A report of 5 myocarditis-related deaths noted various cellular infiltrates in the heart, which are interestingly similar to that found in the arm of one of the vaccinated deceased.
I honestly can't recall any sanction on autopsy reports. I do recall that the early stages of the pandemic had a barring of autopsies due to concerns over spreading the virus I believe.
I think when it comes to the vaccines it may come down to families who may request autopsy reports. If they don't suspect it may be related to the vaccine I think they may not consider an autopsy as providing much value.
Aside from the issues in my browser's translations (not sure what was translated into "tampons") I'm curious if he was suspended over comments about the sudden deaths rather than the autopsies. Interestingly several of the autopsy reports have come from Europe (the ones above are from Germany) so I would be curious if there's more to the story.
Yeah I got all excited and shared the link, then went back and read more, then thought... hang on... what's.. who's. Looking like something lost in translation, and the bandwagon effect are unstoppable from either side :-/
Matt Crawford lamented this at length but his message doesn't reach far when you can generate income and kudos - outrage bucks are plentiful.
My avatar was chosen deliberately: I can handle the truth, and it's all I want.
I won't deny that I've had clickbait articles. The drive to have that slamdunk piece that really stimulates the emotional part of the brain and drive attention is just par for the course in this business. It's a shame that you don't really get far if you try to stick with the science and parse what you can. But when we build upon circumstantial evidence we then we create a house of cards which must be made infallible if it goes along with our narrative.
I won't say that Igor is doing that, but I know I'm personally trying to avoid falling into narratives rather than looking at the data. It's why I don't use terms like "clot shots", "gene therapy", or "died suddenly" and the like (although I may have done so in the past) because it's intentionally trying to evoke a certain response that tends not to be rooted in facts. In the Ryan Cole piece Socrates999 provided he mentions clot shots many times in the video, yet he's referring to myocarditis not caused by clots in children. So what happens when you try to sway public opinion but are using terms that don't make the events that are occurring?
One thing with the Pfizer fiasco is that I got caught up in the event as being this bombshell, explosive finding but as Bret and Heather pointed out in their podcast (as well as Brian Mowrey I believe) the process he describes doesn't seem feasible, but at the point you argue that this process doesn't make sense everyone else is arguing on the fact that this guy who thought he was on a date and trying to impress someone admitted to these dangerous things going on, which also doesn't make sense since BioNTech was the vaccine developers and not Pfizer.
Sorry to talk your head off. I see a lot going on that can sometimes frustrate me. I've raised the point that many writers may be beholden to readers, and if readers just want narratives and to be scared then that's probably all that they will be fed. I hope readers spend more time wading through the actual science and forego narratives and groupthink.
I hope I didn't give the impression I was having a go at you - I'm definitely not. My subscriptions err on the side of the non-melodramatic / science discussion-level stacks, which yours decidedly is for me.
Thanks for the video. He mentions that Dr. Fauci said not to do autopsies on COVID patients which wouldn't be the same as vaccine-related autopsies, so I'm unsure if he may be conflating the two here. I'd prefer to have more information. I'll skim the video and see what he states.
Honestly I'm not sure about all of these and so any idea I put forth would be pure speculation. The problem is that there's a lot that's been said but not many that get corroborated or verified.
I would assume that many of the practicing physicians would be able to corroborate the information better but personally I would like to see the evidence for myself in order to make some agreement if that makes sense.
I've been trying to raise awareness of the fact that there are several high-confidence binding sites for cardiac-related microRNAs in both the Pfizer and Moderna spike sequences. My theory is that the manufacturers added these binding sites to provide a negative feedback mechanism for shutting down spike expression in the heart as microRNAs ramp up due to inflammation. If this is the case, then it is likely that the vaccine manufacturers traded short term risk from acute myocarditis for long term risk due to chronic myocarditis.
Do those bdinding sites still get generated if the pseudo-uridine replacements prevent reliable mRNA translation?
Is there any evidence Pfizer or anyone else ever checked to see if these sites were created in heart muscle? My feeling is they did a lot of theory but not much practical follow up beyond the "yep there's spike, let's go sell this shiz".
The binding sites are an intrinsic property of the mRNA sequence. A vaccine designer could, if desired, tailor their sequence to have binding sites for particular microRNAs simply by using a tool such as RNA22v2. Once the sequence has been injected all it has to do is encounter the target microRNAs in order for binding to occur.
