unpredictable amount of viral protein.

Pierre Kory has a very nice article about vaccine shedding, which I invite you to read.

LINK: Shedding of COVID mRNA Vaccines

By the time you finish that, you will understand that there is some need to address this issue now.

As a bit of an aside, you should note that Cory is AGAINST the use of nicotine patches for treatment of spike protein toxicosis, believing (as I do) that it probably has far more risks than benefits. This is highly relevant for DePat’s case.

Technical Approaches to Prevention of Shedding Injury

It is my belief that any good method to deal with both mRNA vaccine shedding and corresponding protein shedding should have the following characteristics.

Prevention is preferred to treatment
Treatment can be separate from prevention
Earlier is better for both prevention and treatment
Vaccine is more dangerous than protein, and is thus a priority

The final point needs some explanation.

While the protein can be dangerous at high enough levels, one of the greatest dangers of the vaccine is that it produces large quantities of the protein, and is thus automatically orders of magnitude more dangerous than the protein alone. This is not even considering the dangers of the mRNA technology itself.

Destroy the mRNA vaccine, and there is no protein made, nor any mRNA mechanism allowed to function badly.

Thus, targeting the shed vaccine FIRST makes sense.

THAT makes things easy, because the vaccine can be destroyed easily, provided that it has not yet entered the body.

The mRNA vaccines utilize lipid nanoparticles (a.k.a. liposomes) to enter cells. While these little particles are exceedingly dangerous at a cellular level, they have an intrinsic weakness – their easy destructibility by surfactants – meaning soaps and other cleaning agents.

I posed a research question to Grok, regarding this approach, and got a VERY satisfactory answer.

THE QUESTION

Grok, please give me a list of substances (ranging from specific chemical compounds to branded products) that are known to rapidly disrupt, break up, absorb, and/or inactivate liposomes, including liposomes that are referred to in the mainstream press as “lipid nanoparticles”. I am interested in both surface treatments (cleaning agents, topical medicines, skin washes, soaps, lotions, etc.) as well as things which can be taken internally (oral or injectable), as medicines, that are more specific for disrupting liposomes in the bloodstream, for example as an antidote to an inappropriately administered lipid nanoparticle vaccine, e.g., given mistakenly to an allergic patient.

THE ANSWER

BEGIN GROK

Surfactants/detergents (most effective and commonly documented disruptors of liposomes and lipid nanoparticles/LNPs), organic solvents, cyclodextrins, and certain other agents can solubilize or destabilize lipid bilayers. These work primarily by intercalating into the bilayer, extracting lipids/cholesterol, forming mixed micelles, or increasing permeability/leakage until the vesicle structure collapses. Effects are concentration-, composition-, and condition-dependent (lipid type, cholesterol content, PEG coating, temperature, pH, etc.). LNPs used in mRNA vaccines share similar phospholipid/cholesterol/PEG-lipid components and are susceptible in vitro to the same classes of agents. pubs.acs.org +2

There is no established, safe, specific medical antidote that rapidly and selectively disrupts circulating LNPs (e.g., after mistaken administration of an mRNA vaccine to an allergic patient). LNPs are designed to be temporary and are cleared primarily via the mononuclear phagocyte system (liver/spleen), with natural degradation of the lipids. Systemic attempts to force rapid disruption with the agents below would generally be highly toxic (hemolysis, cell membrane damage, organ injury) and are not clinically used or recommended for this purpose. Allergic/anaphylactic reactions are managed with standard emergency care (epinephrine, antihistamines, corticosteroids, supportive measures), not LNP disruption.

Surface treatments / topical / cleaning agentsThese are relevant for cleaning residues, skin washes, or external inactivation:

