First, "evidence-based" doesn't mean "based on evidence." It means "reliant on studies, research, and papers to compile population-wide statistics that let doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies get out of practicing real medicine for actual individuals." Recall John Ioannidis's 2005 essay pointing out that the majority of research papers are wrong. Then recall how quickly "researchers" flooded the market with papers about "covid," even though it doesn't actually exist. And consider this 2018 report https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07853890.2018.1453233, "Why all randomized controlled trials produce biased results," in which the authors examine the ten most-cited RCTs in the world with the following result: "This study shows that these world-leading RCTs that have influenced policy produce biased results by illustrating that participants’ background traits that affect outcomes are often poorly distributed between trial groups, that the trials often neglect alternative factors contributing to their main reported outcome and, among many other issues, that the trials are often only partially blinded or unblinded. The study here also identifies a number of novel and important assumptions, biases and limitations not yet thoroughly discussed in existing studies that arise when designing, implementing and analysing trials." Now ask just how completely you want your doctor's treatment decisions to be based on that garbage, because that's what Makary and Prasad are referring to when they say "evidence-based." Truth in advertising would require them to say, "evidence-free."
Second, I have no patience with this "ten-D chess" bullshit. There's no need for Makary and Prasad to strategize. The truth doesn't need a strategy. It just needs to be told, and those asshats obviously aren't the ones to do it. Is misrepresentation ever justified? Sure. If a burglar breaks into your house you aren't morally required to tell the truth when he asks where you keep the silver. In war, you aren't morally required to refrain from lying to the enemy, or deceiving him about your troop movements, or concealing your true capabilities from him. You are not morally required to cooperate with anyone who is trying to take values from you *by force,* without your consent and over your objections. Morally you are justified in defending your values from anyone who *initiates* force, fraud, or coercion against you. Depending on the context that can mean anything from hiding the silverware to shooting a home invader to hiding assets from the IRS to going to war following an invasion. (Whether you judge any of those actions to be practical or worth the varieties of fallout that would occur is a separate question; the point is that you would be *morally* in the clear.)
What Makary, Prasad, and all the other pieces on the psyop chessboard are doing is the reverse: They are *initiating* fraud against people: They're lying, misrepresenting, and telling half-truths not to defend themselves or their rational values from an attack, but to *initiate* force, fraud, and coercion against people who *haven't* initiated it. Those people--all of us--were just sitting around minding our own business. So, no: Their misrepresentations are not justified. They are not moral. Their lies are a strategy, all right, but they're the strategy of someone who starts a war, and we're who they're fighting.
There's certainly a bit of thought-terminating at play with the use of the term 'evidence-based' although, and a great many studies and papers that are not reliable, biased, and come to erroneous conclusions (amongst other problems). That said, I think the devil is in the details. Not all trials and evidence are junk. That brush is a bit too broad.
Also, not to quibble overmuch, but:
'Truth' is a tricky word, not necessarily aligned with the way it is often used.
I also think misrepresentation is distinct from deception, subterfuge, and non-cooperation, but understand your points, of course.
I'm also not so certain that 'initiation' is the key operator here. Both Prasad and Makary are actually reinforcing themes they've long participated in.
No, not all trials are junk. But the people using them in aggregate as the basis for controlling other people's decisions, for restricting or curating the information they're given, and for establishing which treatments they're allowed under the subsequent "guidelines": Those people are painting with a broad brush by definition. So much research is garbage that to base an entire methodology on its aggregated conclusions is insane--and if I know about the amount of junk out there, then the people using it as the foundation for their policy decisions know it and use that mostly-flawed research anyway. Even if all research were done in good faith, honestly, and correctly, with valid results, think about the number of variables in any trial; the limitations of trials that can study just the small subset of questions that are open to randomization; the inability of researchers to do anything beyond quantify the *average* treatment effect of a product or process, which could have nothing to do with any given individual standing in his doctor's office; and the fact that many people have complex sets of co-morbidities that aren't accounted for in studies. And then consider the stupidity of trying to extrapolate those population-level trials to set health care policy for a single individual. That's aside from the wrongness of some people arrogating to themselves the right to make those decisions and set those "guidelines" for anyone else at all. Both the moral and practical foundations of "evidence-based" medicine are rotten.
Truth is easy: It's the identification of a fact of reality. The fact determines the truth: If the fact exists, there's no alternative about what's true. That's not to say that in the absence of complete information people can't be mistaken. History has no shortage of brilliant scientists who identified certain facts of reality and hypothesized something as a result, but who, when other facts became discoverable--because of improved technology, e.g.--were proven wrong and had to revise their conclusions. The truth didn't change because reality didn't change. Humans' ability to discover that reality improved, and therefore so did their understanding of the truth.
When it comes to introducing force into human relationships and transactions, initiation is absolutely key. For a society to be civilized, force can be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate it. To do otherwise is to exist at the level of a caveman who sees no reason why he shouldn't club you over the head and take your bearskin. "Force" includes the concept of fraud, in which one party dishonestly obtains a value from another party, whether material or emotional/psychological, which he wouldn't voluntarily supply or exchange if he knew the truth; or induces another party to take actions on the basis of information that's untrue or incomplete. That last one was the entire MO of the plandemic-runners. Makary and Prasad are participating in a government policy of both fraud and force. To give just one example that combines those two things, the government used an implied threat of force against social media companies to compel them to suppress alternate views and inconvenient facts; it thereby committed fraud against people who might otherwise have seen that suppressed information and acted differently, but who never had that chance. So no: The fraud of "covid vaccines" being perpetuated by Makary and Prasad isn't new as of that memo. It's a policy of long standing.
