As I look up research and finding more topics to write about I thought that today may be a good day to just start a conversation and see what is on everyone’s minds.
So if anyone has any questions please feel free to ask and see if either I or any other Subscribers may be able to answer or start a discussion. This could be anything from COVID, science-related questions, or even just little things going on that you have questions about. Really if there’s anything that has been weighing on you or just anything minor that you were curious about.
I read about the death of Foo Fighters drummer this morning. The report in the Western Journal mentioned that he recently had chest pains. Another death that will be blamed on something else like a cracked skull or drug over dose. Family members need to start coming forward about this epidemic of Vax deaths. Actuaries don’t lie!! We just had a local family post on Next Door Neighborhood that their 39 year old son died. The father actually said there was more to the story but Next Door wouldn’t let him post it. Of course, Facebook owns NextDoor and the moderators really hold the line on the Narrative. We need a way to get this info out!
Oh wow, that's quite upsetting to hear. I will say that we cannot ascribe definitive conclusions as there are likely to be many confounding variables at play. However, if there is actually an autopsy that provides some information I think that would be vital to figuring out what happened. I've left that case report on the incidences of myocarditis in teenagers on the back burner since it requires a lot of research but I hope to revisit it soon. If there was any evidence of stress-induced myocarditis with evidence of catecholamines then that may provide more evidence of the root cause of the chest pains.
Shane Warne is another died from a heart attack but we aren’t getting any details on that. Being an Aussie he would have to have been “vaccinated” or he’d have been put under house arrest.
Today I watched a Dr. John Campbell video, on YouTube, where at 17:39 a lady from Australia delves into excess deaths in Australia. There’s no chance they’re down to covid so what can have caused significant extra deaths in 2021?
The ONLY real difference was vaccines and lockdown. That’s the elephant in the room. They can’t blame it on the virus, but no doubt because Campbell would be cancelled on YT, he made no comments on it.
He has gone to great lengths to support vaccinations but I do wonder just how genuine, rather than forced, his support really is.
Unfortunately many of the steps taking to improperly quell the virus had many of their own detriments. People got fatter, they did not exercise as much, and they likely ordered out a lot and ate plenty of processed foods, all leading to an overall reduced state of health. I think to really get to the bottom of it we would have to stratify data and see where the excess deaths are occurring. If lack of cancer screening is causing an uptick in undiagnosed cancer deaths, then maybe we can't blame the vaccines. But if we're seeing a lot of incidences of myocarditis, then we may, although very preliminarily, argue that the vaccines are playing a role.
For now it's not enough to know that excess deaths occurred, but to see what cause of deaths increased to cause the excess deaths.
As for the heart attacks, like I stated if we are seeing a lot of these stress-induced heart attacks then that may actually indicate something vaccine related. The catecholamine issue seems to indicate that the myocarditis that is occurring is unique to typical incidences of myocarditis. More information about what caused the heart attack and what damage was found will be important.
Yes, the point I was alluding to was that no matter which way you cut this, it's not the virus that caused the deaths. Whether it's the "vaccine" or the methods, ridiculous as they were, that were used to "contain" it, is really rather moot. And that includes the forced change of lifestyle, both mental and physical.
The simple fact is that the methods imposed on the population were the entire cause of excess deaths and support the view that all of the draconian measure taken were responsible for the deaths... not that anyone making those decisions is ever going to admit it, but at least in Australia it's going to be a lot harder to hide from it.
Oh yes, it is the irony that the procedures used to reduce the number of deaths caused by COVID ironically caused deaths of their own anyways. And it's something that was alluded to within The Great Barrington Declaration as well which is likely going to come to fruition as we get more information.
Thank you! It does mean a lot when I see people both enjoying and applying the information here. I hope that people learn to be more skeptical but also more informed individuals who know they are fully capable of doing their own research.
David Crowe of The Infectious Myth Podcast wrote in his paper on CV that the PCR test was only looking for three genes of the sequenced genome which amounts to about 1%. This seems ridiculously low. Has anyone seen any other figures of what is being tested for?
