Key animal tests and biodistribution tests were not done as there is no agreed standard for them as yet for gene editing or gene replacement therapies - which mRNA injections are:
Key animal tests and biodistribution tests were not done as there is no agreed standard for them as yet for gene editing or gene replacement therapies - which mRNA injections are:
All of which are being ignored for covid vaccines.
Section 1.1 states:
"1.1 Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) In the pre-approval clinical experience with a new medicinal product or its new usages, particularly as the therapeutic dose(s) may not be established: all noxious and unintended responses to a medicinal product related to any dose should be considered adverse drug reactions (my highlighting) . The phrase responses to a medicinal product means that a causal relationship between a medicinal product and an adverse event is at least a reasonable possibility, i.e., the relationship cannot be ruled out (my highlighting). Regarding marketed medicinal products: a response to a drug which is noxious and unintended and which occurs at doses normally used in man for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of diseases or for modification of physiological function (see the ICH Guideline for Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting).”
So in other words - with experimental medicines err on the side of caution and assume the problem was caused by the drug unless or until proven otherwise.
MHRA and other regulators are not doing this but the complete opposite.
Why?
Then there is this, the ICH have been trying to agree trials standards (since mid-2021) for gene therapies:
So no agreed requirement on what biodistribution studies are required for gene therapies, which the Pfizer and other mRNA jabs and treatments are, so that is why in the EMA’s public assessment report it states “not required” or something similar.
Thank you. I am going to pin this comment. I didn't go into most of this in the article because there wasn't space to but this tells an important part of the story.
Apparently they rewrote this for the official C19 script… ppl are STILL being gaslighted by medical staff (I’m not calling them professionals anymore) when they are highlighting the fact that this new symptom/s started after something foreign was injected in to me. “Nope! Couldn’t be that! You have anxiety!” Infuriating.
I remember reading a book by Dr Coleman, where he went on vacation and forgot his aspirin, which he took for a certain condition. He bought it there and the day after did not feel well. His wife pointed at the foreign aspirin, but at fist he dismissed it, then read the package and sure enough, there it was, something he had an allergic reaction to. His advice, if you take a new med, always be aware of your body to detect if the med goes well with you.
That what was stated on teh Pfizer website I saw in early 2020 with a natty little video they had on how mRNA jabs work - they cut the cell's DNA, removes the "faulty" piece, what is injected into you then adds itself to where the cut is then rejoins the DNA into a strand again.
Sounds like gene replacement or gene editing to me.
Well you're misunderstanding the details, but that's okay. Most people don't have a background in genetics and cell biology.
I try to help explain the technology, to help generate resistance to it. But it's probably more useful to talk to people about the corrupt politics and greed of the gene jabbers.
The important thing is to not let them impose a future of forced gene jabs on us and our children.
Hi doctor, based on your knowledge, what is the total number of lipid nanoparticles there could be inside each shot of the Pfizer/Moderna MRNA shots that is 0.3ml per vial if I remember correctly? Could there be trillions or only billions? What percentage of cells in the body could have been altered after 2 doses of the jab, could it be more than 50% total cells in the body? Are there really any organs and tissues left in the body that are consider less affected and penetrated by the nanoparticles, which the majority of cells there are still unaltered? According to your understanding, how many lipid nanoparticles can a single somatic cell uptake at once, if the diameter of the LNP is 50~100nm?
This is an important question and afaict, "we don't know".
A quick search of a different modRNA transient transfection product shows they got 20% transfection in a saturated in-vitro medium. 50% of all our cells transfected is unlikely even if every cell were exposed to modRNA.
Now if what I understand is true:
A pfizer (etc) transfected cell which produces spike protein is killed by our immune system.
A percentage of transfection in the double digits would kill everyone who got it.
If one of the hypotheses for these massive clots is true (dead blood vessel lining cells transfected and killed), we'd be looking at maybe 100 grams out of 80kg, so *on the order of* 0.125% of human body transfected.
That's the only tentative estimate I have and it's not worth much, except to put 50%+ in question.
Thank you for the reply and the information. I heard that the LNP were originally invented to help drugs across the blood brain barrier, so the people who made the jabs definitely did not expect them to only stay inside the injection site. Also they can literally carry anything inside not just MRNA or spike proteins. I also read that the nanoparticles mainly circulates over blood flow and bodily fluid to spread in the body, so could avascular tissues and organs be safer from the nanoparticles? Like skin epidermis and eye lens capsule, would they be the least impacted place after injection?
Are we able to measure the number of the lipid nanoparticles in each shot based on its volume and weight, if we can get a vax vial from Pfizer/Moderna?