As for the pseudouridine substitution - it does have an effect on binding strength, but as I point out in my article, it has been found to increase the binding stability of microRNAs due to increased hydrogen bonding.
That's interesting. I took a look at your article and that's something I didn't know about. Is there clear evidence in that the regions were included to provide for microRNA binding?
Unfortunately, such complexes run into the same issue as reports of "spike in the heart" in that many of these reports are based on circumstantial evidence. It's hard to figure out how much work is being done to actually determine what proteins or genetic fragments are being found at the sites of these adverse reactions.
At the end of your article you mentioned a need for unified ideas, and instead I think the approach is to produce hypotheses and build up upon these ideas. I find that far too often many ideas are being tossed out that are discarded as soon as they are made. They stir up emotions, rile people up, and then just disappear and people move onto the next one. It's more important that we build upon prior information and tie together what we have. But this approach can be difficult and rather tedious which is why many may not engage with it.
That's interesting! I don't know much about these methods so I am partially left in the dark as to whether there was clear evidence of some additional modifications made, but it's certainly something that would be rather interesting.
I found your comments about CD8+/MHC I and CD4+/MHC II to be interesting. Sometime in early 2021, I think, I listened to an interview with someone who had been digging into the subject of immune defenses, in light of all the propaganda about how our immune systems don't work and we need vaccines to stay alive. I think he was a computer scientist (my favorite field), but this was at a time when medical research professionals were silent or unemployed suddenly. He discussed only CD4+/MHC II, but described it the way you describe CD8+/MHC I. I think maybe he got it backward, especially since everything I have read since has focused on CD8+.
My own knowledge about MHC was minimal and decades out of date, and even slightly mixed up information was helpful. I appreciate your exploring these things, even if it's not terribly familiar for you. These Substack dialogs have, for me anyway, proved much more useful and time-efficient than interview videos.
My knowledge of immunology is all over the place so when covering these topics there's always an air of uncertainty. I do believe the information above is correct, and I had to look up information to check. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if someone gets it mixed up. Biology is pretty bad at naming things which may require more than just intuition. Personally, it depends on whether someone presents bad information but are adamant the information is correct (when it's not).
I hope these reports are informative, so I appreciate your comments! If I were to be frank, I find it a bit frustrating that there appears to be a lack of providing cohesive, unified ideas. Not necessarily of people having ideas that coincide with others, but that we have all of this information and rather than report on each piece individually we should be trying to tie together the bits that we can.
I am stunned, as a layman, at the apparent complete and utter lack of curiosity expressed by scientists of the age.
With a "novel" virus spreading and decidedly novel vaccine mechanism being forced into the planet's inhabitants, I would want to autopsy the living sh!t out of every one I possibly could linked to the disease or the "cure".
Instead we have this tiny cadre of people dotted here and there doing a few such attempts, turning up interesting information each time. Rather than triggering a curiosity cascade, however, they seem to recoil.
Other than creating new breeds of virus to kill people, is science dead?
I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of "safe and effective" had some influence on how things are being reported- if you assume that things are fine then would there be need to question the "death of X" that's in close proximity to vaccination. It's also the issue that you wouldn't really know what exactly to look for since no precedent was set so you're really just shooting in the dark in many cases. And even then the information that comes out may be severely limited. Nearly all of the cases reported here were limited in the findings they reported and that makes it really difficult to figure out the full scope of the injuries.
I don't think science is dead; I think science has just been grossly mischaracterized. We're living in a world of both modernity and novelty in which we assume that we are at the peak of all there is to know. We act as if there is everything to know, we're on the brink of defeating cancer once and for all, and we will all live well past 100 years in a few years time. All of these are just ideals of what science can offer, and in reality many of these ideas are just pie in the sky ideas of what may be coming when in reality we are probably nowhere near this type of future. I think we've been told a false sense of what science can actually do and the media just serves to spur on the glorified details of what real science actually is.
Didn't the CDC deliberately avoid doing autopsies and doing other due diligence gathering data on problems with the vaccine?
I honestly can't recall any sanction on autopsy reports. I do recall that the early stages of the pandemic had a barring of autopsies due to concerns over spreading the virus I believe.
I think when it comes to the vaccines it may come down to families who may request autopsy reports. If they don't suspect it may be related to the vaccine I think they may not consider an autopsy as providing much value.