So I actually did some PCR testing and he's correct, depending on which kit you use. Most kits will at least test for the spike and the nucleocapsid gene. So it does seem low, but we have to remember that genomic testing is very expensive and time-consuming compared to PCR.
But most importantly the testing for 3 genes are intended to serve as an inclusive/exclusive test. The assumption here is that you choose a combination of genes that are unique to the tested virus that will exclude other viruses. For example, let's say that the nucleocapsid protein is shared with influenza. That means both SARS-COV2 and influenza should test positive for that gene. However, influenza doesn't have the spike gene. If that gene turns up positive you can both affirm that it is likely SARS-COV2 while also excluding that it is influenza. The only caveat would be if someone was co-infected with many viruses, in which case you may have more problems on your plate than the validity of a PCR test.
Now it may surprise people to find out the same thing actually happens with forensic testing for crime scenes. Forensic scientists are not testing for the whole genome but are testing for just a few genes. For example, let's say they're looking at 6 genes with 20 different allele variations. In order to get the unique genetic "fingerprint" you would do 20^6, or 20 million different combinations. This is what they use to argue the "the odds of finding someone with the same genes are 1 in a 20 million chance". They're hardly testing for any genes, but they are making the assumption that it's enough to get a valid result.
The biggest issue with PCR is that its original intent was to be a confirmatory test. Normally you would go to the doctor with symptoms. The doctor may then diagnosis you with something like SARS-COV2. If the doctor wants to confirm they may ask for a PCR test. If that's positive that would be a confirmatory test that confirms the doctor's original diagnosis. The big issue is that we have essentially tested every breathing thing regardless of symptom status. Therefore we bypassed the usual diagnostic procedure and are now using the confirmatory test as a diagnostic test. Pair that with the number of people who never show symptoms and we are bound to have a high number of false positives. The number of "asymptomatic" cases should have indicated something fishy was going on.
Exactly what blood tests will show whether or not one has had covid - or Sars Cov-2? (And why does autocorrect change "covid" to "cover" and Cov-2 to cop??)
So there are two main approaches to checking one's immunity; either through antibody measures or through T-cell measures, both of which should be expressed after an infection. In either case, someone has their blood taken and the red blood cells are spun out and the plasma is collected- this is the convalescent plasma you hear about.
In the case of antibody testing a person's plasma is then added to an assay bearing the target in question. In the case of SARS-COV2 antibodies it could be either the spike antigen or the nucleocapsid protein. The idea here is that someone who has immunity from prior infection or vaccination should have antibodies that bind to the spike or nucleocapsid. The assay usually provides a quantifiable measure for the number of antibodies. A big issue with this approach is that antibodies may not last forever. Antibodies are made to target an active infection and tend to remain for some time afterwards in case of any pathogen lingering. However, continuous production of antibodies is wasteful, and there's really no reason for the body to produce antibodies against a pathogen it does not see anymore. That's why the level of antibodies someone has tends to dissipate months after the infection or vaccination.
The other approach is to actually challenge the immune cells. Instead of collecting antibodies, T-cell assays measure the actual activity of T-cells against the antigen. It essentially measures whether our bodies have readily "memorized" the antigen and can launch an attack against the antigen. This assay may be more difficult because it requires that the T-cells be active, but it provides a much better examination into how our bodies would target a pathogen.
In general, antibody tests are the ones that have been conducted the most. If you ask for a test you are likely to get an antibody test. The big issue, like I have stated above, is that antibody response is not indicative of an actual immune response which you may get with a T-cell assay. However, just like with PCR tests, it's far easier to conduct antibody tests and so this is the go to which comes with many errors (always keep in mind the limitations of different testing procedures).
As for why autocorrect is behaving in such a manner, I would argue that tech is not always up to date on jargon if there are any concerns over something nefarious (although that doesn't mean something nefarious may not be afoot).
