Modern Discontent is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This is an addendum to yesterday’s post and the conclusions asserted there.
Yesterday I posted an analysis of Dr. Palmer’s take on the LNPs of the COVID vaccines, which are sentiments that several COVID vaccine skeptics have mimicked.
In doing such an assessment, I started off with the notion that these LNPs may not be so dangerous, and in fact may be a red herring for the actual adverse reactions of the spike protein and possibly the protein production process.
However, there quite a few erroneous missteps in my post. I may have appeared a bit dismissive in my assessment that “well, these things are safer than prior cationic lipids, so they may not be the most concerning feature here.” Whether or not that may be true, I used that to somewhat lead my assessment of the papers provided by Dr. Palmer1.
I even made an egregious bullet that considered the possible production of ROS as a “so what” phenomenon, even though that argument would be hypocritical to the ER Stress hypothesis I proposed a few months ago since the production of pro-inflammatory markers and ROS are likely to occur in that scenario as well. Either both may be worth considering in regards to adverse reactions, or both fall into the “so what” category, not either/or.
With that being said, I did want to correct a few arguments I made in that post after spending some time thinking about it. For one, the “so what” bullet should probably be disregarded. I even had trouble wondering if I should have included it in yesterday’s post but decided to do so anyways, even though my thoughts changed the more I examined it. Now, I’ve left it up for posterity’s sake with a note about that bullet being corrected.
I’ve also been stewing about the lipid controversy, and I’m starting to reexamine if I really believe them to just be a delivery mechanism or a possible bystander in the adverse event story. Further consideration has actually made me consider that these may actually be playing a bigger role than I may have first led on.
Not only may these LNPs be distributed to other parts of the body, but if both the cationic lipids and the spike protein are available to be produced there may be a serious concoction of toxicity occurring, all of which may be a lot more harmful than any one component alone. I’ll save this pontification for another post.
I’m wondering why I may have been so quick to be dismissive, but Brian Mowrey of Unglossed points it out succinctly in his post from Sunday about The Panera Kingdom Problem (which apparently isn’t about premade soup! Also, emphasis mine):
[Unglossed] Is an online journal which seeks, inter alia (among other junk), to skewer the simplistic, deceptive, and often cultish version of science propagated by Science Journalists and the mainstream media, which in the present era implies a frequent focus on SARS-CoV-2 and the injections against the same.
But I also take an adversarial approach to any memes within the counter-narrative that I find easy to debunk. The reason I attack these memes is because if they are not refuted by “our side,” they will instead be refuted by the MSM. Here I do not speak of any random creative theory, like 5G poisoning or what have you, but those which are purported to be supported by official research or statistics. These memes take over what is considered to be the most “high-credibility argument” against the MSM, pro-vaccine narrative. Even if they are actually comical junk science (OAS).
Our side’s investing of credibility in comical junk science (OAS) or easy-to-make misinterpretations (today’s subject) will restore the credibility of the MSM. It will, as I have warned before, “Make Fact Checking Accurate Again.” Unglossed opposes this.
I’ve been having many thoughts over the past few months about everything going on. I’ve been very critical to the nature of these lockdowns and these mass masking campaigns (although I will admit I was quite a late adopter), as well as the extensive push to get everyone vaccinated. To the latter point I have been heavily critical, so much so that I eventually left my job in the Fall of 2021 for not being vaccinated.
Because of that I don’t take too kindly to those who presume to state that I may be too overly cautious or hesitant in my assessments, or that I’m just following the talking points of mainstream media.
I also don’t take too kindly to being deceived, and it’s here where Brain’s point stands out the most.
Although much criticism can be levied at lockdown and vaccine proponents, I began to become more critical of COVID dissenters, for the fact that many ideas circulating may either seem unfounded or not based in science. I felt that many people were coming to unwarranted conclusions based on complete misreadings of studies rather than attempt to understand the research themselves.
All of this would eventually come to a head with Dr. Ardis’ snake venom theory. I was not kind in my disagreement- I made two posts highly critical of Dr. Ardis’ claims- for the mere fact that nearly all of his claims would have been debunked by just a basic reading of science.
But instead of seeing widespread pushback, we instead saw giant support from many groups who likely should have known better than to take his words at face value. It became even more disheartening to see so many COVID dissenters pay lip service to his idea and not shutting it down immediately when it became known.
“Our side” prides itself in being critical thinkers, yet we are just as fallible and likely to fall victim to the cult of personality as our detractors.
We do ourselves no favors when we let bad ideas slide for the mere fact that these people may be “on our side”. If anything, we should be far more critical of those we agree with in order to let good ideas flourish.
I was locked out of my Twitter account for 24 hours for posting my 2nd criticism of Dr. Ardis’ claims for violating Twitter’s TOS on “COVID misinformation”, which suggests that people high up in Twitter were made aware of Dr. Ardis in some regard.
As Brian put it in the above excerpt, this [unfounded claims] just provides leverage to the mainstream talking heads to criticize dissenters of the narrative at play. Stephanie Brail of Wholistic even mentioned in one of her posts2 that many articles have already come out attaching dissenters to Dr. Ardis’ claims, so we know that they’ve latched on to this idea.
So how does this all play out within the LNP business? When I first saw Dr. Rose’s article on the SM-102 issue I didn’t pay much mind to it at the time, although I felt the hysteria revolving around people’s reading of her post did not seem warranted.
However, I kept thinking about that post every now and then, and eventually decided to look up the SDS for myself, only to find out that it was very likely all of this was a possible nothingburger- that the whole thing could have just come down to a company scrapping together a nonsensical SDS over a solvent change. As Clarisse has pointed out in the comments, this happens quite often and scientists may actually need to correct chemical manufacturers on their incorrect SDS.
I suppose that seeing so many people clasping onto the SM-102 carcinogenic story without giving so much as a though to other possibilities clouded my judgement in these LNPs- if people were so quick to wind themselves up into a frenzy over such a minor error, how likely is it that these LNPs are actually a nonissue?
Of course, that’s no way to assess or debunk information. It provides far too much bias and clouds judgement to ideas that may actually be true. It’s essentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
All of this to say that my assessment of these LNPs may have been clouded by biases and reflexive disagreeableness, and that there actually may be more to the story than I presented. Essentially, the LNPs may be more than just red herrings, and may actually be important for the actual adverse reactions occurring.
There’s plenty we don’t know about these LNPs, and therefore it warrants more hesitation in asserting their relatively safe profile- the literature isn’t quite robust in either regard.
Apologies for my rush to judgement, and if anyone has any questions or comments please leave them below. Also, apologies if this just seems more like spam than an actual post. If that’s the case, disregard this and wait for a post tomorrow where I try to piece things together and assess the role of these LNPs.
I’ll also save my assessment of a post on the “highly inflammable” nature of these LNPs for tomorrow as well.
With that being said, take a moment to watch this segment from the recent Darkhorse Podcast and why we should be getting outside a lot more than we are currently. If not for Vitamin D, there may be other reasons to be spending more time outdoors (video already timestamped).
I should actually clarify and state that Dr. Palmer never included these papers himself, but that they have been included in postings of the video I provided in the previous article.
Apologies, Stephanie! I don’t remember which post you made that comment in. I just remember you mentioning it!