There is a good deal we agree upon, though in general, I prefer a narrower, pointed brush ;)
As for truth, I think it's far from easy. It is so deeply intertwined with perception, bias, and human limitation. There's lived experience and there's abstracted 'truth' or 'fact', but they aren't the same thing. It's an uncomfortable thought, no doubt. Truth and facts shouldn't change, but by your own example, they often do--what changes is the perspective of the mind considering what it perceives.
Agreement isn't necessary--there are many ways to think about all of this, and no single path the 'correct' one.
I agree that perceptions and interpretations change, but not that reality does. Pilots who fly into a mountain didn't perceive it, but the truth is that it was always there, whether they discovered it in time or not.
Your example illustrates part of the problem, but is perhaps too narrow.
Reality cannot help but be bound by our perceptions, whether it is something learned, taught, inherited, or directly observed. The mountain was not part of the pilot's reality until they collide with it. Their lived experience and that of others who perceive (or collide with) the mountain enjoy a shared reality, but to those that do not, the 'truth' of the mountain is inherited--it's a belief until confirmed. Some of what we inherit is verifiable, some of it is not; but our reality, whatever we believe that to be is both confirmed by and limited by our perception.
Consider gravity. Most people are taught that it is a fixed constant, the same everywhere--a fact of reality. That is what they are taught and indoctrinated to believe. This comes to us from none other than Newton and Einstein, so it must be truth. But others who have looked closely have found that it varies from observation to observation. How is that possible? The lived experience of observation is at odds with the inherited objective 'fact'. In this case, we are coming to learn that our perception and understanding of gravity is what is amiss. We have an inherited bias.
There's more of this at play than we might care to acknowledge.
It might seem convoluted and contradictory, but there are deep considerations here, both for how we think of 'truth' and 'reality' and how we communicate those thoughts and beliefs to others.
Reality isn't bound by people's perceptions. The mountain just is, regardless of how people perceive it or even whether they do. Someone's behavior or attitudes might change based on how or whether he perceives something, or his behavior might change based on how willing he is to act rationally, but reality itself does not: Wishing doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter how a pilot feels about the mountain. It doesn't matter whether he knows it's there or not. It doesn't matter whether he sees it before he flies into it: The truth is that it's there. It has a specific nature based on its composition and the results of flying into it will be a certain level of destruction.
A is A. Whether the pilot chooses to acknowledge that truth or not might be the difference between him living or dying. Whatever a lived experience is, if he doesn't know the mountain is there or if he acts as though it's not, then his dying experience will be that physics had the final say. Gravity's slightly different on a quantum scale at the pole of an oblate spheroid than at its equator? It doesn't vary enough to materially affect the results of flying into a mountain or to require an asterisk appended to what people commonly understand as the laws of gravity. It doesn't affect the buildings they make, the bridges they build, or the pencils they drop.
My expectations weren't high but they were higher than this garbage. Reading their journal statemen one would think that a great study was done and the end result was a safe vaccine that protected everyone, especially old people. It's almost we are getting nowhere with same ole pharma garbage just new reps.
I think we have had a modern awakening to the fact that when you bypass the body’s inherent defence mechanisms with a needle, you are inviting all sorts of trouble. If you are honestly telling me that the scientists who created this mRNA bioweapon didn’t know what they were creating, then you do not have enough faith in the mundanity of a paycheck! I am sad to put it in those terms but that is the effect of the corporate takeover of our lives over the last five decades. However, I am glad to see that the advent of AI is eroding the entire integrity of all internet-based information to being lies … now we will have to talk face-to-face again, form stronger community bonds and resist such global malfeasance ever again?
The mRNA shots were/are always going to be an immunological catastrophe for humanity.
The primary danger of the COVID-19 mRNA injections has always been one’s own immune system’s attack response by the mighty CD8+ Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte cells (AKA Killer T-cells):
The COVID-19 mRNA injections must be recalled from the market and mRNA-based products must be banned because the modified mRNA-LNP genetic technology platform is fundamentally flawed & dangerous by design.
These modified mRNA-LNP COVID-19 injections, that trigger one's own immune system to attack & kill one's own formerly healthy cells (that have been instructed to produce/express foreign, non-self proteins), no matter where those cells are in the body, never should have been made available to the public in the first place.
When the (designed to be long-lasting) n1-methyl pseudouridine modified mRNA transfects one's cells, and gives instructions for the ribosomes to make & express foreign non-self proteins (such as the toxic SARS-CoV-2 spike protein), one's immune system sends the CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) to kill those formerly healthy cells that are now making & expressing non-self proteins.
It is the mission of these CD8+ CTLs to seek out and destroy any such transfected cell that is making foreign non-self proteins. That’s what they do…
Due to the biodistribution properties of the lipid nanoparticles, the encased modified mRNA can go anywhere in the body, including crossing the blood-brain and placental barriers...The LNP "delivery vehicles" traveled to different parts of the body in different people.
Expressing any foreign protein is fatal to the cell doing the expressing. The reason is, our bodies are protected by being able to distinguish ourselves from things that shouldn't be there. Anything non-self will trigger immune destruction of the cells & tissues involved.
Some people will express lots of foreign proteins in vulnerable locations. Others express less in less vulnerable areas.