Thanks so much for such a detailed explanation. I've not been jabbed - decided when Krispy Kreme began offering daily donuts for proof of vaccination, something was truly rotten in the state of Denmark and that was way back in the beginning of the rush to jab everyone. Early this winter I did get sick - felt pretty miserable for about three days but obviously recovered. I guess I should've been tested then since I don't know for sure that I had Omicron - or some variant - but I'm pretty sure it was one of the many. I was just wondering how one could then prove immunity - if these mandates are ever put into force. Sigh. What a world!
Oh there was definitely something wrong when we began rewarding people with unhealthy food items. You'd think we would have known better! But anything to get people to follow a one-track approach to health.
You may have heard that if you donate blood they would actually be able to get for antibodies. Of course, it will only be an antibody test but it is one way of checking. One way they actually differentiated between someone who had natural immunity from someone who only had vaccine-induced immunity was to check for the presence of nucleocapsid antigens. So likely if you had natural immunity you would theoretically test positive for both spike and nucleocapsid.
But overall, the approach to looking at just antibodies glosses over the actual ability for the immune system to respond properly to a second infection which is why it's a bit frustrating that boosting measures have predominately been validated by only antibody assays and not immune cell assays.
Most men with prostate cancer take testosterone deprivation drugs which causes fatigue. As I understand, energy comes from our mitochondria, not testosterone. It has a role in reducing reactive oxidative species and free radicals. Testosterone deficiency apparently effects mitochondria performance and causes fatigue. What can be done to improve this efficiency and increase energy.
So quickly looking up a few papers it does seem that low testosterone has been implicated in mitochondrial dysfunction and may serve as a form of neuroprotection from oxidative damage through various pathways. so there may be a direct link to testosterone levels and mitochondrial function.
"Testosterone ameliorates age-related brain mitochondrial dysfunction"- this is apparently a study conducted in male rats:
"Testosterone Protects Mitochondrial Function and Regulates Neuroglobin Expression in Astrocytic Cells Exposed to Glucose Deprivation"- this was an in vitro assay, but it suggests that testosterone may reduce ROS and increase mitochondrial membrane potential:
As for treatment options I would argue that they still will be the same. If dietary and environmental causes can be ruled out then it may be appropriate to look into genetic dispositions for low testosterone which may be treatable with testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).
So I don't know much about the relationship between mitochondria or testosterone, however there's a lot of variables here that may be conflated with each other. What I would suspect is that the type of prostate cancer these men have may rely on a large uptake of testosterone, and thus depriving these cells of testosterone is important. This is actually a typical method with cancer and nucleoside analogues. The idea is that cancer cells require more nucleosides than other cells and thus will uptake more of the drug. However, other rapidly dividing cells may take up the nucleoside analogue as well and lead to cytotoxic damage. This is why people undergoing chemotherapy treatment tend to suffer from hair loss, brittle nails, bad skin, and gastrointestinal issues because these cells rapidly divide.
Put together it would make sense that depriving men of testosterone will lead to fatigue. In fact, there's a large argument to be made that we are suffering a large issue of hormonal imbalance in modern times such that many men have far less testosterone than they should.
Mitochondria certainly are the main producers of our energetic molecules, but we have to keep in mind that the cell responds to internal/external stimuli on a constant basis and there's a lot more going on than energy in/energy out when it comes to fatigue. Hormones affect so much of our biological activities because hormones dictate many of the activities in our cells. It's almost like a question of why a car doesn't run properly when the engine seems fine and there is gas in the tank- there's plenty of other things that may prevent the car from running.
Otherwise, if you have any evidence of testosterone on mitochondria performance I would like to see because that would be interesting to see a direct effect.
But how to deal with it would depend upon hormones and metabolic syndrome. People who are fatigued may just suffer from low testosterone and can get tested for that. The issue then is determining if diet or environmental issues may be causing lower testosterone. If not, replacement therapy may work for these people although they should consult their physician.
Considering that many people are suffering from metabolic disorders already an examination of diet may actually help as metabolic syndrome may affect how calories and food are metabolized and utilized.
So in short, I don't have any direct evidence of testosterone affecting mitochondria, but both hormonal and metabolic imbalances are likely to each independently affect fatigue and those should be examined first to understand if each may affect fatigue.