Anionic, nonionic, and other surfactants/detergents: Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS/SLS), Triton X-100, Tween 20 (polysorbate 20), Brij surfactants, Zwittergent 3-14, quaternary ammonium compounds, and commercial soaps/detergents containing these. They saturate bilayers then convert liposomes/LNPs into mixed micelles. Used in lab assays (e.g., RiboGreen for mRNA release from LNPs) and industrial cleaning of LNP residues. Alkaline formulated detergents (e.g., potassium hydroxide-based) are effective for equipment cleaning of LNP residues at elevated temperature/contact time. pharmtech.com +2
Bile salts (sodium cholate, deoxycholate, taurocholate, etc.): Strong solubilizers of phospholipid bilayers; well-studied for vesicle-to-micelle transitions. Present in some digestive/intestinal contexts and used experimentally.
Alcohols and organic solvents: Ethanol, isopropanol, methanol (typically high concentrations). Disrupt hydrophobic interactions; improve solubility of lipids for cleaning but raise flammability/handling issues. pharmtech.com
Cyclodextrins (especially methylated or randomly methylated β-cyclodextrin / RAMEB / DMe-β-CD, and to varying degrees α-, β-, HP-β-CD): Extract cholesterol and phospholipids from membranes, increasing permeability, leakage, or causing collapse at sufficient concentrations. Effects depend on CD type, dose, and membrane cholesterol content. link.springer.com +2
Other noted factors: High concentrations of certain kosmotropic salts (e.g., ammonium sulfate) can aggregate/precipitate PEGylated liposomes; extreme pH, heat, or oxidation can destabilize; some nanoparticles or polymers can tear or fragment membranes under specific conditions.

Branded/consumer products that contain the above (many soaps, dish detergents, hand washes, some lotions or topical cleansers with surfactants/alcohols) can disrupt lipid structures on surfaces. Efficacy varies widely with formulation and contact conditions.

Internal (oral or injectable) agents

The same surfactants, bile salts, solvents, and high-dose cyclodextrins that work in vitro or on surfaces are generally not safe or selective for bloodstream use against LNPs. They disrupt host cell membranes (including red blood cells) at effective concentrations.
Bile salts occur physiologically in the intestine and can destabilize orally administered liposomes, but systemic (bloodstream) levels for intentional LNP disruption are not a therapeutic approach.
Cyclodextrins have pharmaceutical uses (e.g., solubilizing agents) and can interact with membranes, but high systemic doses for rapid LNP inactivation are not established as safe or effective antidotes and carry risks.
No specific medicines or injectables are approved or routinely described as LNP-disrupting antidotes for vaccine mishaps. Research on LNP fate focuses on clearance, protein corona, MPS uptake, and formulation stability rather than forced rapid inactivation in blood. nature.com

Important caveats: Literature on disruption is largely from in vitro biophysics, pharmaceutical formulation/stability studies, cleaning validation, or drug-delivery research—not clinical antidote development for circulating LNPs. “Rapid” disruption typically requires relatively high local concentrations of surfactant relative to lipid. PEG coatings or cholesterol content can modulate stability. Self-experimentation or off-label use of detergents, solvents, or high-dose agents internally is dangerous and not supported.

For any real-world allergic reaction or medical concern involving a vaccine or LNP product, seek immediate professional medical care; do not attempt chemical disruption. If this is related to laboratory work, cleaning protocols, or formulation science, consult primary literature or specialists for concentration- and condition-specific details.

END GROK

Let me translate all of that.

As long as the shed vaccine is still on the surface of your skin, on clothing, on a mask, or on a surface in your house, the vaccine can be destroyed by all sorts of cleaning products, including surfactants, soaps of all kinds, alcohols, oxidizing agents, bile salts, cyclodextrins, and probably anything useful for cleaning.

Further, any lotions or surface treatments which do not aid in skin penetration (like DMSO), but which do sweep things away from direct contact with your cells, are likely to be helpful in delaying, dissolving, and degrading lipid nanoparticles. Imagine spilled chemical on your skin – it’s the same principle. Diluting the vaccine and/or washing it off make sense.

It is a much different story once a lipid nanoparticle vaccine is inside you – be that from prolonged skin contact, breathing, swallowing, or any other route into your body (like the mRNA jab). None of these things work, once the vaccine is inside you, or in the bloodstream. In fact, these cleaning agents are just as dangerous to your internal cellular machinery (lipid-coated droplets) as they are to the lipid nanoparticles. However, as long as the shed vaccine doesn’t get into your bloodstream (a lower probability than a surface reaction), you don’t have to worry as much about that, as about vaccine damage to skin or mucus membranes where shed vaccine made contact.

Thus, the best time to fight shedding, IMO, is soon after contact. Washing, application of lotions or alcohols, etc., should inactivate shed vaccine. Washing away or denaturing shed protein is also likely to work at the same time.

Again, it is important to remember is that systemic problems from shedding are much less likely than surface problems.

A Realistic Program Against Shedding

This is my opinion. Others may differ. That’s OK. I am just offering my perspective. YMMV.