Italy at least appears to be against autopsies?
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/italian-doctor-suspended-for-suggesting
Aside from the issues in my browser's translations (not sure what was translated into "tampons") I'm curious if he was suspended over comments about the sudden deaths rather than the autopsies. Interestingly several of the autopsy reports have come from Europe (the ones above are from Germany) so I would be curious if there's more to the story.
Yeah I got all excited and shared the link, then went back and read more, then thought... hang on... what's.. who's. Looking like something lost in translation, and the bandwagon effect are unstoppable from either side :-/
Matt Crawford lamented this at length but his message doesn't reach far when you can generate income and kudos - outrage bucks are plentiful.
My avatar was chosen deliberately: I can handle the truth, and it's all I want.
I won't deny that I've had clickbait articles. The drive to have that slamdunk piece that really stimulates the emotional part of the brain and drive attention is just par for the course in this business. It's a shame that you don't really get far if you try to stick with the science and parse what you can. But when we build upon circumstantial evidence we then we create a house of cards which must be made infallible if it goes along with our narrative.
I won't say that Igor is doing that, but I know I'm personally trying to avoid falling into narratives rather than looking at the data. It's why I don't use terms like "clot shots", "gene therapy", or "died suddenly" and the like (although I may have done so in the past) because it's intentionally trying to evoke a certain response that tends not to be rooted in facts. In the Ryan Cole piece Socrates999 provided he mentions clot shots many times in the video, yet he's referring to myocarditis not caused by clots in children. So what happens when you try to sway public opinion but are using terms that don't make the events that are occurring?
One thing with the Pfizer fiasco is that I got caught up in the event as being this bombshell, explosive finding but as Bret and Heather pointed out in their podcast (as well as Brian Mowrey I believe) the process he describes doesn't seem feasible, but at the point you argue that this process doesn't make sense everyone else is arguing on the fact that this guy who thought he was on a date and trying to impress someone admitted to these dangerous things going on, which also doesn't make sense since BioNTech was the vaccine developers and not Pfizer.
Sorry to talk your head off. I see a lot going on that can sometimes frustrate me. I've raised the point that many writers may be beholden to readers, and if readers just want narratives and to be scared then that's probably all that they will be fed. I hope readers spend more time wading through the actual science and forego narratives and groupthink.
I hope I didn't give the impression I was having a go at you - I'm definitely not. My subscriptions err on the side of the non-melodramatic / science discussion-level stacks, which yours decidedly is for me.
This video is where i heard it
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pathologist-asks-where-are-investigations-into-organ-damage-caused-by-covid-vaccine/
https://twitter.com/DrNo_Reformed/status/1604531377529131009
Thanks for the video. He mentions that Dr. Fauci said not to do autopsies on COVID patients which wouldn't be the same as vaccine-related autopsies, so I'm unsure if he may be conflating the two here. I'd prefer to have more information. I'll skim the video and see what he states.
I probably conflated the two myself.
What are the exact requirements for gathering data on injuries related to new vaccines?
Were these procedures followed?
If they were, was the data ignored? I've seen a lot of people saying many warning signs were ignored.
If the procedures weren't followed why not?
Honestly I'm not sure about all of these and so any idea I put forth would be pure speculation. The problem is that there's a lot that's been said but not many that get corroborated or verified.
I would assume that many of the practicing physicians would be able to corroborate the information better but personally I would like to see the evidence for myself in order to make some agreement if that makes sense.
Might have been an interview on Highwire, I can't remember exactly, I think he said it in early 22 or late 21
I've been trying to raise awareness of the fact that there are several high-confidence binding sites for cardiac-related microRNAs in both the Pfizer and Moderna spike sequences. My theory is that the manufacturers added these binding sites to provide a negative feedback mechanism for shutting down spike expression in the heart as microRNAs ramp up due to inflammation. If this is the case, then it is likely that the vaccine manufacturers traded short term risk from acute myocarditis for long term risk due to chronic myocarditis.
https://entropywave.substack.com/p/beware-the-switch-flippers
Do those bdinding sites still get generated if the pseudo-uridine replacements prevent reliable mRNA translation?
Is there any evidence Pfizer or anyone else ever checked to see if these sites were created in heart muscle? My feeling is they did a lot of theory but not much practical follow up beyond the "yep there's spike, let's go sell this shiz".
