The Covid ‘jab’: “We made a big mistake. The spike protein itself is a toxin.”

The statement

(This time I am providing more than a short statement, in the hope that it will be read in its entirety. See below for source acknowledgment.)

‘We Made a Big Mistake’ — COVID Vaccine Spike Protein Travels From Injection Site, Can Cause Organ Damage

Research obtained by a group of scientists shows the COVID vaccine spike protein can travel from the injection site and accumulate in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.

COVID vaccine researchers had previously assumed mRNA COVID vaccines would behave like traditional vaccines. The vaccine’s spike protein — responsible for infection and its most severe symptoms — would remain mostly in the injection site at the shoulder muscle or local lymph nodes.

But new research obtained by a group of scientists contradicts that theory, a Canadian cancer vaccine researcher said last week.

“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” said Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”

Bridle, who was awarded a $230,000 grant by the Canadian government last year for research on COVID vaccine development, said he and a group of international scientists filed a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency to get access to Pfizer’s “biodistribution study.”

Biodistribution studies are used to determine where an injected compound travels in the body, and which tissues or organs it accumulates in.

“It’s the first time ever scientists have been privy to seeing where these messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination,” Bridle said in an interview with Alex Pierson where he first disclosed the data. “Is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is: absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting.”

The Sars-CoV-2 has a spike protein on its surface. That spike protein is what allows it to infect our bodies, Bridle explained. “That is why we have been using the spike protein in our vaccines,” Bridle said. “The vaccines we’re using get the cells in our bodies to manufacture that protein. If we can mount an immune response against that protein, in theory we could prevent this virus from infecting the body. That is the theory behind the vaccine.”

“However, when studying the severe COVID-19, […] heart problems, lots of problems with the cardiovascular system, bleeding and clotting, are all associated with COVID-19,”  he added. “In doing that research, what has been discovered by the scientific community, the spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.”

When the purified spike protein is injected into the blood of research animals, they experience damage to the cardiovascular system and the protein can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain, Bridle explained.

The biodistribution study obtained by Bridle shows the COVID spike protein gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination and then accumulates in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.

“We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein, Bridle said. “It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation.”

A large number of studies have shown the most severe effects of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, such as blood clotting and bleeding, are due to the effects of the spike protein of the virus itself.

A recent study in Clinical and Infectious Diseases led by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School measured longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 recipients of the Moderna vaccine 1 and 29 days after the first dose and 1-28 days after the second dose.

Out of these individuals, 11 had detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein in blood plasma as early as one day after the first vaccine dose, including three who had detectable levels of spike protein. A “subunit” protein called S1, part of the spike protein, was also detected. 

Spike protein was detected an average of 15 days after the first injection, and one patient had spike protein detectable on day 29 –– one day after a second vaccine dose –– which disappeared two days later.

The results showed S1 antigen production after the initial vaccination can be detected by day one and is present beyond the injection site and the associated regional lymph nodes.

Assuming an average adult blood volume of approximately 5 liters, this corresponds to peak levels of approximately 0.3 micrograms of circulating free antigen for a vaccine designed only to express membrane-anchored antigen.

In a study published in Nature Neuroscience, lab animals injected with purified spike protein into their bloodstream developed cardiovascular problems. The spike protein also crossed the blood-brain barrier and caused damage to the brain.

It was a grave mistake to believe the spike protein would not escape into the blood circulation, according to Bridle. “Now, we have clear-cut evidence that the vaccines that make the cells in our deltoid muscles manufacture this protein — that the vaccine itself, plus the protein — gets into blood circulation,” he said.

Bridle said the scientific community has discovered the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.

Once in circulation, the spike protein can attach to specific ACE2 receptors that are on blood platelets and the cells that line blood vessels, Bridle said. “When that happens it can do one of two things. It can either cause platelets to clump, and that can lead to clotting — that’s exactly why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with these vaccines. It can also lead to bleeding,” he added.

Both clotting and bleeding are associated with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Bridle also said the spike protein in circulation would explain recently reported heart problems in vaccinated teens.

Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is now clear vaccine content is being delivered to the spleen and the glands, including the ovaries and the adrenal glands, and is being shed into the medium and then eventually reaches the bloodstream causing systemic damage.

“ACE2 receptors are common in the heart and brain,” she added. “And this is how the spike protein causes cardiovascular and cognitive problems.”

Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways not assessed in safety trials.

In a public submission, Whelan sought to alert the FDA to the potential for vaccines designed to create immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to instead cause injuries.

Whelan was concerned the mRNA vaccine technology utilized by Pfizer and Moderna had “the potential to cause microvascular injury (inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi) to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”

The source

Dr Byram Bridle, Associate Professor of Viral Immunology, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

as quoted by Megan Redshaw in The Defender, 3 June 2023

( https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-spike-protein-travels-from-injection-site-organ-damage/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=9b0b9b9c-6cf1-4252-b15f-4b5da9fb8e42 )

For original interview with Professor Bridle, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sis1Sddzbqk .

My take on it

The more we learn, the uglier this story gets.

And we the public learn about the ‘biodistribution’ of this widely promoted and yet life-threatening injection only because of expert enquiry to a foreign country (ie Japan), not through timely disclosure by the manufacturer.

The pretext for the ‘jab’ is to alleviate symptoms (not to stop infection or transmission).  If you think about it, masking symptoms makes as much sense as removing the battery from a smoke detector.  In the vast majority of cases*, infection is asymptomatic anyway;  and in the very few cases* where symptoms are present and significant, they serve (in the hands of a qualified medical practitioner) to assist diagnosis and treatment.

In the past, much of the resistance to vaccines has been due to the inclusion of particular ingredients, including heavy metals, synthetic substances such as hydrogel, and foreign genetic material.  If Professor Bridle and the other researchers that he cites are correct, we are now dealing with something far worse – an injected toxin replicating at the cellular level and circulating throughout the body, including across the blood:brain barrier.

Early on in life, we learn that people make mistakes.  The sooner we admit them, the less damage is done.

What do you expect will happen next?

* The term ‘case’ has a specific meaning in medicine.  The administration of a PCR test and a so-called ‘positive’ result, do not meet that criterion, as has been determined by eg the Lisbon Court of Appeal. (See my earlier post on this.)

The jab? 18 reasons to say No.

The statement

“A few friends have asked my thoughts on the covid jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic.

All my friends had not heard most of the details I shared, so I figured you might appreciate hearing some of what I told them.

Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else, but I feel like the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.

As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and non-hysterical.

I’m not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I’ve read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can’t make sense of these covid vaccines.

I don’t know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below.

So here are the reasons I’m opting out of the covid vaccine.”

The source

Christian Elliott, on 6 April 2021 (https://www.deconstructingconventional.com/post/18-reason-i-won-t-be-getting-a-covid-vaccine ) Christian is a self-described ‘natural health nerd, a husband and father of five young kids’. And a professional question-asker.

My take on it

As to the intro, I couldn’t have put it better myself.

As to the reasons, there they are, set out conveniently for you to consider.

After I read this article I was pointed to another – with even more reasons.

How many do you need?

Might mRNA ‘vaccines’ actually cause cancer ?

 

 

The statement

‘There’s a secret layer of information in your cells called messenger RNA, that’s located between DNA and proteins, that serves as a critical link. Now, in a medical shocker to the whole world of vaccine philosophy, scientists at Sloan Kettering found that mRNA itself carries cancer CAUSING changes – changes that genetic tests don’t even analyze, flying completely under the radar of oncologists across the globe.

So now, it’s time for independent laboratories that are not vaccine manufacturers (or hired by them) to run diagnostic testing on the Covid vaccine series and find out if these are cancer-driving inoculations that, once the series is complete, will cause cancer tumors in the vaccinated masses who have all rushed out to get the jab out of fear and propaganda influence. Welcome to the world of experimental and dirty vaccines known as mRNA “technology.”

The source

Derek Knauss, on the Prepareforchange.net  website, on March 31st, 2021

               ( https://prepareforchange.net/2021/03/31/scientists-at-sloan-kettering-discover-mrna-inactivates-tumor-suppressing-proteins-meaning-it-can-promote-cancer/

The original research article on which it was apparently based, “Widespread intronic polyadenylation inactivates tumor suppressor genes in leukemia”, was published in Nature in August 2018. 

 

My take on it

First, some definitions:

What is an intron?