My first concern remains shedding of virus.

If I am not accepting the trade-offs of the vaccine itself, then my protection is my immune system. My immune system has worked very nicely over the years, against colds, flu, and flu-like illnesses, including all forms of COVID as well as non-COVID coronaviruses. There are appropriately long gaps between infections, and the infections (except for OG Wuhan) have not been debilitating, indicating a functioning immune system.

My immune system is always supplemented with plenty of vitamin D, because vitamin D levels are extremely highly correlated with immunity to viruses. The relationship is stark, and backed by the strongest science. Rates of viral infections almost disappear at high serum levels of vitamin D. There are probable mechanisms for this, but I literally don’t care what they are. Without knowing the causation, the correlation still works. I cannot recommend vitamin D enough. You need to be supplementing it, and maintaining maximum exposure to sunlight. Better still, a measurement of serum levels, but it’s not cheap and your doctor likely won’t recommend it.

Doesn’t matter. Supplementation is cheap and easy and not dangerous, so why not just make sure you are taking a few thousand IUs daily? Just do it. When you notice an appropriately long time between colds and flu, you know you’re taking enough.

Likewise, I make sure that I am not deficient in any vitamin or mineral. Vitamin C, magnesium, selenium and zinc are very important.

However, THIS is even more important.

Avoiding crowded events is critical to reducing exposure to shed viruses. I can link almost every case of influenza or coronavirus infection in recent years to a specific event where there were lots of people crowded together.

In other words, shedding. Viral shedding. As in, viral shedding by people in close proximity.

Thus, avoid crowded public events, particularly in the wintertime, when viruses are maximally spread.

After viral shedding, my next concern is vaccine shedding.

IMO casual vaccine shedding from strangers in momentary close proximity, but not direct physical contact, is far, far less of a problem than living with a vaxxed person for that week after vaccination. Even worse, sleeping with that person who just had a vax.

You should note that my concerns here are EXACTLY what the pharmaceutical industry is concerned about in vaccine trials. That includes live virus AND gene therapy products (even if they don’t call them gene therapy products).

My recommendation is to avoid close contact with vaxxed people for at least 2 days after vaccination, and better a full week. Two weeks should be more than enough, always.

Why? Because the vaccine itself degrades. Even if a person take the vaccine, and shows all sorts of disease symptoms for weeks if not months (please pray for them if this is the case) due to vax-initiated protein production that won’t shut off, they are unable to transmit the vaccine to you, because it is no longer there. The vaccine is degraded, but protein production may still be running.

What about shed vaccine when we can’t avoid being around an individual?

This is when to use soaps, alcohol-based gels, and other skin products. This is when to wash your hands after that oily, wet handshake from some just-jabbed joker, sweating profusely due to their mRNA jab. This is when to stand back from people who can’t “say it” without the need to “spray it”. And note that all of this works even better for VIRUS.

IMO, the vaccine is a far greater danger to you, than the protein these poor victims are now producing. YOU don’t want to be inappropriately producing the protein.

And HERE is where my opinion is likely to differ with yours.

My final concern, about exposure to environmental viral protein, is largely not a concern.

Why? Because this is the natural way in which we build immunity.

Even against a bioweapon. I repeat. Even against a bioweapon – as either a virus or a vaccine.

I literally don’t care if the neighbor sheds small amounts of spike protein or flu proteins on me, because THAT is the vaccination that I prefer – the one for which I am designed. Likewise, I am unconcerned with exposure to dead virus, because THAT is basically how we are naturally prepared for exposure to live virus.

Do I want to inject a protein or dead virus vaccine into me? Maybe – but more likely not. I am now very cautious about vaccines, given that I have lost much trust in the current “vaccine cult” in science. I still trust God and His natural evolutionary reality, however, so I am far more likely to simply trust a combination of pre-exposure of my healthy immune system to proteins, followed by full natural immunity from a well-tolerated episode of the disease.

Rabies? That’s a different story. I’ll take the vaxx, as long as it’s not mRNA. I’ve already done so, once before. I would ONLY take an mRNA rabies vaccine if the animal was confirmed to be rabid, because then it’s a “lesser of two confirmed evils” situation.

I am not going to get pregnant any time soon, and I’ve already had COVID and influenza several times each, so I’m not terribly concerned about exposure to proteins from new variants. In fact, I am at the point of “keeping up” with the latest versions.

