RTE Roundtable Talk #18: Nanoparticle Model of Vaccine Injury
With Marc Girardot, Jessica Rose, & Jonathan Couey
Last week Marc Girardot joined us once again, along with some open-minded scientists, to discuss his model of nanoparticle vaccine harm. Via email, Kevin McKernan chimed in, too. He was not able to join us due to final work on a new research paper. We'll get to that.
We greatly appreciate Marc's willingness to join us for a second time. The last time was a better introduction to his model of nanoparticle vaccine harm. Note that YouTube censored that video, and it's bizarrely missing even from Rumble's video timeline at the RTE channel. This may give some indication of the importance of the topic. This time around our goal was to have other scientists ask questions, push back with objections, and otherwise comment.
Amusingly, YouTube dinged up again, even though we chose to switch our livestream of the conversation away from YouTube after the first ten minutes! They rescended the strike, but the process itself is highly revealing about the strategies Big Tech is taking to censor these conversations.
Marc has been getting pushback on his model (at least judging by some Twitter threads), and I think there are multiple problems with the discussion. One of those may be intellectual anchoring of the spike protein model of vaccine harm. Whether or not the spike protein is a unique source of harm, the crowd analyzing the connections between COVID-19 vaccines and injuries may be overly focused on that form of harm. Understand that I'm not saying that spike protein can't cause harm, but we should be asking something like,
Is the spike responsible for <10% of the harms?
Is the spike responsible for 10% to 25% of the harms?
Is the spike responsible for 25% to 50% of the harms?
Is the spike responsible for 50% to 75% of the harms?
Is the spike responsible for 75% to 90% of the harms?
Is the spike responsible for >90% of the observed adverse events post-injection?
I don't have to speak in ranges, but you get the idea—having a sense of the level of responsibility for the risks allows for us to get a sense of whether or not these new genetic therapy products can or cannot be fixed (a topic we delve into a bit during Roundtable #19…more to come). It may also relate to what forms of treatment we might advise for the vaccine injured.
Another problem with this discussion is the problem with virtually every discussion during the pandemic: Those who are "the authorities" at the corporate and public health levels (is there even a difference?) obfuscate rather than facilitate such discussions.
One point that those who have not given Marc's model enough time may not realize is that even though transfection of cells is a new attempt at viral inoculation, there have been several vaccines that employed nanoparticles. Part of Marc's pool of evidence draws from empirical observation. In a recent meeting of Steve Kirsch's Vaccine Steering Committee, Steve challenged Marc to see if he can find pharmacovigilance data (VAERS, specifically) that supports his model, so I expect that to be a continuation of the accrual of evidence. Clearly this story is still a work in progress on at least some fronts.
Additionally, I do think Marc is a bit stubborn. He is my friend, so I say that with love. This is a part of many successful personalities, but can be a hindrance when it comes to communication with other brilliant minds at times. And in this case, we are talking about crossing multiple bridges of cognitive resistance at once!
The more I learn, the more I think Marc is correct that the nanoparticles are a serious problem—and very possibly responsible for the majority of the vaccine adverse events—but I think that his resistance to the multi-effects model that allows for discussion of spike protein (or other) harm is overdone. But I can just as easily (more easily) blame that on those who attack him rather than talk to him. We are in an environment in which there are those who intend to cause chaos by shutting down discussions (even aside from those of us who over-focused on the strange choice of using the novel spike protein, complete with evidence of its toxic inserts, for the purpose of vaccination).
I'm not going to rehash the discussion in the video for no reason aside from the volume of projects I have in front of me. I will however point to Jooki Kim's substack which includes several exceptional articles on spike protein harms. She also recently wrote a great article exploring the still-nascent lipid nanoparticle technology in question:
Joomi will be joining me for a livestream discussion on Monday.
Chris Masterjohn has also written on related topics. If the spike is a cause of long-COVID (viral illnesses may always have long haul potential, but COVID's may be a bit worse?), then we should consider the possibility that some of the vaccinated could experience similar symptoms.