Apologies if this is more of a ramble, but I'll see if there's any direct relationship between testosterone and mitochondria.
I read about the death of Foo Fighters drummer this morning. The report in the Western Journal mentioned that he recently had chest pains. Another death that will be blamed on something else like a cracked skull or drug over dose. Family members need to start coming forward about this epidemic of Vax deaths. Actuaries don’t lie!! We just had a local family post on Next Door Neighborhood that their 39 year old son died. The father actually said there was more to the story but Next Door wouldn’t let him post it. Of course, Facebook owns NextDoor and the moderators really hold the line on the Narrative. We need a way to get this info out!
Oh wow, that's quite upsetting to hear. I will say that we cannot ascribe definitive conclusions as there are likely to be many confounding variables at play. However, if there is actually an autopsy that provides some information I think that would be vital to figuring out what happened. I've left that case report on the incidences of myocarditis in teenagers on the back burner since it requires a lot of research but I hope to revisit it soon. If there was any evidence of stress-induced myocarditis with evidence of catecholamines then that may provide more evidence of the root cause of the chest pains.
Shane Warne is another died from a heart attack but we aren’t getting any details on that. Being an Aussie he would have to have been “vaccinated” or he’d have been put under house arrest.
Today I watched a Dr. John Campbell video, on YouTube, where at 17:39 a lady from Australia delves into excess deaths in Australia. There’s no chance they’re down to covid so what can have caused significant extra deaths in 2021?
The ONLY real difference was vaccines and lockdown. That’s the elephant in the room. They can’t blame it on the virus, but no doubt because Campbell would be cancelled on YT, he made no comments on it.
He has gone to great lengths to support vaccinations but I do wonder just how genuine, rather than forced, his support really is.
Unfortunately many of the steps taking to improperly quell the virus had many of their own detriments. People got fatter, they did not exercise as much, and they likely ordered out a lot and ate plenty of processed foods, all leading to an overall reduced state of health. I think to really get to the bottom of it we would have to stratify data and see where the excess deaths are occurring. If lack of cancer screening is causing an uptick in undiagnosed cancer deaths, then maybe we can't blame the vaccines. But if we're seeing a lot of incidences of myocarditis, then we may, although very preliminarily, argue that the vaccines are playing a role.
For now it's not enough to know that excess deaths occurred, but to see what cause of deaths increased to cause the excess deaths.
As for the heart attacks, like I stated if we are seeing a lot of these stress-induced heart attacks then that may actually indicate something vaccine related. The catecholamine issue seems to indicate that the myocarditis that is occurring is unique to typical incidences of myocarditis. More information about what caused the heart attack and what damage was found will be important.
Yes, the point I was alluding to was that no matter which way you cut this, it's not the virus that caused the deaths. Whether it's the "vaccine" or the methods, ridiculous as they were, that were used to "contain" it, is really rather moot. And that includes the forced change of lifestyle, both mental and physical.
The simple fact is that the methods imposed on the population were the entire cause of excess deaths and support the view that all of the draconian measure taken were responsible for the deaths... not that anyone making those decisions is ever going to admit it, but at least in Australia it's going to be a lot harder to hide from it.
Oh yes, it is the irony that the procedures used to reduce the number of deaths caused by COVID ironically caused deaths of their own anyways. And it's something that was alluded to within The Great Barrington Declaration as well which is likely going to come to fruition as we get more information.
He was full of drugs I believe was reported.
Just want to say thank you for all the effort you put into your research and the resulting discussion you put out.
Thank you! It does mean a lot when I see people both enjoying and applying the information here. I hope that people learn to be more skeptical but also more informed individuals who know they are fully capable of doing their own research.
David Crowe of The Infectious Myth Podcast wrote in his paper on CV that the PCR test was only looking for three genes of the sequenced genome which amounts to about 1%. This seems ridiculously low. Has anyone seen any other figures of what is being tested for?
So I actually did some PCR testing and he's correct, depending on which kit you use. Most kits will at least test for the spike and the nucleocapsid gene. So it does seem low, but we have to remember that genomic testing is very expensive and time-consuming compared to PCR.