SO – some jabbie wants to expose me to the latest spike protein in a non-infective way? Please! Not a problem. Go right ahead. Flu proteins? Be my guest. But I won’t let them expose me to the Soviet Trabant two-stroke mRNA vaccine which I very intentionally decided NOT to take.

And again, my final point. Even if the vaccine AND the protein it produces are “bioweapons” – guess what? I want to be immune to it. I want my system to adapt to its presence. I want natural immunity to all this shit – whether it’s purely “old natural” or “the new natural” that includes stupid human gain-of-function scientific error.

Do you see what I’m saying? GOD has this situation – ALREADY. Let go and let God – just do it at the right time and place.

I hope this helps. If you have questions, feel free to ask.

W

And remember…….

Until victory, have faith!

And trust the big plan, too!

And as always….

ENJOY THE SHOW

W

A Grok-Eyed View of the New mRNA Flu Shot

The TL;DR

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).

LINK: https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=2085762693953134739

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).

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2516491

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.

https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/fda-approves-first-mrna-flu-vaccine-in-win-for-moderna-after-arduous-process-039156b6

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.

https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/media/som/offices-of-the-dean/student-affairs/documents/address-pdfs/Efficacy-and-Safety-of-an-mRNA-Seasonal-Influenza-Vaccine-in-Adults.pdf

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…
— Grok (@grok) August 6, 2026

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1-Methylpseudouridine

Robert Malone has a good explanation of these aspects, and more, here.

https://www.malone.news/p/pseudouridine-what-is-it-and-why

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.

Welcome to Soviet medicine. Enjoy your Trabant.

W

Dr. Charles Hoffe’s Observation of Spike Protein mRNA Vaccine-Induced Pulmonary Hypertension

A Beautiful Demonstration of Real Science in Action, and How Political Correctness Prevents Obvious Correlations and Causations From Being Seen by Monetarily Dependent Scientists

Being “Sherlock Holmes” is easy, when everybody else in mainstream science has turned into a character from “The Muppets” or “Sesame Street”.

Except for Dr. Charles Hoffe, plus a bunch of other physicians and scientists who our media calls “The Dirty Dozen”, that “Count” guy is my only real competition now.

Of course, when he counts 57 genders, he will leave our little group of truth-tellers, but until then he can probably count protons and neutrons reliably.

Thankfully, I’m retired. I can speak the truth. “The Count” is still employed by the dirty establishment.

Consider a basic idea of vaccination known from literally centuries of science – from even BEFORE the first vaccination in the 1790s, when people used WEAKENED smallpox to gain immunity to NORMAL smallpox (a process called “inoculation” or “variolation”).

Here is that bedrock idea. A principle so simple, it borders on “an obvious trend in a collection of observations”.

“Immunity conferred by catching a disease naturally and recovering is strong, and any form of preventing the disease by inoculation (including variolation and vaccination) attempts to live up to that level of immunity. Some vaccines will give life-long immunity, if that is possible, or for as long as the disease itself gives immunity, if lucky, but in many if not most cases, the durability of immunity conferred by a vaccine is LESS than the durability of immunity conferred by the disease itself.”

So I repeat – this simple idea is something that “everybody knew” from roughly 1790 to 2019, and even before 1790, when vaccination wasn’t even called vaccination.

But then – suddenly – in 2020, the media talked us out of centuries of knowledge about how immunity works, by a kind of hand-waving authority – allegedly from “the experts” at CDC and NIH.

Fauci and Scarf Lady went along with the media hoax. They didn’t have to say a lot. It was mostly by leaving OPEN the question of natural immunity, when it should NOT have been left open, that damage to science and society was done.

Of course, after enough results poured in from laboratories around the world, noting how much stronger natural immunity to COVID-19 appeared to be, we were relieved to discover that – Yes, Virginia – immunity is still behaving just like it did before COVID-19.

(The feds will certainly have to do some “funding mechanics” to fix all those people reporting “incorrect science”, won’t they?)

And THAT is when Rand Paul began taking Anthony Fauci to the woodshed over natural immunity.

So why the heck did we ever suspect or believe otherwise?

No good reason, except the Fake News.

Think about it.

If this does not prove to you that the media controls science, and not the other way around, then wait for the next example.

I’m going to replay parts of a conversation some of us has on October 1 of this year.