The only data we have for the lnp distribution is the Japanese study, but it still doesn't show the percentage of cells that are transfected in those organs and tissues. Also I don't think they have disclosed the full genetic code for the mrna either
Yes, and I also read somewhere that Pfizer was directly questioned on the total amount of transfected cells expressing spike. The response was words to the effect of, 'We don't know, we set the titre based on estimates and prevalence of adverse events'.
But "TRUST THE SCIENCE!" What science? "We don't know what your effective dose will be" isn't science.
Here are the table for the Japanese data(I know this article is big pharma shill, but can't find a better link for the whole document). What does the μg lipid equivalent /g or ml mean on the top of the table? Like for the injection site after 1 hour, does it mean there are 394 μg of lnp in every 1 g of the tissues there?
I don't know what relationship 'lipid equivalent' has to 'lipid'.
But yes you read it correctly. μg is 1 millionth of a gram. So most measured concentrations were around a few tenths of a millionth by weight or volume.
From the table, most concentrations seem to peak around 2 hours. Interesting exception is in the Eyes where it keeps growing to 48h. It seems oddly persistent in Lungs as well.
Come to think of it, i'm not sure I want to know how they measured concentrations of LNP in someone's eye >_<
But measured levels in organs in the chart are on the order of 1/thousandth of that, all except levels in the injection site. E.g. 0.349 is 1000 times less than 349.
Key animal tests and biodistribution tests were not done as there is no agreed standard for them as yet for gene editing or gene replacement therapies - which mRNA injections are:
https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/why-no-meaningful-biodistribution
On here is listed those organisations who agree to follow the guidelines on drug trails:
https://www.ich.org/page/members-observers
https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are on the list.
There also a lot of in-depth documents on how to run trials:
https://www.ich.org/page/search-index-ich-guidelines
All of which are being ignored for covid vaccines.
Section 1.1 states:
"1.1 Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) In the pre-approval clinical experience with a new medicinal product or its new usages, particularly as the therapeutic dose(s) may not be established: all noxious and unintended responses to a medicinal product related to any dose should be considered adverse drug reactions (my highlighting) . The phrase responses to a medicinal product means that a causal relationship between a medicinal product and an adverse event is at least a reasonable possibility, i.e., the relationship cannot be ruled out (my highlighting). Regarding marketed medicinal products: a response to a drug which is noxious and unintended and which occurs at doses normally used in man for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of diseases or for modification of physiological function (see the ICH Guideline for Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting).”
So in other words - with experimental medicines err on the side of caution and assume the problem was caused by the drug unless or until proven otherwise.
MHRA and other regulators are not doing this but the complete opposite.
Why?
Then there is this, the ICH have been trying to agree trials standards (since mid-2021) for gene therapies:
https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/S12_Step2_Presentation_2021_0618_0.pdf
https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/S12_FinalConceptPaper_2019_1118.pdf
Which is part of following on from this in 2018:
https://www.iprp.global/working-group/gene-therapy
And 2015:
https://admin.iprp.global/sites/default/files/2018-09/IPRF_Gene_Therapy_WG__Meeting_Summary_May_2015_0.pdf
So no agreed requirement on what biodistribution studies are required for gene therapies, which the Pfizer and other mRNA jabs and treatments are, so that is why in the EMA’s public assessment report it states “not required” or something similar.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
Notice also that the MHRA is not on the list of participants.
Why?
Because the EMA is and under CHMP if they say “all’s good, approve it” then the MHRA just says “OK will do” and rubberstamps it.
Admitted to in a FOI to me.
And just to give you all the EMA PARs used to issue the EUAs in the EU and UK here are the other 3:
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/covid-19-vaccine-janssen-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
Thank you. I am going to pin this comment. I didn't go into most of this in the article because there wasn't space to but this tells an important part of the story.
Thanks and feel free to use anything I've posted on substack (from a UK perspective) or on this group page (you don't need to be a member to read):
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSceptics/
It's been a conjob from late Dec 2020 if not before.
Apparently they rewrote this for the official C19 script… ppl are STILL being gaslighted by medical staff (I’m not calling them professionals anymore) when they are highlighting the fact that this new symptom/s started after something foreign was injected in to me. “Nope! Couldn’t be that! You have anxiety!” Infuriating.
I remember reading a book by Dr Coleman, where he went on vacation and forgot his aspirin, which he took for a certain condition. He bought it there and the day after did not feel well. His wife pointed at the foreign aspirin, but at fist he dismissed it, then read the package and sure enough, there it was, something he had an allergic reaction to. His advice, if you take a new med, always be aware of your body to detect if the med goes well with you.
"Gene transfection products" is accurate. There is scant evidence for gene replacement.