The binding sites are an intrinsic property of the mRNA sequence. A vaccine designer could, if desired, tailor their sequence to have binding sites for particular microRNAs simply by using a tool such as RNA22v2. Once the sequence has been injected all it has to do is encounter the target microRNAs in order for binding to occur.
As for the pseudouridine substitution - it does have an effect on binding strength, but as I point out in my article, it has been found to increase the binding stability of microRNAs due to increased hydrogen bonding.
That's interesting. I took a look at your article and that's something I didn't know about. Is there clear evidence in that the regions were included to provide for microRNA binding?
Unfortunately, such complexes run into the same issue as reports of "spike in the heart" in that many of these reports are based on circumstantial evidence. It's hard to figure out how much work is being done to actually determine what proteins or genetic fragments are being found at the sites of these adverse reactions.
At the end of your article you mentioned a need for unified ideas, and instead I think the approach is to produce hypotheses and build up upon these ideas. I find that far too often many ideas are being tossed out that are discarded as soon as they are made. They stir up emotions, rile people up, and then just disappear and people move onto the next one. It's more important that we build upon prior information and tie together what we have. But this approach can be difficult and rather tedious which is why many may not engage with it.
The binding sites were identified using the RNA22v2 prediction engine which analyzes RNA sequences for particular microRNAs.
I appreciate your feedback and all that you do here.
That's interesting! I don't know much about these methods so I am partially left in the dark as to whether there was clear evidence of some additional modifications made, but it's certainly something that would be rather interesting.
I found your comments about CD8+/MHC I and CD4+/MHC II to be interesting. Sometime in early 2021, I think, I listened to an interview with someone who had been digging into the subject of immune defenses, in light of all the propaganda about how our immune systems don't work and we need vaccines to stay alive. I think he was a computer scientist (my favorite field), but this was at a time when medical research professionals were silent or unemployed suddenly. He discussed only CD4+/MHC II, but described it the way you describe CD8+/MHC I. I think maybe he got it backward, especially since everything I have read since has focused on CD8+.
My own knowledge about MHC was minimal and decades out of date, and even slightly mixed up information was helpful. I appreciate your exploring these things, even if it's not terribly familiar for you. These Substack dialogs have, for me anyway, proved much more useful and time-efficient than interview videos.
My knowledge of immunology is all over the place so when covering these topics there's always an air of uncertainty. I do believe the information above is correct, and I had to look up information to check. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if someone gets it mixed up. Biology is pretty bad at naming things which may require more than just intuition. Personally, it depends on whether someone presents bad information but are adamant the information is correct (when it's not).
I hope these reports are informative, so I appreciate your comments! If I were to be frank, I find it a bit frustrating that there appears to be a lack of providing cohesive, unified ideas. Not necessarily of people having ideas that coincide with others, but that we have all of this information and rather than report on each piece individually we should be trying to tie together the bits that we can.
I am stunned, as a layman, at the apparent complete and utter lack of curiosity expressed by scientists of the age.
With a "novel" virus spreading and decidedly novel vaccine mechanism being forced into the planet's inhabitants, I would want to autopsy the living sh!t out of every one I possibly could linked to the disease or the "cure".
Instead we have this tiny cadre of people dotted here and there doing a few such attempts, turning up interesting information each time. Rather than triggering a curiosity cascade, however, they seem to recoil.
Other than creating new breeds of virus to kill people, is science dead?
I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of "safe and effective" had some influence on how things are being reported- if you assume that things are fine then would there be need to question the "death of X" that's in close proximity to vaccination. It's also the issue that you wouldn't really know what exactly to look for since no precedent was set so you're really just shooting in the dark in many cases. And even then the information that comes out may be severely limited. Nearly all of the cases reported here were limited in the findings they reported and that makes it really difficult to figure out the full scope of the injuries.
I don't think science is dead; I think science has just been grossly mischaracterized. We're living in a world of both modernity and novelty in which we assume that we are at the peak of all there is to know. We act as if there is everything to know, we're on the brink of defeating cancer once and for all, and we will all live well past 100 years in a few years time. All of these are just ideals of what science can offer, and in reality many of these ideas are just pie in the sky ideas of what may be coming when in reality we are probably nowhere near this type of future. I think we've been told a false sense of what science can actually do and the media just serves to spur on the glorified details of what real science actually is.
And then there's this...
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/italian-doctor-suspended-for-suggesting