It’s in images, but I will also provide a link and the text.

Focus on Tonawanda’s friend.

LINK: HERE

Now, I will include the text as well. This is the ENTIRE conversation after the initial post, including additional participants.

Tonawanda Wolverine October 1, 2021 11:19

I now know two people personally who get the injection. One was my BIL who got covid anyway, but we made sure he got treated the right way and he got better immediately, and is back at full health despite diabetes.

The other is a friend who cannot breath well even with an oxygen tank turned to max. He has seen every type of doctor, and no one can figure out what the problem is.

He and I had a sharp but friendly argument over the injections a month or so ago. He is MAGA but a true “vax” believer (hard to imagine, but they exist).

I have spoken to him a couple times at length, but refrained from bringing up the injection as a possible cause of his present distress. His wife thinks he is not going to make it, but, again, I have not mentioned to her the injection as a consideration.

The doctors will not tell him, and at this point what difference could it make, other than making him feel more stress or more unhappiness?

Deplorable Patriot Coyote Reply to Tonawanda October 1, 2021 11:34

I feel like this all the time. No one in my circles will listen. It’s pointless, and would end up splintering relationships that will be needed as these people all go down sick.

I actually feel this way about ALL vaccines to an extent, and I still think that my younger nephew is actually vaccine injured. No one will listen to me on that, either, given there is another diagnosis that fits. They didn’t listen to me about the one drug he was on, and I turned out to be right. I was the first one to call that the drug was the problem, and eventually it could not be ignored.

This is no different. All the research won’t change minds when all the people in family want to be able to do is travel, and that was the driver for the decision.

ROBERT BAKER Reply to Deplorable Patriot October 1, 2021 12:36

You are a real life Cassandra. The fact that you endure this psychological burden because you know at some point in the future those people will need you is admirable. You are demonstrating the true character of a disciple of the Lord. Your faith is obviously sustaining you.

Deplorable Patriot Coyote Reply to ROBERT BAKER October 1, 2021 12:41

I have no choice.

rayzorback Wolverine Reply to Deplorable Patriot October 1, 2021 23:37

Nor do any of us……
Like I’ve been saying (not recently here) for years…
GOD… is in COMPLETE control of EVERYTHING.

gil00 Coyote Reply to Tonawanda October 1, 2021 11:34

He’s in total denial. Like an addict you can force a revelation. When his wife asks for help you can talk to her. Otherwise id just let them go.

gil00 Coyote Reply to gil00 October 1, 2021 11:57

I meant can’t force…

Emeraldstar Reply to Tonawanda October 1, 2021 11:40

>>”I have spoken to him a couple times at length”<<

Would it be more productive to focus on the potential REMEDIES, first, than on the likely CAUSES?

For months now, posters here have been *extraordinarily* helpful in suggesting many means to offset the adverse effects.

Right to try?

Survivor-mectin, perhaps?

As has been established, it ISN’T a lack of oxygen in the lungs, it’s instead the lack of TRANSFER of the oxygen in the lungs to the bloodstream.

Get better first, and only THEN figure out the likely cause.

Am I missing something here?

I hope this helps …

Emeraldstar Reply to Tonawanda October 1, 2021 11:41

>>”I have spoken to him a couple times at length”<<

Would it be more productive to focus on the potential REMEDIES, first, than on the likely CAUSES?

For months now, posters here have been *extraordinarily* helpful in suggesting many means to offset the adverse effects.

Right to try?

Survivor-mectin, perhaps?

As has been established, it ISN’T a lack of oxygen in the lungs, it’s instead the lack of TRANSFER of the oxygen in the lungs to the bloodstream.

Get better first, and only THEN figure out the likely cause.

Am I missing something here?

I hope this helps …

[mistyped my login …]

Wolf Moon Admin Coyote Reply to Tonawanda October 1, 2021 22:34

I suspect your friend is going through what I went through.

How long after he got the jab until he had symptoms?
Which jab did he get?
What normal jab symptoms did he have?

Tell them you know a scientist who had COVID and suffered breathing problems, but got better, and thinks he can help.

Tonawanda Wolverine Reply to Wolf Moon October 2, 2021 07:41

He got the shots in March. I will ask him what type. The breathing problem was gradual and started about a month ago and has become severe.