That what was stated on teh Pfizer website I saw in early 2020 with a natty little video they had on how mRNA jabs work - they cut the cell's DNA, removes the "faulty" piece, what is injected into you then adds itself to where the cut is then rejoins the DNA into a strand again.
Sounds like gene replacement or gene editing to me.
I invite you to check-up to see if that belief of yours is really correct.
Watched a video recently hosted by his royal know-it-all William Henry Gates III and he stated outright this was how it works.
He wouldn't be wrong would he? Or maybe since early 2020 there's been a lot of re-writing history going on?
Well you're misunderstanding the details, but that's okay. Most people don't have a background in genetics and cell biology.
I try to help explain the technology, to help generate resistance to it. But it's probably more useful to talk to people about the corrupt politics and greed of the gene jabbers.
The important thing is to not let them impose a future of forced gene jabs on us and our children.
Agree - we are fighting for the future, heart and soul of humanity at the moment.
Hi doctor, based on your knowledge, what is the total number of lipid nanoparticles there could be inside each shot of the Pfizer/Moderna MRNA shots that is 0.3ml per vial if I remember correctly? Could there be trillions or only billions? What percentage of cells in the body could have been altered after 2 doses of the jab, could it be more than 50% total cells in the body? Are there really any organs and tissues left in the body that are consider less affected and penetrated by the nanoparticles, which the majority of cells there are still unaltered? According to your understanding, how many lipid nanoparticles can a single somatic cell uptake at once, if the diameter of the LNP is 50~100nm?
This is an important question and afaict, "we don't know".
A quick search of a different modRNA transient transfection product shows they got 20% transfection in a saturated in-vitro medium. 50% of all our cells transfected is unlikely even if every cell were exposed to modRNA.
Now if what I understand is true:
A pfizer (etc) transfected cell which produces spike protein is killed by our immune system.
A percentage of transfection in the double digits would kill everyone who got it.
If one of the hypotheses for these massive clots is true (dead blood vessel lining cells transfected and killed), we'd be looking at maybe 100 grams out of 80kg, so *on the order of* 0.125% of human body transfected.
That's the only tentative estimate I have and it's not worth much, except to put 50%+ in question.
Thank you for the reply and the information. I heard that the LNP were originally invented to help drugs across the blood brain barrier, so the people who made the jabs definitely did not expect them to only stay inside the injection site. Also they can literally carry anything inside not just MRNA or spike proteins. I also read that the nanoparticles mainly circulates over blood flow and bodily fluid to spread in the body, so could avascular tissues and organs be safer from the nanoparticles? Like skin epidermis and eye lens capsule, would they be the least impacted place after injection?
Are we able to measure the number of the lipid nanoparticles in each shot based on its volume and weight, if we can get a vax vial from Pfizer/Moderna?
Good questions and we should also get:
1) biodistribution studies - where does what go
2) in-vivo transfection studies - what's the distribution of amount of cell-transfection among gene-jab patients (victims).
As far as I can tell, the Pharma Pfraudsters never provided this information to receive their EUA or subsequent approval.
The only data we have for the lnp distribution is the Japanese study, but it still doesn't show the percentage of cells that are transfected in those organs and tissues. Also I don't think they have disclosed the full genetic code for the mrna either
Yes, and I also read somewhere that Pfizer was directly questioned on the total amount of transfected cells expressing spike. The response was words to the effect of, 'We don't know, we set the titre based on estimates and prevalence of adverse events'.
But "TRUST THE SCIENCE!" What science? "We don't know what your effective dose will be" isn't science.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-dont-affect-ovaries-or-fertility-in-general-the-vaccines-are-highly-effective-at-preventing-illness-and-death/
Here are the table for the Japanese data(I know this article is big pharma shill, but can't find a better link for the whole document). What does the μg lipid equivalent /g or ml mean on the top of the table? Like for the injection site after 1 hour, does it mean there are 394 μg of lnp in every 1 g of the tissues there?
I don't know what relationship 'lipid equivalent' has to 'lipid'.
But yes you read it correctly. μg is 1 millionth of a gram. So most measured concentrations were around a few tenths of a millionth by weight or volume.
From the table, most concentrations seem to peak around 2 hours. Interesting exception is in the Eyes where it keeps growing to 48h. It seems oddly persistent in Lungs as well.
Come to think of it, i'm not sure I want to know how they measured concentrations of LNP in someone's eye >_<
So assume there are 349 mcg in 1 g, if the organ weights 10 grams total, there will be 3940 mcg of lnp in it?
Well yes that's how multiplying by 10 works.
But measured levels in organs in the chart are on the order of 1/thousandth of that, all except levels in the injection site. E.g. 0.349 is 1000 times less than 349.