Given my past medical history, I tend to be incredibly circumspect when it comes to taking any kind of pharmaceutical products, especially anything new or novel. I also don’t unquestionably accept the opinions of so-called “experts” without doing my own research and due diligence.
This skepticism started when I was eighteen, when I was prescribed drugs that would have made a misdiagnosed acute condition chronic and debilitating. I refused to accept that misdiagnosis. Had I accepted that “expert” medical opinion of several doctors back then, I’d now either be dead or severely incapacitated. About ten years later, in my late twenties, I was prescribed another drug that relaxed my throat exacerbating my yet to be diagnosed apnea. The highly degreed doctor, who prescribed this drug, upped the dosage of this drug when I complained I couldn’t sleep. Due to the lack of sleep and oxygen, this drug made me borderline psychotic. On the advice of a friend (a post-graduate fellow at John Hopkins at that time), I went another route and changed doctors.
Shortly thereafter, a sleep study revealed a severe sleep apnea and other sleep disorders. After three surgeries on my nose and throat, I started taking another drug, well until seven years later when that drug was determined to cause heart valve leaks. After that I started taking yet another drug to sleep. Though a few years later, simply changing my diet made any drugs completely unnecessary. Well, all those surgeries, plus another when I was younger, really didn’t address the underlying problem. Only very recently, many years later, has the root problem been addressed. Though the care I’ve received isn’t the “standard” of care, so it’s not covered by insurance. I’ve had to pay (a lot) for it out of pocket.
My bad hip was also misdiagnosed by three highly credentialed orthopedic surgeons. After ten years of misdiagnosed and intense pain, via Dr. Google, I figured out for myself that I had a torn labrum. Thankfully, the fourth orthopedic surgeon, a hip specialist figured out my additional impingement issues after just five minutes looking at an X-ray. He determined what the three previous “experts” couldn’t figure out looking at a wide array of CT-Scans and MRI’s.
Needless to say, I’m more a fan of functional medicine that looks for root causes than I am of lot of allopathic medicine that treats symptoms often with prescriptions. Root causes can include dietary choices, which is what we choose to eat or not eat, mineral or vitamin deficiencies, sleep, stress, environmental toxins, breathing, etc. If you address and correct the root cause, you reduce the need for pharmaceutical palliatives and solutions that may have unforeseen downsides.
This has shaped my attitude toward C-19. This virus doesn’t impact people equally. Vitamin D, zinc, and other mineral deficiencies reduce the efficiency of one’s immune response. So does obesity, high blood sugar, and inflammation. So my immediate response was to get healthier by losing weight, improving my vitamin D status, lowering my blood sugar, and reducing my inflammation. Sadly, the CDC and other similar institutions never made improving one’s health status a priority. If they had, many lives would have been saved.
I’m also very particular about what I eat, drink and expose myself to. For example, I filter all my drinking and bathing water. I don’t knowingly eat any foods that contain mutagenic or transgenic ingredients. I don’t knowingly eat any cheese with microbial enzymes. I source meat and produce from specific ranches and farms. I also take very few pharmaceuticals. I don’t even like taking aspirin or Tylenol. I’ve had two surgeries this year, and didn’t take any of the pain killers I was prescribed. I’m not “anti” pharmaceuticals. I just don’t take them unless they’re absolutely necessary. I’d rather address the underlying cause.
I’m also not “anti” vaccines. I recognize there are different viruses and different types of vaccines. So generating an immune response for a viral disease from a weakened or attenuated version of a virus, I’m fine with especially for highly contagious or deadly viruses that pose a significant risk to me or that easily shed. I’m also fine with protein sub-unit vaccines that present a portion of the virus to trigger an immune response. This is the vast vast majority of current vaccines. I question influenza vaccines because they’re not very efficacious. Plus one can reduce one’s risk of influenza also by optimizing one’s immune system.
With any virus and vaccine, you have to look at the risk of infection versus the risk and benefit of vaccination in YOUR SPECIFIC SUB-GROUP. With prior viruses and vaccines, there’s a pretty long track record. Though with C-19 and viral vector and mRNA vaccines, that’s an entirely different story.
You also have to understand transmission, so you don’t infect anyone else. What’s been perplexing to me, this entire time, is how clueless most people WEARING the wrong types of masks are about transmission. As I’ve noted previously in this blog post most mask wearing is superfluous, and gives people a false sense of protection.
If you’re not wearing a N95 or KF94 mask inside to protect against aerosols, you’re really just deluding yourself into believing that your cloth, surgical, gator, bandanna or whatever is actually doing much to protect you. It isn’t and never has.
Regardless, looking at my own risk of infection versus risk and benefit from vaccination with mRNA vaccines, I’m still inclined to wait until Novavax’s protein sub-unit vaccine becomes available. I don’t and never have felt that threatened given my age, race, and lifestyle. And at that time, if I chose to get vaccinated, it will mainly be able to travel without hassles. Furthermore, for the foreseeable future, whether Novavax vaccinated or not, I will avoid crowded indoor spots, and wear a KF94 mask indoors. So no dining inside restaurants for a while where masks need to be removed to eat. Come this winter, when the virus is more prevalent again, we’ll really see how efficient in the real world high trial efficacies are in less idealized unmasked interior environments.