We spoke again yesterday, and I suggested D3 and Zinc. Oddly enough, his own doctor told him to take those, and he has not taken them. Now he says he will.

He is going in for angiograms on Tuesday and used that as a polite excuse to defer on any further discussion.

But I would love to hear your perspective when I get you the info.

Wolf Moon Admin Coyote Reply to Tonawanda October 3, 2021 14:01

Great! Both D3 and zinc are necessary to fight off respiratory viruses, and they tend to be deficient as we get older. If he does have spike protein lung damage, every minor respiratory virus brings back the COVID lung problems.

Also magnesium helps me. It is a vasodilator and antihypertensive, and I suspect that it is a PULMONARY vasodilator, too.

Tonawanda Wolverine Reply to Wolf Moon October 3, 2021 14:38

TY. I will talk to him again. He is overwhelmed, I can tell, and scared.

Wolf Moon Admin Coyote Reply to Tonawanda October 3, 2021 14:56

I know that fear. Inability to breathe properly is extremely scary. And it scared a lot of people onto vents where they died.

One of the foulest tricks of both COVID and MASKS is that they mess up O2 / CO2 balance. One has to ADAPT to the new balance. THAT is hard. One reason I refuse to wear a mask is that it really messes with my oxygen balance. It messes me up for HOURS. And I’m IMMUNE, damn it! Pointless and CRUEL to make me wear a mask – these Stalinist bastards!

Tonawanda Wolverine Reply to Wolf Moon October 10, 2021 22:35

I am still trying to find out what “vax” he took. He is not doing well. He had two angiograms and the doctors are still uncertain what his problem is, and he has been fretful (so I am told).

It is a delicate situation.

But please keep this post in mind so when I find out we can discuss.

Wolf Moon Admin Coyote Reply to Tonawanda October 10, 2021 22:44

Good! I’m still paying attention!

One way you might get him the proper help is to suggest that he may have HAD COVID AND DIDN’T KNOW IT. Both he and the Covidian doctors will believe that, before they will believe that the jab WAS the “Covid” that he got.

That will get the docs thinking that he has long-haul, and they may send him on to a “long-haul” specialist.

Tonawanda Wolverine Reply to Wolf Moon October 10, 2021 22:48

TY for staying with this. I am trying to talk with him the best way, but he is distracted, and it is hard to do.

Wolf Moon Admin Coyote Reply to Tonawanda October 10, 2021 22:49

Yes! The best thing may just be sympathy and to keep him holding on.

Tonawanda Wolverine Reply to Wolf Moon October 10, 2021 22:53

So far, that is the only sensible way. Truth is the best generally, but at the right time, otherwise it can be a bad choice if the truth creates more negativity.

Wolf Moon Admin Coyote Reply to Tonawanda October 10, 2021 22:59

Gail’s story of her long-term oxygen problem being cleared up by moxidectin (relative of ivermectin) may be useful, because it can be mentioned simply as fact – and it’s kind of funny because it was an accidental exposure (while dipping sheep in a skin-penetrating formulation).

Tonawanda Wolverine Reply to Wolf Moon October 10, 2021 23:12

I remember her story, although initially I was confused by what she said. After a sharp remark I got it.

I took eyebermactain to him and he refused despite my soft approach. But maybe he will listen now, when I get a chance to talk to him.

Tonawanda Wolverine Reply to Wolf Moon October 12, 2021 16:27

I spoke to my friend. He took Moderna. When I asked he pre-emptively said “what I have has nothing to do with the voccine.”

He said the docs told him he had severe pulmonary hypertension, and there was nothing they could do except give him the generic form of Viagra.

The MDs might very well be telling him exactly the way it is, and who am I to say differently? Still, his case at least proves to me how deep my distrust is.

TY for engaging on this personal interest! As always, I highly respect your knowledge and judgment.

Wolf again…..

Now – if you follow through that conversation, you will see that Tona’s friend started off with vaccination, followed later by persistent shortness of breath. You can see that I suspected he might need magnesium as a pulmonary vasodilator – that his case might be similar to mine, which was from COVID itself, only his seems to be much WORSE.

Later, you see that he’s getting an angiogram – meaning, they’re going to look at his blood vessels. This is heading exactly where I thought it was going.

Finally, you see that it is verified that Tona’s friend took the Moderna vaccine, and has pulmonary hypertension.

This confirmed everything that I suspected.