The location of expression defines the adverse event: if you get foreign protein expression in your heart cells, you could get myocarditis & experience cardiac arrest; if the expression is in your brain, spinal cord, or peripheral nervous system, you could get one or more of a variety of neurological conditions; if in your eye, possible blindness; if in your ovaries, possible infertility; if in the placenta, possible miscarriage or stillbirth; if in the cells that line your blood vessels, possible clots/microclots leading to strokes, heart attacks, or pulmonary embolisms…
If the expression of foreign proteins is in your own immune cells, you could experience immune dysfunction, dysregulation, & suppression including repeated infections, immune tolerance of a pathogenic foreign protein due to antibody subclass switch to IgG4 and increased IgG4-related diseases, T cell exhaustion, interference with & suppression of innate immunity, persistent systemic inflammation, reduced cancer surveillance or the suppression of tumor-suppressing immune system activities & cell-signaling (increasing your risk of fast-growing and aggressive cancers); & more…
There's no limit to the horrible consequences of injecting into your body something that triggers your own immune system to attack & kill your own formerly healthy cells & tissues.
The public “health” agencies, the COVID “authorities”, & the “mainstream” media fraudulently marketed these experimental mRNA gene “therapy” products as “safe & effective vaccines”. Trusting people thought that they were being presented with the choice (or the mandate) as to whether or not to take a “safe & effective vaccine”…But that was/is a deceptively false “choice”…
The COVID-19 mRNA injections are NOT safe, they are NOT effective, and they are NOT vaccines.
These modified mRNA-LNP gene “therapy” injections never would have passed proper safety studies required for gene therapy products. Safety studies (including biodistribution, immunogenicity, immunotoxicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, shedding, long-term effects, & more) that were bypassed because of the fraudulent mislabeling as “vaccines”. (And because of the EUA & “countermeasure” designations under the Project BioShield Act & PREP Act).
NO ONE should have ever had the “choice” of taking these gene “therapy” injections because the modified mRNA-LNP genetic technology platform is fundamentally flawed & dangerous by design.
The danger is NOT limited to just getting more COVID “boosters”. ANY mRNA gene “therapy” product that transfects your cells and instructs those cells to produce foreign non-self proteins (ANY non-self protein) will trigger an immune system attack response against your own cells & tissues (the role of the Killer T-cells is to monitor ALL the cells of the body, ready to destroy/kill any that express foreign, non-self proteins). This makes EVERY mRNA-based injected product harmful by design.
No one who took these mRNA COVID injections made an informed decision. Most people had no clue about what they allowed to be injected into their bodies...
Also most people still do not understand that the devastating harms inflicted upon people over the last few years was intentional:
There is some wiggle here, worth noting. We don't actually know that the formulation and contents of the vials were, in fact, uniform; the available testing actually seems to show that they were not. Many of the mechanisms and potential interactions you note with the immune system are indeed likely, but not necessarily what all of the injected experience. This may account for the variability in health outcomes for injected persons. Bottom line is we don't know.
But definitely agree, the design and conceptualization of the platform itself is insanity and asking for catastrophe to be the result.
Many thanks to you & to all the brave doctors & scientists & all the people of the world with curiosity, integrity, and strength of character who have risked so much to get this info out into the world.
And thanks for the link…that was another great read! (Both parts!)
You are absolutely correct in noting that the manufacturing “standards” were so sub-par that, “We don’t actually know that the formulation and contents of the vials were, in fact, uniform; the available testing actually seems to show that they were not.”
My main concern is that at some point, they will be forced to acknowledge the injuries and deaths, but that they will blame & scapegoat the manufacturing issues and/or the toxicity of the spike protein for all the adverse effects of the COVID mRNA injections while (continuing to) claim that the mRNA gene "therapy" technology platform itself is a proven “safe & effective vaccine" platform.
I predict they will say something like, “We admit that the COVID shots had manufacturing problems because we were in a rush to get you those life-saving vaccines due to the deadly pandemic, but we’ve fixed those manufacturing mistakes…the mRNA technology platform is safe & effective!”
Or, “We admit that the spike protein was not an ideal choice due to its recently discovered toxicity and some people may have had reactions to the spike proteins…but the mRNA technology platform is safe & effective so go get your new mRNA-based flu shot!”
Or, “As incredible as the proven traditional mRNA platform is, this next-level self-amplifying mRNA platform is even better! Get your new safe & effective Replicon shot!”
I think your predictions are very likely. There are some researchers that have already said as much, including some who have studied the DNA 'contamination' issue.
AFTER the mighty CD8+ Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte cells (AKA Killer T-cells) attack response to modified mRNA transfected cells of tissues & organs inside your body:
After the primary immune system attack response by the cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), resulting in varying degrees of tissue damage & pathology in different people, a lot happens...
The CTLs will not be able to kill every cell making non-self (spike) protein, so some amount of foreign (spike) protein will get made & released from your cells. That amount will also vary from person to person.
Specialized cells called antigen-presenting cells, especially dendritic cells and macrophages, spring into action. Long story short…you will get serum antibodies made against those foreign proteins which is the stated goal of any shot called a vaccine.
But that can take up to 2 weeks, and during that time, the foreign non-self (spike) proteins are biologically active and will attach to various cellular receptors, resulting in a whole new level of possible tissue destruction.
Now your immune system will activate macrophages & neutrophils that will kill THOSE cells through inflammatory pathways, regardless of whether or not the non-self proteins are toxic themselves.
And if the non-self proteins ARE toxic, like the pathogenic spike proteins, they can cause problems like tissue damage all by themselves without your immune system even being involved at that point.
But your adaptive immune system has done its job & you've made your serum antibodies by now! Yippee!
