Update on Global Gene Therapy Mass Experiment

Just published Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs Stephanie Seneffa et al. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Highlights

♦  mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

♦  The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.

♦  Suppression of type I interferon responses results in impaired innate immunity.

♦  The mRNA vaccines potentially cause increased risk to infectious diseases and cancer.

♦  Codon optimization results in G-rich mRNA that has unpredictable complex effects.

Overview

The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent.

The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites.

We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance.

These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis.

We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.

Conclusions

In this paper, we call attention to three very important aspects of the safety profile of these vaccinations. First is the extensively documented subversion of innate immunity, primarily via suppression of IFN-α and its associated signaling cascade. This suppression will have a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections.

Second is the dysregulation of the system for both preventing and detecting genetically driven malignant transformation within cells and the consequent potential for vaccination to promote those transformations.

Third, mRNA vaccination potentially disrupts intracellular communication carried out by exosomes, and induces cells taking up spike glycoprotein mRNA to produce high levels of spike-glycoprotein-carrying exosomes, with potentially serious inflammatory consequences.

Should any of these potentials be fully realized, the impact on billions of people around the world could be enormous and could contribute to both the short-term and long-term disease burden our health care system faces.

In the end, billions of lives are potentially at risk, given the large number of individuals injected with the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines and the broad range of adverse outcomes we have described. We call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health, or to acknowledge that they are and to act accordingly. Furthermore, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions.

The Implications

Joseph Shepherd takes it from there in his American Thinker article How the COVID Vaccines Kill

With each passing day, the news connected to the COVID shots grows worse.  That the injections don’t prevent COVID — or even its spread — has been known for months, and post-injection problems encompass almost everything that can go wrong with a body

“Not a single organ, not a single bodily function, is unharmed” after one of these shots, said Arne Burkhardt, a professor of forensics at Reutlingen’s Pathological Institute.

So little has been written about why “side effects” such as myocarditis have popped up that one can’t help but wonder: Does anybody understand how these shots work? 

In the space below, let’s pick three of the harshest complications and explore how COVID shots could be driving the mechanics of each.

1 – Myocarditis

The pale-yellow fluid of the Pfizer or Moderna vial contains billions of microscopic fat globs called lipid nanoparticles. Each is an incredibly tiny envelope, used to conceal the novel drug: messenger RNA. Once injected, the combination of nanoparticles and mRNA becomes a well-camouflaged predator.

According to Pfizer’s own data, less than half the nanoparticles stay in the arm where they were injected. Most slip through tiny cracks in muscle tissue and enter the bloodstream. Venous blood speeds them to the heart, which pumps and disperses them to the entire body.

Depending on the level of exercise, from 5 to 25% of these particles wind up in coronary circulation. Why is this important? Consider the rather large number of nanoparticles that must slip into human heart tissue: 50 to 250 million out of each billion that enter the veins of the arm.

Coronary circulation branches into microscopic capillaries that rush nutrients to heart muscle cells. And since the nanoparticles designed by Pfizer and Moderna masquerade as triglycerides, heart muscle cells are apt to snatch them out of circulation as food.

Now imagine the shock for any hard-charging heart cell that engulfs one of these particles. Expecting a meal, the cell unwraps the envelope, and voilà! Freshly unveiled messenger RNA seizes the cell’s protein-generating apparatus, forcing out a known toxin — the COVID spike protein.

Very soon, with urgent biochemical signals, the afflicted cell telegraphs news of its hijacking to the immune system, which will marshal what it takes to destroy the cell.

An immune-mediated attack on heart muscle cells is, of course, the very essence of myocarditis.

Foreign RNA takes control of a cell’s protein production, transforming these cells into enemies of the body, and the immune system converts them into useless scar tissue. The process is irreversible, as heart muscle cells do not regenerate.