Now – WHY did I suspect that this man had pulmonary hypertension?

FIRST, because I have LONG been following the story of endothelial damage in the capillaries of the lungs by SARS-CoV-2 – more specifically by the spike protein – and resultant pulmonary symptomology (including shortness of breath), from all the way back in March and April of 2020, when Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell realized that the ARDS vent strategy “imported from China” was ALL WRONG. He started looking at high-altitude sickness as a better (though still flawed) model of the disease, and quickly understood the endothelial and pulmonary capillary thrombotic nature of SARS-COV-2 infections.

See, for example:

LINK: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32665939/

As you can see, by the middle of 2020, the DISEASE was already well understood in terms of being a provoker of coagulopathy and the sequelae of that.

It was this coagulopathy, that was causing shortness of breath.

And THAT leads to the SECOND reason I suspected pulmonary hypertension. Something I had seen HERE, actually, in various postings on our site. Thank you to all posters here, who brought this information.

But THIS information was not about the disease. This was about the VACCINE.

Please listen to the video below – it will not only explain what is happening – it will assure you of this good doctor’s credibility.

Canadian doctor warns the worst is ‘yet to come’ from blood clotting damage linked to COVID-19 shots

LINK 1: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-26-canadian-doctor-warns-worst-yet-to-come.html

LINK 2: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-doctor-warns-the-worst-is-yet-to-come-from-blood-clotting-damage-linked-to-covid-19-shots/

LINK 3: https(colon)//www.bitchute(dot)com/video/A6GbcUl6blpJ/

There is also a LARGER video which includes the above video – but it ALSO includes additional information – priceless information – about how Chinese crypto-kinetic warfare is used as part of “reality shaping” to support Chinese sociobiological warfare. See if you can arrive independently at the same understanding, and explain it to me in the comments. You will need to listen to the longer video to see it.

LINK 4: https(colon)//www.bitchute(dot)com/video/zAw0Pzg27RTo/

Everything Dr. Hoffe says is – sadly – bad news for “yours truly”, but it MASSIVELY confirms my “hunch” that COVID took at least a DECADE off my life.

This is just a gut-level assessment of the damage to my health, but everything that I’ve seen in my medical test data seems to confirm it. My respiratory, pulmonary, cardiac, vascular, and immune functions are all noticeably impaired after COVID. I do not know if I have pulmonary hypertension, but I suspect that if I do NOT have it, it is only because I have very successfully prevented systemic hypertension. My blood pressure is low, and I have kept it low, thanks to magnesium.

This is part of the reason I have been so adamantly opposed to vaccinating our troops, and regard that action as TREASONOUS. The only people who are helped by medical turnover of our military are the communists – both foreign and domestic.

But let’s not talk about me. Let’s not talk about the US Military.

Let’s talk about Tonawanda’s friend.

The fact that he had the Moderna vaccine is – in my opinion – very important.

Why?

This gets into the observed and known differences between the vaccines, which I have watched VERY CAREFULLY from the very beginning. I very CLOSELY watched the Phase One trials for both Pfizer and Moderna.

The Moderna vaccine was NOTORIOUS for causing symptoms VERY similar to the disease, including fever, exhaustion, headaches, muscular and kidney aches. Worse than that, the Moderna systemic effects were extremely common in the trial group.

If I had to describe my “non-taker” impression of the Moderna shot like a “gourmet” might, it would be like the Shingrix shingles vaccine first shot, only more systemic like the second shot.

A shingles vaccine “gourmet” sidebar:

Wolf’s Hot Date With Retrosynthetic Dinopox

Wolf’s Chill Second Date With Retrosynthetic Dinopox

Yes – I was “pro-vax” before all the industry, media, and government LIES built up to an intolerable level.

Back to the story on Moderna and Pfizer.

Here is a typical example of a Moderna recipient – economist and actor Ben Stein.

LINK: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/ben-stein-issues-warning-suffers-severe-side-effects-covid-vaccine-days-getting-shot-video/

The symptoms Ben describes are VERY MUCH like COVID-19 itself.

The Pfizer vaccine – surprisingly – did not have strong observable and immediate effects like Moderna. The incidence of anything more than a bit of local swelling was almost non-existent in the Phase One trial group.

The Pfizer vaccine moved up near the top of my “I might take this one” list.