Too bad those (non-neutralizing, leaky) serum antibodies can only REACT to a (SARS-CoV-2) infection...it is biologically impossible for serum antibodies (in the blood) to PREVENT respiratory infections that enter the body through the mucosa of the mouth/throat, nose, & eyes.
To PREVENT respiratory infections requires a strong innate immune system with mucosal immunity and secretory IgA to stop the respiratory infection at the mucosal and epithelial barriers (stopping the infection OUTSIDE your body and PREVENTING the infection from getting INSIDE your body).
And this is also where the CTLs are supposed to do their cell-destroying activities. When epithelial cells in the mouth/throat, nose, & eyes are infected (like can happen with respiratory diseases) the CTLs will kill those infected cells.
Epithelial cells at the epithelial barrier can be replaced, usually in just a few days in most people. But injections bypass your body's natural protections and send their payload into your body, where that payload can enter your lymph system and bloodstream.
And in the case of the modified mRNA-LNP gene "therapy" injections, this can be disastrous, starting with the immune system attack response against transfected cells of tissues & organs (INSIDE your body) that are now making foreign non-self proteins.
Replacing cells from now damaged tissues and organs inside your body is a complicated process that can take weeks or longer, with some areas unable to be repaired at all.
The modification of natural mRNA with synthetic n1-methyl pseudouridine made the modified mRNA longer lasting and resistant to the body’s natural breakdown processes. A Nobel Prize was awarded specifically for this use of longer lasting pseudouridine in the COVID mRNA injections.
The pseudouridine modified mRNA is causing a +1 ribosomal frameshift, as well as a reverse reading, so some people may make spike proteins AND mystery (or junk) non-self proteins.
Studies have found that an antibody subclass switch to IgG4 can occur between mRNA shot #2 & #3, which is sending a stand-down signal to the immune system, essentially telling the immune system to tolerate and ignore the (toxic pathogenic) spike proteins instead of actively fighting to clear the spike from the body.
And people who are getting "booster" after "booster" are repeatedly triggering these immune system activities and causing persistent systemic inflammation, which can cause hyper-immune and autoimmune responses...and then possible immune system exhaustion as your immune system becomes overwhelmed.
And then there's the plasmid DNA contamination (with the oncogenic SV-40 promotor sequence) that's been discovered. There are a number of ways in which integration into the human genome is possible...
And more...
I am not a doctor…so PLEASE let me know of any corrections that need to be made if I have misstated something…
But, tragically, I think the injuries, disabilities, and deaths from these modified mRNA-LNP gene “therapy” injections prove that the COVID shots have been an IMMUNOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE.
Very well written. As you rightly point out, it's worth considering the relationship between strategy and integrity.
As for strategy and limited hangouts, there's a point we can keep in mind. A limited hangout is meant to deceive, even if it accomplishes this feat by (mis-)using a bit of truth. In theory, a strategy to make certain calculated, initial concessions to achieve greater success later COULD perhaps be tolerable (not necessarily optimal) depending on a variety of factors. However, the challenge is that a limited hangout and an explicit strategy of calculated initial concessions (to focus on common ground, or establish a foothold, or start with low-hanging fruit) will appear identical in the beginning. The difference is that the initial concessions will be the endpoint for the limited hangout (by design) whereas for the planned strategy these initial concessions mark a starting point that will ideally yield greater, positive results at a future point.
This means that if the intent is merely to craft a limited hangout, those perpetrating the hangout can mask their intent by feigning some strategic design behind these initial concessions. If the true objective is just a limited hangout, then the 'greater results later' never come.
Limited hangouts have been used in many contexts, but some are more significant than others and have outsized potential for damage.
In particular, large-scale psy-ops, as with 9/11 or COVID as examples, magnify their importance and impact. A good deal of this has to do with the scale of deception and the many points of intersection that ripple out across society. As we know, 9/11 led to war and tyrannical destruction of the Constitution, the PATRIOT Act, not to mention the untold fortune and lives lost, and laying the groundwork for legislation like the PREP Act. COVID is not dissimilar in its impact, and I think we have not yet seen the full extent of its reach.
In these large-scale events, there are often pivotal and foundational deceptions that must be kept afloat in order for the secondary or tertiary deceptions to continue, even decades later. In a less-impactful instance, a limited hangout (can and often does) function simply as a short-term distraction. I don’t think what we’re looking at is short-term.
It’s because of this observation that the Prasad/Makary hangout is particularly dangerous, regardless of any possible strategic goals. Aside from the fact that this is heralded as a part of broad reform at our public health agencies, the statement is, I think, not built on ‘concessions’, but is in fact, built-on and builds-upon the foundational deceptions of COVID. If there is a goal to achieve positive results from bolstering this deception, than any potential gain might not materialize at all because the foundational elements, undisturbed, will allow for yet another pivot.
In this case, the limited hangout is not just a release valve, it is serves to *enable* the broader deception (intentionally or not). Further, it calcifies further, in the mind of the unquestioning, the basic tenets of the Op, which may be the most damaging aspect of all.
First, "evidence-based" doesn't mean "based on evidence." It means "reliant on studies, research, and papers to compile population-wide statistics that let doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies get out of practicing real medicine for actual individuals." Recall John Ioannidis's 2005 essay pointing out that the majority of research papers are wrong. Then recall how quickly "researchers" flooded the market with papers about "covid," even though it doesn't actually exist. And consider this 2018 report https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07853890.2018.1453233, "Why all randomized controlled trials produce biased results," in which the authors examine the ten most-cited RCTs in the world with the following result: "This study shows that these world-leading RCTs that have influenced policy produce biased results by illustrating that participants’ background traits that affect outcomes are often poorly distributed between trial groups, that the trials often neglect alternative factors contributing to their main reported outcome and, among many other issues, that the trials are often only partially blinded or unblinded. The study here also identifies a number of novel and important assumptions, biases and limitations not yet thoroughly discussed in existing studies that arise when designing, implementing and analysing trials." Now ask just how completely you want your doctor's treatment decisions to be based on that garbage, because that's what Makary and Prasad are referring to when they say "evidence-based." Truth in advertising would require them to say, "evidence-free."
