Inventor of the mRNA vaccine platform: "I waited...my wife and I both took the [Moderna mRNA] vaccine…" and now he thinks the vaccines are "broken"
The Chloroquine Wars Part XXXII
Currently, the world's most important podcast is Bret Weinstein's Darkhorse Podcast because the host is focused on the world's most important problem: shenanigans surrounding COVID-19. On yesterday's episode, Bret hosted mRNA vaccine platform inventor Dr. Robert Malone, and also early COVID-19 treatment research funder (and tech entrepreneur) Steve Kirsch. There were a few bombshells, and I'd like to help clean up some of the debris. First, for those who haven't watched, that conversation is here:
(It's okay to listen on faster speed if 200 minutes of geek talk is a lot of investment.)
Some of the bombs:
Dr. Malone says that it is clear that the spike protein is not only getting into the bloodstream, but opening up the blood-brain barrier.
Malone and Kirsch both trusted the Moderna vaccine enough that they and their family members took them. Now they regret it because they believe the vaccines are broken.
Today I talked with Kirsch in Clubhouse and he said that from the data he and those around him have gathered, 200,000 to 1,000,000 Americans have been severely harmed by the vaccines, which includes thousands of deaths. When Kirsch pressed FDA commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock for details, she told him that would take a study.
Well, gosh, I'm not sure precisely what all the FDA is tasked with given the Byzantine regulatory environment that obscures so much of medicine, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that studying the vaccine that led to the explosion of VAERS reports (despite heavy pressure by many medical establishments not to report AEs) is in the public interest. At least the CDC called an "emergency meeting" ("emergency" meaning "let's get together in 8 days") over vaccine adverse events. Maybe they'll...study the problem...or something.
The issues of the spike protein and all the adverse events got me thinking, and I came up with the following:
Follow me on this one. If we define,
Type I COVID-19: The collection of effects and symptoms usually associated with coronaviruses, which include the common cold symptoms and some of the symptoms associated with respiratory infection.
Type II COVID-19: The collection of symptoms associated with the spike protein. This includes perhaps the microthrombosis and blood clotting issues, and may include symptoms caused by other pathogens that cross the blood-brain barrier which may be responsible for most or all of the neurological symptoms. Here is a list of related links and research papers copy-pasted straight from my notes file, though I'm sure it is highly incomplete (please add those you've read in comments):
Sukuzi et al (paper) spike protein elicits cell signaling in human host cells
Dec 8, 2020 (regulations.gov; J. Patrick Whelan MD PhD) Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage?
Dec 16, 2020 (Rhea et al) The S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier in mice.
Jan 27, 2021 (covidcalltohumanity) AB Dependent Enhancement (ADE) worsening C19 severity
Feb 3, 2021 (Olumayokun et al) Exaggerated cytokine production in response to recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (inhibition by dexamethasone).
May 10, 2021 (twitter) Spike protein found in placenta. Vax = body attacks cells with spike.
May 30ish, 2021 (magzentine) mRNA tech pioneer (Luigi Warren) says C19 vaccinated people can shed spike protein, Twitter censors.
Note: I've left the definitions of types I and II somewhat open because I have only researched these issues to a moderate degree, and the effects of both COVID-19 and the vaccines are highly varied. But here is why the redefinition is important…
Yesterday I met Bree Petersson on Clubhouse. Her story is one of being an excluded participant in the AstraZeneca trial after suffering horrible adverse events. Were those adverse events defined as Type II COVID-19, then the "efficacy" numbers from the vaccine trials would look a whole lot different! And they should.
Take for instance the Pfizer vaccine report from December 10, 2020. The effect sizes (page 32) look great on the surface:
However, on page 18 we see a set of exclusions of participants that is large and substantially skewed toward the treatment group.
I'm sure there are reasons other than AEs for some of these exclusions---there always are---but they skew so heavily toward to the treatment arm that the correlation is undeniable (Excel broke when I tried to compute the p-value). If these exclusions represent even a few dozen or a couple of hundred Bree Peterssons, then under the COVID-19 redefinition I propose, vaccine efficacy may in fact drop close to zero.
At that point, the vaccine simply represents giving COVID-19 to unsuspecting citizens.
Think on that and please forward this article to friends.
Edit: It was brought to my attention that Dr. Didier Raoult’s team sees no drop in hospitalizations or severe COVID-19 among vaccinated patients, which may be a fact highly consistent with the value of my redefinition.