Thus, it was very surprising that LATER, lots of problems with the Pfizer “clot shot” came into view, as the vaccine was being delivered to people. To some extent, I believe that the NUMBERS of many side effects simply don’t appear in trials, but THAT is not the whole story. I am now convinced that Pfizer is led by incredibly dishonest people, and that they very likely gamed the trials to hide problems.

And very ironically, there is some SCIENCE to back that up. The GAMING begins with the vaccine itself.

What’s interesting there, is that Pfizer’s data on biological distribution of their vaccine in test animals – which we had to get from the Japanese government – not only explained the nature and biodistribution of side effects seen in vaccine recipients – it explained the SHEDDING of VACCINE to others in close contact with the recipient.

This was, IMO, phenomenal detective work by the people who got that data. The Pfizer vaccine’s array of issues was due to the PERSISTENCE and SLOW RELEASE of the vaccine – as well as the obvious LIPID MOBILITY of the LIPID NANOPARTICLES. It took DAYS for the vaccine to release most of the mRNA into cells. The vaccine had plenty of time to move around in bodily lipids. It even had time to be EXCRETED in bodily lipids.

But NOW, I can ALSO use this same explanation for the difference between Pfizer and Moderna in the trials.

Pfizer basically created what is essentially a slow-release vaccine without telling people it was slow-release. VERY beneficial in trials – no?

Moderna’s vaccine also uses lipid nanoparticles, BUT their vaccine clearly deploys FASTER into cells. There is significant overlap, nonetheless, in cardiovascular deployment, as Dr. Hoffe notes. Moderna is likewise distributing throughout the body, and producing systemic vascular endothelium-centered effects much like COVID itself does, but Moderna produces symptoms FASTER than Pfizer. The vaccine effects of Moderna are thus much more noticeable – in some ways like the new shingles vaccine, which is a recombinant antigen vaccine, not an mRNA vaccine, and does NOT employ time-delaying lipid encapsulation technology.

Shingrix tends to produce rapid LOCAL symptoms on the first shot, and systemic symptoms on the booster, exactly as we might expect for two fundamentally different immune reactions (naive locally generated to injected antigen on shot 1, and immune secondary cytokine reaction to same on shot 2).

SO – back to Tona’s friend. He got MODERNA. Moderna SHOWS that it produces symptoms similar to COVID. Just ask Ben Stein. We have covered these “whole spike protein” vaccines.

Dr. Hoffe encountered his results using the MODERNA vaccine.

Doctor who vaccinated 900 calls blood clots at capillary level an ‘absolutely new phenomenon’

LINK: https://www.worldtribune.com/doctor-who-vaccinated-900-calls-blood-clots-at-capillary-level-an-absolutely-new-phenomenon/

Dr. Hoffe – at the time of the video – had 9 out of roughly 900 Moderna-receiving patients who were significantly (medically) damaged by the vaccine – and that did not count the 62% of ALL patients (estimated from a smaller sample) who showed signs of microscopic clotting.

Of those 9 patients clinically damaged by the vaccine, SIX of them are described as having “reduced effort tolerance” indicative of pulmonary hypertension. That is exactly what I have from COVID itself. I’m just lucky that my prior health was SO GOOD – far better than most others my age, particularly with my set of comorbidities like “former smoker” – that I was simply “knocked back” to somewhat below normal levels of health for my age.

Others may choose not to believe that Tonawanda’s friend was a victim of side effects of the Moderna vaccine, but in my opinion it is IMPOSSIBLE to dismiss this possibility. In fact, I believe that this case is an exemplary fulfillment of Dr. Hoffe’s warning.

In my opinion, mRNA vaccines are a fundamentally flawed approach, relative to a carefully metered and controlled ANTIGEN vaccine. mRNA vaccines have a “sexy” mechanism, but the whole concept is SCIENCE-CENTERED – not PATIENT-CENTERED.

Science-centered vaccines are a perfect fit for BRUTAL Stalinist socialized medicine, which treats people coldly and unsympathetically.

And THAT is why the Faucist conspirators and Bidenazis are deploying it.

What would Obama do, if nobody could stop him?

THIS is Obamacare – the REALITY. Brutal, corrupt, industrialized medicine.

Ironically – so ironically – profit-centered and capitalist to the core – only the negotiation with the corrupt capitalists is run by Soviet-style bureaucrats. An interesting mix of communism and fascism.

Reject it. Turn away from it. Refuse it.