Introns are noncoding sections of an RNA transcript, or the DNA encoding it, that are spliced out before the RNA molecule is translated into a protein. The sections of DNA (or RNA) that code for proteins are called exons. Following transcription, new, immature strands of messenger RNA, called pre-mRNA, may contain both introns and exons. The pre-mRNA molecule thus goes through a modification process in the nucleus called splicing during which the noncoding introns are cut out and only the coding exons remain. Splicing produces a mature messenger RNA molecule that is then translated into a protein. Introns are also referred to as intervening sequences.

What is polyadenylation?

Polyadenylation is part of the process that produces mature mRNA for translation. In particular it is the addition of a poly(A) tail to an RNA transcript, typically a messenger RNA (mRNA).  The poly(A) tail is important for the nuclear export, translation and stability of mRNA.

So intronic polyadenylation is a naturally occurring part of the process of replicating DNA via mRNA in the cell nucleus. Indeed it is widespread:

               ‘mRNA polyadenylation and pre-mRNA splicing are two essential steps for the maturation of most human mRNAs.’


With that introduction, here is the abstract from the research paper in Nature, with some emphases added by myself:

‘DNA mutations are known cancer drivers. Here we investigated whether mRNA events that are upregulated in cancer can functionally mimic the outcome of genetic alterations. RNA sequencing or 3′-end sequencing techniques were applied to normal and malignant B cells from 59 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL)1,2,3. We discovered widespread upregulation of truncated mRNAs and proteins in primary CLL cells that were not generated by genetic alterations but instead occurred by intronic polyadenylation. Truncated mRNAs caused by intronic polyadenylation were recurrent (n = 330) and predominantly affected genes with tumour-suppressive functions. The truncated proteins generated by intronic polyadenylation often lack the tumour-suppressive functions of the corresponding full-length proteins (such as DICER and FOXN3), and several even acted in an oncogenic (cancer-causing, AD) manner (such as CARD11, MGA and CHST11). In CLL, the inactivation of tumour-suppressor genes by aberrant mRNA processing is substantially more prevalent than the functional loss of such genes through genetic events. We further identified new candidate tumour-suppressor genes that are inactivated by intronic polyadenylation in leukaemia and by truncating DNA mutations in solid tumours4,5. These genes are understudied in cancer, as their overall mutation rates are lower than those of well-known tumour-suppressor genes. Our findings show the need to go beyond genomic analyses in cancer diagnostics, as mRNA events that are silent at the DNA level are widespread contributors to cancer pathogenesis through the inactivation of tumour-suppressor genes.

 

I am not a doctor, let alone an oncologist. I have endeavoured to unpack the academic presentation so that you can have a clearer understanding of what the researchers discovered.

In brief, research focus has been on DNA, but some concerning events are happening routinely at the mRNA level that are not visible at the DNA level. Theses events include both the suppression of naturally-occurring tumour suppression mechanisms, and the promotion of cancer-generating mechanisms.

For a scientist it is a logical extension of this finding to ask what would happen to foreign mRNA that is injected into our bodies and is designed to find its way into our cells. Would it reduce our natural resistance to cancer? Might it even promote the onset of cancer?

In my mind it is just one more reason to decline what I believe to be an unnecessary and unsafe injection.

mRNA ‘vaccine’? Yes, it’s a clinical trial

The statement

“A Study to Determine the Safety and Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine CVnCoV in Adults for COVID-19”


The source

The (NIH) US National Library of Medicine Clinical Studies web site

( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04652102 )

 

My take on it

Clinical trials, including this one, require informed consent. The challenge is that there are widely differing views as to the nature, safety and prospectivity of these treatments. What then constitutes informed consent?

(I use the term ‘treatments’ advisedly. These mRNA ‘vaccines’ do not match the conventional nature and definition of a vaccine (see eg the CDC’s own web site) and they are described by some experts as more in the nature of gene therapy.

According to the CDC, ‘mRNA vaccines have been held to the same rigorous safety and effectiveness standards as all other types of vaccines in the United States. The only COVID-19 vaccines the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will make available for use in the United States (by approval or emergency use authorization) are those that meet these standards.’

Is this not a circular claim? The purpose of the study is ‘to Determine the Safety and Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine’. These mRNA vaccines are indeed being made available for use in the United States, by emergency use authorisation; prior to them being proven safe or effective.

The web site contains its own caution: “The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating.” 

If ever there was a case to do your own research, this is one.