Now, the more and more I learn about the mRNA vaccines, the more hesitant I am about them. Sure the mRNA platform had been in development for a while, but most of the prior research by Pfizer’s mRNA partner Biotech was done for personalized targeted cancer treatments with terminal cancer patients and not in large numbers. So to go from 400 to 500 terminal cancer patients to over a billion people is quite a jump in terms of application. Moderna’s prior work was marked by more failures than successes. So the reality is that such vaccines had never been used before so there was no precedent for their use. Therefore any claims about the long term safety of these vaccines is UNKNOWN. On top of that, short term are the super high number of adverse events (ADR’s) in WHO’s VigiAccess database especially when compared to other more conventional vaccines. Same problem with the CDC’s V-A-R-E-S database. Somehow the media has normalized these absurdly high numbers and others have justified the numbers based on their fears. Again, I’ve never been that fearful. I tend to focus on data and numbers, and as I’ve previously noted, both case and death numbers appear to be manipulated.
• RT-PCR’s, cycle thresholds, and viral DNA
• Deaths WITH or DUE to C-19?
Regardless.my initial concern was about reverse transcription. The immediate response to that concern, which I read and heard, was that only retroviruses could reverse transcribe or you had to have an HIV infection to reverse transcribe. This thinking goes that without the presence of these retroviruses, there isn’t the reverse transcriptase [RT] and RNAse H needed for reverse transcription. Well, that’s not exactly true. Genomes in cells contain remnants of retro viruses incorporated into our genetic material. These include retro-elements and active long interspersed nuclear element (LINE-1) retrotransposons that can provide RT and RNAse H. Though the real question is whether or not LINE-1 retrotransposons can provide enough RT and RNAse H for reverse transcription. The answer appears not likely, but not entirely impossible. So, for now, no one knows absolutely for sure.
But that’s no longer my primary concern …or open question. More recently I read these two papers and this article about issues with the C-19 spike protein:
• SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2
These papers and article basically show that the spike protein on its own can cause damage to the endothelial lining of cells after attaching to ACE-2 receptor sites even without injecting any viral RNA into a cell. Now in theory a vaccine that makes spike protein shouldn’t be a problem since the way the vaccines are supposed to work as described in this video https://youtu.be/9EfToFXwx98 is the vaccines supposedly shred the spike proteins and present those fragments on the surface of the cell as antigens to attract a response from B-cells to create antibodies. Thus the spike proteins aren’t supposed to be released into the blood stream, unless a cell is killed before the spike proteins are shredded. In that case, the released spike protein are supposed to be of insufficient quantity to do endothelial damage of enough degree to cause thrombosis.
The only problem with this design is that according to this study just below, the spike proteins appear to get cleaved from the surface of the cells and have been found circulating around the body in the blood stream.
Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients
The even bigger issue is (that per an internal Pfizer paper containing a biodistribution test obtained by a group of Canadian doctors via the freedom of information act) the LNP with the mRNA doesn’t stay at the injection site. This was assumed because that’s what other vaccines do. Here’s that report in Japanese: Pfizer report Japanese government I translated it so I could read it for myself. The study had two parts. They traced what happened to the two types of lipids used in the LNP (lipid nanoparticle) and they also traced where the Bnt162b2-enclosed LNP went by using either luciferase or radioactive lipids. This was tested in mice. They found wide distribution after forty eight hours of the enclosed LNP all over the body including in bone marrow, the spleen, and in female mice the ovaries.
Now here’s the potential problem with all of this. If the LNP gets into the blood stream and the LNP bonds to a variety of different cell types, then two things can possibly go wrong. First those liver, ovary, spleen, etc cells may present manufactured spike proteins on their surfaces and get subjected to being attacked and destroyed by the immune system. Or, those mRNA transcribed spike proteins that present on the surface of the various different types of cells may get cleaved, attach to various ACE2 sites and damage the endothelial lining of other cells nearby.
These and some other possibilities are discussed in the below video clip. The man on the left with a white shirt is a virologist Dr. Robert Malone, who is a consultant and has previously worked in many institutions including the Salk Institute where he obtained patents for mRNA and other things. Something Malone says is especially disconcerting, and that’s the reactivation of latent human retroviruses. And that goes back to my initial concern about LINE-1 retrotransposons, since this would make reverse transcription of the mRNA into the DNA more likely. If this occurs, then potentially your cells get turned into ongoing spike protein factories, which given the problems with spike noted above is very disconcerting.
<iframe id=”lbry-iframe” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://odysee.com/$/embed/pfizer-data-reveal-where-do-the-lipid/c6d328cf1dda81aa38eb386a4a6737766e73d508?” allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here too is an article that discusses the biodistribution tests I previously just mentioned: Did Pfizer Fail to Perform industry Standard Animal Testing Prior to Initiation of mRNA Clinical Trials?
Normally DNA transcribes to mRNA and mRNA is then translated to a protein….in this case for C-19’s mRNA vax…spike protein. This occurs in the cytoplasm of the cell with a ribosome after the LNP fuses to the cell and injects its mRNA. No genetic material ever enters into the nucleus of the cell. However what occurs with reverse transcription is the mRNA in the cell cytoplasm uses reverse transcriptase and RNAse in a retrotransposon to convert the RNA back to DNA that ends back up in the genome of the cell.
If that all sounds a bit confusing, find sometime to watch this lecture below on reverse transcription from Columbia University. The lecturer was a grad fellow in the lab that discovered reverse transcriptase. In this video he sort of shoot downs my initial concerns claiming there isn’t enough RT or RNAse H from the LINE-1 retrotransposons. But he really can’t say that with absolute certainty.
The bottom line is that I’m still in no hurry to get a mRNA vaccine. I can wait a few years to see how this grand experiment works out. I finally have addressed health issues I’ve had for multiple decades, so I’m in no hurry potentially for new ones.
As for the Novavax vaccine, it too uses spike protein to get an antigen response. But it’s a finite amount made in a lab. Plus it’s a small amount boosted by an adjuvant derived from tree bark. So there’s no internal manufacturing of larger amounts of spike protein in different cells in different parts of the body.
##
beyondspin 