According to CDC, myocarditis from COVID jabs is “rare” and “mild,” but where is the evidence for this proclamation? Pfizer’s data shows every shot — at least in part — entering the bloodstream, so CDC has interesting notions about the word “rare.” Clinical myocarditis is never “mild.” A phenomenon that kills thousands of heart muscle cells is better classified as “serious” or “severe.” And even if the subject doesn’t die right away, how is that person not permanently injured? And how is the process not cumulative with each subsequent jab?

Given that about 40% of CDC income comes from vaccine patents and products, how can we be assured these experts are not self-serving?

2 – Vascular Damage and Heart Attack Risk

Now let’s turn attention from lipid nanoparticles to their end-product, the COVID spike protein. Having been forced into production by messenger RNA, spike protein peels off cell membranes and drops into general circulation. From there, it stabs and deactivates ACE-2 protein, which is displayed on the innermost lining of blood vessels.

Deactivating ACE-2 has enormous consequences for the body: Its loss leads to oxidative stress on blood vessels, putting the patient at risk for organ damage and blood clots over time.

Can oxidative stress persist for months, or even longer? A study of spike-injected hamsters showed that damaged ACE-2 was not replaced by mammalian cells. Either the cells never sensed that ACE-2 was “spiked” or didn’t generate a signal to replace spiked ACE-2 with a fresher version. To put it a more scientific way: Injected spike protein down-regulated ACE-2, probably for as long as the cells stayed alive.

Does any of this apply to humans? Using the PULS lab score to study a large group of at-risk patients, investigators found that future risk for heart attack remained almost triple two and a half months after two mRNA shots.

3 – Neurodegenerative Disease

Is the COVID jab really associated with premature Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease? Evidence continues to mount, and spike protein is once again the culprit. Circulating spike targets the brain in a variety of ways:

♦  by exposing brain cells to unnecessary toxins through crowbar-like effects on the blood-brain barrier.
♦  by inducing susceptible proteins to misfold and become pathogenic.
♦  by attacking ACE-2 protein-rich environments in the brain.
♦  by forcing mitochondria (the energy-producing organelles of cells) into less efficient processes, so that injured brain cells take on the eerie characteristics of cancer and Alzheimer’s cells.

Long-term outlook

Messenger RNA technology has been around for over 20 years, and multiple vaccines have been attempted. Each failed because the experimental animals failed to thrive.

Last February, spike protein was found to inhibit type 1 interferon, the powerful regulator of the immune system. Hindering type 1 interferon reduces the body’s ability to defend against:

(1) malignancies

(2) autoimmune diseases

(3) viral infections

Over the next year, we will continue to observe how impaired interferon affects the great COVID shot experiment. But while we study the pathology, let us further develop the mechanisms associated with mRNA injections, so that new approaches to the injuries they inflict may be devised.

 

 

G7 Ministers Pledge Energy Hari-Kari

G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers’ Communiqué, Berlin, May 27th, 2022

Excerpts in italics with my bolds

Recognising that accelerating the international clean energy transition and phasing out continued global investment in the unabated fossil fuel sector is essential to keep a limit of 1.5 °C temperature rise within reach, we commit to end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector by the end of 2022, except in limited circumstances clearly defined by each country that are consistent with a 1.5 °C warming limit and the goals of the Paris Agreement. (pg. 33)

We note with concern the scale of private finance currently still supporting non-Paris aligned activities especially in the fossil fuel sector. (pg. 22)

We are thus further strengthened in our resolve to accelerate the clean energy transition towards a net zero emissions future by 2050, while also keeping energy security and affordability at the core of our action, including through the rapid expansion of low-carbon and renewable energies and an increase in energy efficiency.  (pg. 29)

In this regard, we acknowledge the IEA net zero scenario which suggests that G7 economies
invest at least US$1.3 trillion in renewable energy including tripling investments in clean
power and electricity networks between 2021 and 2030. (pg. 31)

We confirm our strong financial commitments for the market ramp-up of low-carbon and renewable hydrogen and its derivatives, thereby signalling an irreversible shift towards a world economy based on low carbon and renewable energy sources. (pg. 31)