Second, I have no patience with this "ten-D chess" bullshit. There's no need for Makary and Prasad to strategize. The truth doesn't need a strategy. It just needs to be told, and those asshats obviously aren't the ones to do it. Is misrepresentation ever justified? Sure. If a burglar breaks into your house you aren't morally required to tell the truth when he asks where you keep the silver. In war, you aren't morally required to refrain from lying to the enemy, or deceiving him about your troop movements, or concealing your true capabilities from him. You are not morally required to cooperate with anyone who is trying to take values from you *by force,* without your consent and over your objections. Morally you are justified in defending your values from anyone who *initiates* force, fraud, or coercion against you. Depending on the context that can mean anything from hiding the silverware to shooting a home invader to hiding assets from the IRS to going to war following an invasion. (Whether you judge any of those actions to be practical or worth the varieties of fallout that would occur is a separate question; the point is that you would be *morally* in the clear.)
What Makary, Prasad, and all the other pieces on the psyop chessboard are doing is the reverse: They are *initiating* fraud against people: They're lying, misrepresenting, and telling half-truths not to defend themselves or their rational values from an attack, but to *initiate* force, fraud, and coercion against people who *haven't* initiated it. Those people--all of us--were just sitting around minding our own business. So, no: Their misrepresentations are not justified. They are not moral. Their lies are a strategy, all right, but they're the strategy of someone who starts a war, and we're who they're fighting.
Thanks for your comment.
Regarding evidence, studies, and trials, you may find this of interest (there's a Part 1 + 2).
https://entwine.substack.com/p/the-evidence-pyramid
There's certainly a bit of thought-terminating at play with the use of the term 'evidence-based' although, and a great many studies and papers that are not reliable, biased, and come to erroneous conclusions (amongst other problems). That said, I think the devil is in the details. Not all trials and evidence are junk. That brush is a bit too broad.
Also, not to quibble overmuch, but:
'Truth' is a tricky word, not necessarily aligned with the way it is often used.
I also think misrepresentation is distinct from deception, subterfuge, and non-cooperation, but understand your points, of course.
I'm also not so certain that 'initiation' is the key operator here. Both Prasad and Makary are actually reinforcing themes they've long participated in.
No, not all trials are junk. But the people using them in aggregate as the basis for controlling other people's decisions, for restricting or curating the information they're given, and for establishing which treatments they're allowed under the subsequent "guidelines": Those people are painting with a broad brush by definition. So much research is garbage that to base an entire methodology on its aggregated conclusions is insane--and if I know about the amount of junk out there, then the people using it as the foundation for their policy decisions know it and use that mostly-flawed research anyway. Even if all research were done in good faith, honestly, and correctly, with valid results, think about the number of variables in any trial; the limitations of trials that can study just the small subset of questions that are open to randomization; the inability of researchers to do anything beyond quantify the *average* treatment effect of a product or process, which could have nothing to do with any given individual standing in his doctor's office; and the fact that many people have complex sets of co-morbidities that aren't accounted for in studies. And then consider the stupidity of trying to extrapolate those population-level trials to set health care policy for a single individual. That's aside from the wrongness of some people arrogating to themselves the right to make those decisions and set those "guidelines" for anyone else at all. Both the moral and practical foundations of "evidence-based" medicine are rotten.
Truth is easy: It's the identification of a fact of reality. The fact determines the truth: If the fact exists, there's no alternative about what's true. That's not to say that in the absence of complete information people can't be mistaken. History has no shortage of brilliant scientists who identified certain facts of reality and hypothesized something as a result, but who, when other facts became discoverable--because of improved technology, e.g.--were proven wrong and had to revise their conclusions. The truth didn't change because reality didn't change. Humans' ability to discover that reality improved, and therefore so did their understanding of the truth.
When it comes to introducing force into human relationships and transactions, initiation is absolutely key. For a society to be civilized, force can be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate it. To do otherwise is to exist at the level of a caveman who sees no reason why he shouldn't club you over the head and take your bearskin. "Force" includes the concept of fraud, in which one party dishonestly obtains a value from another party, whether material or emotional/psychological, which he wouldn't voluntarily supply or exchange if he knew the truth; or induces another party to take actions on the basis of information that's untrue or incomplete. That last one was the entire MO of the plandemic-runners. Makary and Prasad are participating in a government policy of both fraud and force. To give just one example that combines those two things, the government used an implied threat of force against social media companies to compel them to suppress alternate views and inconvenient facts; it thereby committed fraud against people who might otherwise have seen that suppressed information and acted differently, but who never had that chance. So no: The fraud of "covid vaccines" being perpetuated by Makary and Prasad isn't new as of that memo. It's a policy of long standing.
Thanks for the response.
There is a good deal we agree upon, though in general, I prefer a narrower, pointed brush ;)
As for truth, I think it's far from easy. It is so deeply intertwined with perception, bias, and human limitation. There's lived experience and there's abstracted 'truth' or 'fact', but they aren't the same thing. It's an uncomfortable thought, no doubt. Truth and facts shouldn't change, but by your own example, they often do--what changes is the perspective of the mind considering what it perceives.