But most importantly the testing for 3 genes are intended to serve as an inclusive/exclusive test. The assumption here is that you choose a combination of genes that are unique to the tested virus that will exclude other viruses. For example, let's say that the nucleocapsid protein is shared with influenza. That means both SARS-COV2 and influenza should test positive for that gene. However, influenza doesn't have the spike gene. If that gene turns up positive you can both affirm that it is likely SARS-COV2 while also excluding that it is influenza. The only caveat would be if someone was co-infected with many viruses, in which case you may have more problems on your plate than the validity of a PCR test.
Now it may surprise people to find out the same thing actually happens with forensic testing for crime scenes. Forensic scientists are not testing for the whole genome but are testing for just a few genes. For example, let's say they're looking at 6 genes with 20 different allele variations. In order to get the unique genetic "fingerprint" you would do 20^6, or 20 million different combinations. This is what they use to argue the "the odds of finding someone with the same genes are 1 in a 20 million chance". They're hardly testing for any genes, but they are making the assumption that it's enough to get a valid result.
The biggest issue with PCR is that its original intent was to be a confirmatory test. Normally you would go to the doctor with symptoms. The doctor may then diagnosis you with something like SARS-COV2. If the doctor wants to confirm they may ask for a PCR test. If that's positive that would be a confirmatory test that confirms the doctor's original diagnosis. The big issue is that we have essentially tested every breathing thing regardless of symptom status. Therefore we bypassed the usual diagnostic procedure and are now using the confirmatory test as a diagnostic test. Pair that with the number of people who never show symptoms and we are bound to have a high number of false positives. The number of "asymptomatic" cases should have indicated something fishy was going on.
Exactly what blood tests will show whether or not one has had covid - or Sars Cov-2? (And why does autocorrect change "covid" to "cover" and Cov-2 to cop??)
So there are two main approaches to checking one's immunity; either through antibody measures or through T-cell measures, both of which should be expressed after an infection. In either case, someone has their blood taken and the red blood cells are spun out and the plasma is collected- this is the convalescent plasma you hear about.
In the case of antibody testing a person's plasma is then added to an assay bearing the target in question. In the case of SARS-COV2 antibodies it could be either the spike antigen or the nucleocapsid protein. The idea here is that someone who has immunity from prior infection or vaccination should have antibodies that bind to the spike or nucleocapsid. The assay usually provides a quantifiable measure for the number of antibodies. A big issue with this approach is that antibodies may not last forever. Antibodies are made to target an active infection and tend to remain for some time afterwards in case of any pathogen lingering. However, continuous production of antibodies is wasteful, and there's really no reason for the body to produce antibodies against a pathogen it does not see anymore. That's why the level of antibodies someone has tends to dissipate months after the infection or vaccination.
The other approach is to actually challenge the immune cells. Instead of collecting antibodies, T-cell assays measure the actual activity of T-cells against the antigen. It essentially measures whether our bodies have readily "memorized" the antigen and can launch an attack against the antigen. This assay may be more difficult because it requires that the T-cells be active, but it provides a much better examination into how our bodies would target a pathogen.
In general, antibody tests are the ones that have been conducted the most. If you ask for a test you are likely to get an antibody test. The big issue, like I have stated above, is that antibody response is not indicative of an actual immune response which you may get with a T-cell assay. However, just like with PCR tests, it's far easier to conduct antibody tests and so this is the go to which comes with many errors (always keep in mind the limitations of different testing procedures).
As for why autocorrect is behaving in such a manner, I would argue that tech is not always up to date on jargon if there are any concerns over something nefarious (although that doesn't mean something nefarious may not be afoot).
Thanks so much for such a detailed explanation. I've not been jabbed - decided when Krispy Kreme began offering daily donuts for proof of vaccination, something was truly rotten in the state of Denmark and that was way back in the beginning of the rush to jab everyone. Early this winter I did get sick - felt pretty miserable for about three days but obviously recovered. I guess I should've been tested then since I don't know for sure that I had Omicron - or some variant - but I'm pretty sure it was one of the many. I was just wondering how one could then prove immunity - if these mandates are ever put into force. Sigh. What a world!