As I mentioned, we had invited Kevin McKernan to join us, but he was busy with work last Tuesday. He is extremely giving of his time, and we appreciate it when we get it. In this case, he went back and watched the episode, then shared some comments by email, which he has allowed me to share:
Sorry I missed the video.
Really enjoying it.
One topic that is worth noting…
The vaccine lots started with high fragmentation and low RNA integrity.
As they perfected this process the fragmentation was reduced and the integrity improved and the death rate went up.
Lot to lot variance went down. So some of the roulette wheel on this could be lot based + patient genotype.
This was covered on McCulloughs podcast.
This implies some people may have gotten blanks early on as the vials were separating into phases.
I think Kevin McCairn claims to have found some blanks that’s lack Phosphates.
Secondly, there is higher AEs with Moderna over Pfizer.
We know the 100ug is higher than 30ug of RNA and Marc has some data showing more LNPs in Moderna but we can't take LNP number as a transfection load.
The diameter of the particle is very key.
For instance, you can make 1000 5um particles from the volume of a 50um particle. This cubic function is critical to understand the LNP tox.
I would love to see studies with vehicle controls.
LNPs injected with no mRNA.
LNPs injected with a human ubiquitin to dissect these as Marc is correct to point out that many studies that look at this in patients, the spike may just be the canary in the coal mine.
It’s a marker we can track that paints the target of the LNP damage. We do have spike studies with no LNPs but they are not ideal as Marc points out.
It’s definitely growing on me and you should keep pushing on this.
For those interested in Quasi species swarms, have a look at this thing we found in Cannabis.
Jess, that australia birth rate is horrifying.
Todays (#19) Roundtable hit on some of the topics Kevin brings up, coincidentally. I'll release an article about that soon. Essentially, the actual functional size of the LNP-mRNA blob has likely changed along with manufacturing updates, and neither did we have good information about the effects at the outset of the mass transfection campaign, nor do we have a good analysis about either this aspect of these new products, nor the effects on the body. For all we know, such size changes of the LNP-MRNA blobs even relate to whether the LNPs go to the heart of are absorbed through the endothelium and moved into other areas of the body, like the liver.
Wouldn't it be great if you weren't being brought all this information and all these questions by informal groups of scientists and others from around the world who don't even have access to the products with apparently incomplete testing, pushed through nonsensical trials?
Rounding the Earth is moving community to Locals.com. This link will grant a month of insider access, though you can follow us there for free (paid subscribers will be invited to exclusive live conversations and other perks):
ATTENTION: Tomorrow (or today, depending on your time zone), Wednesday, November 16, Liam and I will be hosting a private conversation about chaos agents, exclusive to Locals.com.
We hope to livestream there exclusively on Wednesday evenings, covering sensitive and speculative topics, and incorporating the broad community of researchers.
Please subscribe and help our video channels grow so that we can continue to create educational content and commit time to serious investigations of serious topics. And share your favorite videos gratuitously. Lead your friends to take a look. Be gentle, but persuasive. Or maybe just with those friends who might be most interested in each conversation. Twist some arms if you need to. It's for the greater good. It's for…The Science.
And it's safe. And effective.
Or maybe it's just part of some individual journeys, and for people wondering how to weave those journeys into a fabric strong enough to resist tyranny.
You can watch us live on most Tuesdays at 1 PM Eastern, or watch us separately on Mondays or Fridays at 1 PM Eastern and during some random evenings for RTE Raw discussions, such as this exploration of the Iatrogenocide hypothesis. The RTE podcast is on numerous platforms including Rumble, YouTube, Bitchute, Odysee, Stitcher, Spotify, Apple, RokFin, and some other places that Liam knows better about than I do. You can also visit our sponsors, which now includes a growing list of book recommendations. Written transcripts will be available for paid subscribers at randomly delayed dates. We thank all of our supporters and hope that you get something excellent out of each discussion.
While we won our first censorship battle with YouTube, we are still leaning more toward Rumble for some controversial broadcasts.
You can also find us here on Telegram.