Agreement isn't necessary--there are many ways to think about all of this, and no single path the 'correct' one.
I agree that perceptions and interpretations change, but not that reality does. Pilots who fly into a mountain didn't perceive it, but the truth is that it was always there, whether they discovered it in time or not.
Your example illustrates part of the problem, but is perhaps too narrow.
Reality cannot help but be bound by our perceptions, whether it is something learned, taught, inherited, or directly observed. The mountain was not part of the pilot's reality until they collide with it. Their lived experience and that of others who perceive (or collide with) the mountain enjoy a shared reality, but to those that do not, the 'truth' of the mountain is inherited--it's a belief until confirmed. Some of what we inherit is verifiable, some of it is not; but our reality, whatever we believe that to be is both confirmed by and limited by our perception.
Consider gravity. Most people are taught that it is a fixed constant, the same everywhere--a fact of reality. That is what they are taught and indoctrinated to believe. This comes to us from none other than Newton and Einstein, so it must be truth. But others who have looked closely have found that it varies from observation to observation. How is that possible? The lived experience of observation is at odds with the inherited objective 'fact'. In this case, we are coming to learn that our perception and understanding of gravity is what is amiss. We have an inherited bias.
There's more of this at play than we might care to acknowledge.
It might seem convoluted and contradictory, but there are deep considerations here, both for how we think of 'truth' and 'reality' and how we communicate those thoughts and beliefs to others.
Reality isn't bound by people's perceptions. The mountain just is, regardless of how people perceive it or even whether they do. Someone's behavior or attitudes might change based on how or whether he perceives something, or his behavior might change based on how willing he is to act rationally, but reality itself does not: Wishing doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter how a pilot feels about the mountain. It doesn't matter whether he knows it's there or not. It doesn't matter whether he sees it before he flies into it: The truth is that it's there. It has a specific nature based on its composition and the results of flying into it will be a certain level of destruction.
A is A. Whether the pilot chooses to acknowledge that truth or not might be the difference between him living or dying. Whatever a lived experience is, if he doesn't know the mountain is there or if he acts as though it's not, then his dying experience will be that physics had the final say. Gravity's slightly different on a quantum scale at the pole of an oblate spheroid than at its equator? It doesn't vary enough to materially affect the results of flying into a mountain or to require an asterisk appended to what people commonly understand as the laws of gravity. It doesn't affect the buildings they make, the bridges they build, or the pencils they drop.
✅
My expectations weren't high but they were higher than this garbage. Reading their journal statemen one would think that a great study was done and the end result was a safe vaccine that protected everyone, especially old people. It's almost we are getting nowhere with same ole pharma garbage just new reps.
I think we have had a modern awakening to the fact that when you bypass the body’s inherent defence mechanisms with a needle, you are inviting all sorts of trouble. If you are honestly telling me that the scientists who created this mRNA bioweapon didn’t know what they were creating, then you do not have enough faith in the mundanity of a paycheck! I am sad to put it in those terms but that is the effect of the corporate takeover of our lives over the last five decades. However, I am glad to see that the advent of AI is eroding the entire integrity of all internet-based information to being lies … now we will have to talk face-to-face again, form stronger community bonds and resist such global malfeasance ever again?
Yes, the fundamental integrity of the body and its function cannot, I think, be augmented with a needle.
The mRNA shots were/are always going to be an immunological catastrophe for humanity.
The primary danger of the COVID-19 mRNA injections has always been one’s own immune system’s attack response by the mighty CD8+ Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte cells (AKA Killer T-cells):
The COVID-19 mRNA injections must be recalled from the market and mRNA-based products must be banned because the modified mRNA-LNP genetic technology platform is fundamentally flawed & dangerous by design.
These modified mRNA-LNP COVID-19 injections, that trigger one's own immune system to attack & kill one's own formerly healthy cells (that have been instructed to produce/express foreign, non-self proteins), no matter where those cells are in the body, never should have been made available to the public in the first place.
When the (designed to be long-lasting) n1-methyl pseudouridine modified mRNA transfects one's cells, and gives instructions for the ribosomes to make & express foreign non-self proteins (such as the toxic SARS-CoV-2 spike protein), one's immune system sends the CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) to kill those formerly healthy cells that are now making & expressing non-self proteins.
It is the mission of these CD8+ CTLs to seek out and destroy any such transfected cell that is making foreign non-self proteins. That’s what they do…
Due to the biodistribution properties of the lipid nanoparticles, the encased modified mRNA can go anywhere in the body, including crossing the blood-brain and placental barriers...The LNP "delivery vehicles" traveled to different parts of the body in different people.
Expressing any foreign protein is fatal to the cell doing the expressing. The reason is, our bodies are protected by being able to distinguish ourselves from things that shouldn't be there. Anything non-self will trigger immune destruction of the cells & tissues involved.
Some people will express lots of foreign proteins in vulnerable locations. Others express less in less vulnerable areas.