Thanks again!!
Oh there was definitely something wrong when we began rewarding people with unhealthy food items. You'd think we would have known better! But anything to get people to follow a one-track approach to health.
You may have heard that if you donate blood they would actually be able to get for antibodies. Of course, it will only be an antibody test but it is one way of checking. One way they actually differentiated between someone who had natural immunity from someone who only had vaccine-induced immunity was to check for the presence of nucleocapsid antigens. So likely if you had natural immunity you would theoretically test positive for both spike and nucleocapsid.
But overall, the approach to looking at just antibodies glosses over the actual ability for the immune system to respond properly to a second infection which is why it's a bit frustrating that boosting measures have predominately been validated by only antibody assays and not immune cell assays.
Most men with prostate cancer take testosterone deprivation drugs which causes fatigue. As I understand, energy comes from our mitochondria, not testosterone. It has a role in reducing reactive oxidative species and free radicals. Testosterone deficiency apparently effects mitochondria performance and causes fatigue. What can be done to improve this efficiency and increase energy.
So quickly looking up a few papers it does seem that low testosterone has been implicated in mitochondrial dysfunction and may serve as a form of neuroprotection from oxidative damage through various pathways. so there may be a direct link to testosterone levels and mitochondrial function.
"Testosterone ameliorates age-related brain mitochondrial dysfunction"- this is apparently a study conducted in male rats:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8266321/
"Testosterone Protects Mitochondrial Function and Regulates Neuroglobin Expression in Astrocytic Cells Exposed to Glucose Deprivation"- this was an in vitro assay, but it suggests that testosterone may reduce ROS and increase mitochondrial membrane potential:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4921852/
As for treatment options I would argue that they still will be the same. If dietary and environmental causes can be ruled out then it may be appropriate to look into genetic dispositions for low testosterone which may be treatable with testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).
So I don't know much about the relationship between mitochondria or testosterone, however there's a lot of variables here that may be conflated with each other. What I would suspect is that the type of prostate cancer these men have may rely on a large uptake of testosterone, and thus depriving these cells of testosterone is important. This is actually a typical method with cancer and nucleoside analogues. The idea is that cancer cells require more nucleosides than other cells and thus will uptake more of the drug. However, other rapidly dividing cells may take up the nucleoside analogue as well and lead to cytotoxic damage. This is why people undergoing chemotherapy treatment tend to suffer from hair loss, brittle nails, bad skin, and gastrointestinal issues because these cells rapidly divide.
Put together it would make sense that depriving men of testosterone will lead to fatigue. In fact, there's a large argument to be made that we are suffering a large issue of hormonal imbalance in modern times such that many men have far less testosterone than they should.
Mitochondria certainly are the main producers of our energetic molecules, but we have to keep in mind that the cell responds to internal/external stimuli on a constant basis and there's a lot more going on than energy in/energy out when it comes to fatigue. Hormones affect so much of our biological activities because hormones dictate many of the activities in our cells. It's almost like a question of why a car doesn't run properly when the engine seems fine and there is gas in the tank- there's plenty of other things that may prevent the car from running.
Otherwise, if you have any evidence of testosterone on mitochondria performance I would like to see because that would be interesting to see a direct effect.
But how to deal with it would depend upon hormones and metabolic syndrome. People who are fatigued may just suffer from low testosterone and can get tested for that. The issue then is determining if diet or environmental issues may be causing lower testosterone. If not, replacement therapy may work for these people although they should consult their physician.
Considering that many people are suffering from metabolic disorders already an examination of diet may actually help as metabolic syndrome may affect how calories and food are metabolized and utilized.
So in short, I don't have any direct evidence of testosterone affecting mitochondria, but both hormonal and metabolic imbalances are likely to each independently affect fatigue and those should be examined first to understand if each may affect fatigue.
Apologies if this is more of a ramble, but I'll see if there's any direct relationship between testosterone and mitochondria.