In view of the Russian attack on Ukraine, financial support for companies and citizens affected by severely rising prices for fossil fuels is now on the political agenda for several countries. Nevertheless, we aim for our relief measures to be temporary and targeted and we reaffirm our commitment to the elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. (pg. 32)

We also highlight that we have ended new direct government support for unabated international thermal coal-fired power generation by the end of 2021, including through Official Development Assistance, export finance, investment, and financial and trade promotion support. (pg. 33)

We commit to increase national efforts to decarbonise building heating and cooling systems by using appropriate policy tools, including regulations and incentives, with the ultimate objective of transitioning away from fossil fuels. (pg. 37)

This will also guide our approach in public finance institutions and on the boards of MDBs and bilateral DFIs. We therefore call on other major economies, the MDBs and bilateral DFIs, multilateral funds, public banks and relevant agencies to also adopt these commitments. We commit to review our progress against our commitments. (pg. 33)

(Note: Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), Development finance institution (DFIs)

See also Michael Kelly on Energy Utopias and Engineering Realities synopsis Kelly’s Climate Clarity

And Dieter Helm Seeking Climate and Energy Security

May 31 Arctic Ocean Frozen Solid

The animation shows Arctic ice extents on day 151 (end of May) from 2006 to yesterday 2022. It is evident that typically there are some regional seas starting to melt by this date, whereas 2022 remains frozen solid.  More detailed analysis is below, but note the 2022 surplus is 600k km2, or 5% above the 16 year average for day 151.  That extra ice extent amounts to 0.6 Wadhams, or 6826 Manhattan Islands, whichever index you prefer.  The graph below shows May 2022 daily ice extents compared to the 16-year average and some other years of note.

The black line shows during May on average Arctic ice extents decline ~1.8M km2 down to 11.7M km2.  The 2022 cyan MASIE line only lost 1.3M km2, starting the month 141k km2 above average and on day 151 showed a surplus of  598k km2.  The Sea Ice Index in orange (SII from NOAA) starter lower than MASIE, then ran over in later weeks, ending May nearly the same. The dark green line is average Arctic ice, excluding Bering and Okhotsk (B&O), which started melting early in 2022. The light green line is 2022 without B&O.  As of day 151, the 2022 B&O extent matches the average B&O, so the ~600k km2 surplus is entirely in the core Arctic ocean.

Why is this important?  All the claims of global climate emergency depend on dangerously higher temperatures, lower sea ice, and rising sea levels.  The lack of additional warming is documented in a post Adios, Global Warming

The lack of acceleration in sea levels along coastlines has been discussed also.  See USCS Warnings of Coastal Flooding

Also, a longer term perspective is informative:

post-glacial_sea_levelThe table below shows the distribution of Sea Ice on day 151 across the Arctic Regions, on average, this year and 2020.

Region 2022151 Day 151 Average 2022-Ave. 2021151 2022-2021
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 12281289 11682840 598449 11605537 675752
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1060171 1003588 56582 1034779 25392
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 894077 865036 29040 900868 -6792
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1085478 1064424 21054 1051959 33520
 (4) Laptev_Sea 877340 824419 52921 738294 139047
 (5) Kara_Sea 870898 829705 41193 824068 46831
 (6) Barents_Sea 421071 305918 115153 325745 95326
 (7) Greenland_Sea 665639 562229 103411 615174 50465
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 976116 897470 78647 812548 163568
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854703 810848 43855 811040 43663
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1122388 1088994 33395 1084892 37496
 (11) Central_Arctic 3245183 3216568 28615 3232324 12859
 (12) Bering_Sea 116552 115657 895 89124 27428
 (13) Baltic_Sea 915 199 717 0 915
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 89260 96309 -7049 83572 5688

The overall surplus to average is 598k km2, (5%).  The surplus is found in every region, except for a slight deficit in Okhotsk

bathymetric_map_arctic_ocean

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring Arctic ice extents.