The location of expression defines the adverse event: if you get foreign protein expression in your heart cells, you could get myocarditis & experience cardiac arrest; if the expression is in your brain, spinal cord, or peripheral nervous system, you could get one or more of a variety of neurological conditions; if in your eye, possible blindness; if in your ovaries, possible infertility; if in the placenta, possible miscarriage or stillbirth; if in the cells that line your blood vessels, possible clots/microclots leading to strokes, heart attacks, or pulmonary embolisms…
If the expression of foreign proteins is in your own immune cells, you could experience immune dysfunction, dysregulation, & suppression including repeated infections, immune tolerance of a pathogenic foreign protein due to antibody subclass switch to IgG4 and increased IgG4-related diseases, T cell exhaustion, interference with & suppression of innate immunity, persistent systemic inflammation, reduced cancer surveillance or the suppression of tumor-suppressing immune system activities & cell-signaling (increasing your risk of fast-growing and aggressive cancers); & more…
There's no limit to the horrible consequences of injecting into your body something that triggers your own immune system to attack & kill your own formerly healthy cells & tissues.
The public “health” agencies, the COVID “authorities”, & the “mainstream” media fraudulently marketed these experimental mRNA gene “therapy” products as “safe & effective vaccines”. Trusting people thought that they were being presented with the choice (or the mandate) as to whether or not to take a “safe & effective vaccine”…But that was/is a deceptively false “choice”…
The COVID-19 mRNA injections are NOT safe, they are NOT effective, and they are NOT vaccines.
These modified mRNA-LNP gene “therapy” injections never would have passed proper safety studies required for gene therapy products. Safety studies (including biodistribution, immunogenicity, immunotoxicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, shedding, long-term effects, & more) that were bypassed because of the fraudulent mislabeling as “vaccines”. (And because of the EUA & “countermeasure” designations under the Project BioShield Act & PREP Act).
NO ONE should have ever had the “choice” of taking these gene “therapy” injections because the modified mRNA-LNP genetic technology platform is fundamentally flawed & dangerous by design.
The danger is NOT limited to just getting more COVID “boosters”. ANY mRNA gene “therapy” product that transfects your cells and instructs those cells to produce foreign non-self proteins (ANY non-self protein) will trigger an immune system attack response against your own cells & tissues (the role of the Killer T-cells is to monitor ALL the cells of the body, ready to destroy/kill any that express foreign, non-self proteins). This makes EVERY mRNA-based injected product harmful by design.
No one who took these mRNA COVID injections made an informed decision. Most people had no clue about what they allowed to be injected into their bodies...
Also most people still do not understand that the devastating harms inflicted upon people over the last few years was intentional:
https://rumble.com/v6qcb0y-dr.-david-martin-mar-06-2025-edmonton-alberta-replay.html
Thank you for the detailed comment Kelly.
You might be interested in this: https://entwine.substack.com/p/the-platform-is-deadly
There is some wiggle here, worth noting. We don't actually know that the formulation and contents of the vials were, in fact, uniform; the available testing actually seems to show that they were not. Many of the mechanisms and potential interactions you note with the immune system are indeed likely, but not necessarily what all of the injected experience. This may account for the variability in health outcomes for injected persons. Bottom line is we don't know.
But definitely agree, the design and conceptualization of the platform itself is insanity and asking for catastrophe to be the result.
Many thanks to you & to all the brave doctors & scientists & all the people of the world with curiosity, integrity, and strength of character who have risked so much to get this info out into the world.
And thanks for the link…that was another great read! (Both parts!)
You are absolutely correct in noting that the manufacturing “standards” were so sub-par that, “We don’t actually know that the formulation and contents of the vials were, in fact, uniform; the available testing actually seems to show that they were not.”
My main concern is that at some point, they will be forced to acknowledge the injuries and deaths, but that they will blame & scapegoat the manufacturing issues and/or the toxicity of the spike protein for all the adverse effects of the COVID mRNA injections while (continuing to) claim that the mRNA gene "therapy" technology platform itself is a proven “safe & effective vaccine" platform.
I predict they will say something like, “We admit that the COVID shots had manufacturing problems because we were in a rush to get you those life-saving vaccines due to the deadly pandemic, but we’ve fixed those manufacturing mistakes…the mRNA technology platform is safe & effective!”
Or, “We admit that the spike protein was not an ideal choice due to its recently discovered toxicity and some people may have had reactions to the spike proteins…but the mRNA technology platform is safe & effective so go get your new mRNA-based flu shot!”
Or, “As incredible as the proven traditional mRNA platform is, this next-level self-amplifying mRNA platform is even better! Get your new safe & effective Replicon shot!”
https://www.drtrozzi.news/p/world-council-for-health-the-dangers
As you wrote, “the design and conceptualization of the platform itself is insanity and asking for catastrophe to be the result.”
I think your predictions are very likely. There are some researchers that have already said as much, including some who have studied the DNA 'contamination' issue.
Part 2
AFTER the mighty CD8+ Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte cells (AKA Killer T-cells) attack response to modified mRNA transfected cells of tissues & organs inside your body:
After the primary immune system attack response by the cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), resulting in varying degrees of tissue damage & pathology in different people, a lot happens...
The CTLs will not be able to kill every cell making non-self (spike) protein, so some amount of foreign (spike) protein will get made & released from your cells. That amount will also vary from person to person.
Specialized cells called antigen-presenting cells, especially dendritic cells and macrophages, spring into action. Long story short…you will get serum antibodies made against those foreign proteins which is the stated goal of any shot called a vaccine.
But that can take up to 2 weeks, and during that time, the foreign non-self (spike) proteins are biologically active and will attach to various cellular receptors, resulting in a whole new level of possible tissue destruction.
Now your immune system will activate macrophages & neutrophils that will kill THOSE cells through inflammatory pathways, regardless of whether or not the non-self proteins are toxic themselves.
And if the non-self proteins ARE toxic, like the pathogenic spike proteins, they can cause problems like tissue damage all by themselves without your immune system even being involved at that point.
But your adaptive immune system has done its job & you've made your serum antibodies by now! Yippee!
