Nostr Web Client

“It seems incredibly implausible to me that a non-replicating tiny fragment of virus mRNA (the vaccine) can do more harm than a replicating complete virus. The latter leaves much more RNA all over your body.”

The RNA isn’t the problem. It’s the spike protein. Here’s why it’s plausible to me.

There are inconsistent volumes of lipid nanoparticles in the shot. Some batches are known to be “hot”.

It appears this LNPs have an affinity to particular organs.

We don’t how long to those transfected cells produce spike proteins (but the mRNA was modified to last longer than normal mRNA)

I’m not so confident that the viral infection produces less dangerous spike protein than natural infection.

Furthermore, the virus enters via your nasal passages which are primed to detect infections and your immune system responds earlier to reduce viral load.

Whereas the LNPs go straight to internal organs (like your heart) and produce a toxin in unknown volumes for unknown duration.

Sjors Provoost 1y ago

You would indeed need to find a hypothesis along those lines. And then provide evidence for it.

Two problems I find with your specific suggestion:

1. Covid infections do reach the heart

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9318581/

" The postmortem study conclusively establishes the presence of the virus in the heart"

So it can't just be about spike proteins reaching the heart. Those proteins are the same whether produced by the vaccine or the virus, and the latter produces orders of magnitude more because of replication.

2. mRNA lifetime is measured in minutes

Perhaps the modifications to the vaccine mRNA extend that, but in order to explain a delayed severe side-effect, this would have to be measured in months or even years.

Remember I was looking for a scenario where the vaccine is worse than the virus, in a way that trials couldn't catch, not merely for bad side-effects.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

techfeudalist 1y ago

That paper seems to just do a binary test of whether it was detected or not using a test we now know is faulty. Even still, the paper didn’t find statistically significant positivity in heart fluid (1 out of 2 samples).

The shots don’t contain mRNA. They contain modRNA. The lifetime isn’t measured in minutes. Spikes have been measured in victims even months after the shot indicating that potentially the modRNA is incredibly durable or the RNA is being reverse transcribed into celular DNA.

You can find these details if you want.

Also, if you don’t yet recognize that you have been lied to by every official agency on this topic, didn’t notice the $700 million in payments from pharma to the personal bank accounts of the regulators, and if you haven’t noticed the coordinated censorship of doctors, then by all means, keep on injecting yourself with whatever they tell you. It’s for the greater good, after all. 🫡

Sjors Provoost 1y ago

There are plenty of studies that find virus in the heart, among many other organs. You seem very skeptical of that, but not applying the same skepticism when it comes to the vaccine.

modRNA is only one molecule different from normal mRNA, why would this change durability by many order of magnitude? You seem to be confused about half life: it's to be expected that a few detectable molecules remain after a long time. This happens with mRNA too, that's why PCR tests give false positives long after someone is no longer infectious.

Adding bribes and a coverup as a necessary ingredient of your hypothesis just makes it orders of magnitude less plausible to me.

Sjors Provoost 1y ago

(I tried to find a paper measuring the half-life of mRNA vs. pseudouridine based modRNA it, but can't find one - other than vague statements that it's "longer". This would be a useful datapoint. Though again, the mRNA would have to cause damage for this to matter, because it transcribes to the exact same spike protein as the virus.)

Sjors Provoost 1y ago

* the mod-RNA would

techfeudalist 1y ago

But It doesn’t transcribe to the exact same spike does it? They modified that too.

Interesting how you can’t find official data on the durability of modRNA. You don’t think that’s odd?

Anyway, the reason the credibility of the NIH is relevant is that the NIH regulators were personally paid $700 million and you’re sending me NIH studies and saying I’m not following the science.

BTW, what happens to studies that don’t increase those payments? Are researchers forced to publish them?

But if you think you can trust those studies that they did publish, then i don’t know what to say. 😂

You didn’t seem to know that it was modRNA and you don’t seem to know that they modified the spike too. I would recommend you dig into it a bit further a with a careful eye on who is telling you what and whether you think the person is motivated by something other than your health.

Sjors Provoost 1y ago

You're arguing in bad faith, so I'm going to stop engaging.