Too bad those (non-neutralizing, leaky) serum antibodies can only REACT to a (SARS-CoV-2) infection...it is biologically impossible for serum antibodies (in the blood) to PREVENT respiratory infections that enter the body through the mucosa of the mouth/throat, nose, & eyes.
To PREVENT respiratory infections requires a strong innate immune system with mucosal immunity and secretory IgA to stop the respiratory infection at the mucosal and epithelial barriers (stopping the infection OUTSIDE your body and PREVENTING the infection from getting INSIDE your body).
And this is also where the CTLs are supposed to do their cell-destroying activities. When epithelial cells in the mouth/throat, nose, & eyes are infected (like can happen with respiratory diseases) the CTLs will kill those infected cells.
Epithelial cells at the epithelial barrier can be replaced, usually in just a few days in most people. But injections bypass your body's natural protections and send their payload into your body, where that payload can enter your lymph system and bloodstream.
And in the case of the modified mRNA-LNP gene "therapy" injections, this can be disastrous, starting with the immune system attack response against transfected cells of tissues & organs (INSIDE your body) that are now making foreign non-self proteins.
Replacing cells from now damaged tissues and organs inside your body is a complicated process that can take weeks or longer, with some areas unable to be repaired at all.
The modification of natural mRNA with synthetic n1-methyl pseudouridine made the modified mRNA longer lasting and resistant to the body’s natural breakdown processes. A Nobel Prize was awarded specifically for this use of longer lasting pseudouridine in the COVID mRNA injections.
The pseudouridine modified mRNA is causing a +1 ribosomal frameshift, as well as a reverse reading, so some people may make spike proteins AND mystery (or junk) non-self proteins.
Studies have found that an antibody subclass switch to IgG4 can occur between mRNA shot #2 & #3, which is sending a stand-down signal to the immune system, essentially telling the immune system to tolerate and ignore the (toxic pathogenic) spike proteins instead of actively fighting to clear the spike from the body.
And people who are getting "booster" after "booster" are repeatedly triggering these immune system activities and causing persistent systemic inflammation, which can cause hyper-immune and autoimmune responses...and then possible immune system exhaustion as your immune system becomes overwhelmed.
And then there's the plasmid DNA contamination (with the oncogenic SV-40 promotor sequence) that's been discovered. There are a number of ways in which integration into the human genome is possible...
And more...
I am not a doctor…so PLEASE let me know of any corrections that need to be made if I have misstated something…
But, tragically, I think the injuries, disabilities, and deaths from these modified mRNA-LNP gene “therapy” injections prove that the COVID shots have been an IMMUNOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE.
Very well written. As you rightly point out, it's worth considering the relationship between strategy and integrity.
As for strategy and limited hangouts, there's a point we can keep in mind. A limited hangout is meant to deceive, even if it accomplishes this feat by (mis-)using a bit of truth. In theory, a strategy to make certain calculated, initial concessions to achieve greater success later COULD perhaps be tolerable (not necessarily optimal) depending on a variety of factors. However, the challenge is that a limited hangout and an explicit strategy of calculated initial concessions (to focus on common ground, or establish a foothold, or start with low-hanging fruit) will appear identical in the beginning. The difference is that the initial concessions will be the endpoint for the limited hangout (by design) whereas for the planned strategy these initial concessions mark a starting point that will ideally yield greater, positive results at a future point.
This means that if the intent is merely to craft a limited hangout, those perpetrating the hangout can mask their intent by feigning some strategic design behind these initial concessions. If the true objective is just a limited hangout, then the 'greater results later' never come.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Brad.
Limited hangouts have been used in many contexts, but some are more significant than others and have outsized potential for damage.
In particular, large-scale psy-ops, as with 9/11 or COVID as examples, magnify their importance and impact. A good deal of this has to do with the scale of deception and the many points of intersection that ripple out across society. As we know, 9/11 led to war and tyrannical destruction of the Constitution, the PATRIOT Act, not to mention the untold fortune and lives lost, and laying the groundwork for legislation like the PREP Act. COVID is not dissimilar in its impact, and I think we have not yet seen the full extent of its reach.
In these large-scale events, there are often pivotal and foundational deceptions that must be kept afloat in order for the secondary or tertiary deceptions to continue, even decades later. In a less-impactful instance, a limited hangout (can and often does) function simply as a short-term distraction. I don’t think what we’re looking at is short-term.
It’s because of this observation that the Prasad/Makary hangout is particularly dangerous, regardless of any possible strategic goals. Aside from the fact that this is heralded as a part of broad reform at our public health agencies, the statement is, I think, not built on ‘concessions’, but is in fact, built-on and builds-upon the foundational deceptions of COVID. If there is a goal to achieve positive results from bolstering this deception, than any potential gain might not materialize at all because the foundational elements, undisturbed, will allow for yet another pivot.
In this case, the limited hangout is not just a release valve, it is serves to *enable* the broader deception (intentionally or not). Further, it calcifies further, in the mind of the unquestioning, the basic tenets of the Op, which may be the most damaging aspect of all.
Agreed
Why are these drs who know we don’t need these shots and who know they killed ppl and injuring others, allowing this poison to still be given, made?
There are some that (charitably) believe Prasad and Makary actually believe these shots help people…
Raise your hand, place the other on the Bible and swear, "I promise to tell the truth*, the whole truth* and nothing but the truth*."
*pledge of faith, fidelity, loyalty, and kinship to the state agents overseeing this promise.
The question we should ask when we hear that oath is: "whose 'truth?"