What??? I've been buying it bulk . Not enough, now, if it's being regulated. It's been studied for copd. Evidence that it helps reduce flares with mucous build up.
I use it for COPD and it is amazing. Still available in Canada, but just stocked up with another 480 caps last week. You can probably order online. I use a company called healthy planet.
Thank you for the info! I ordered powdered, bulk from a company through Amazon. When I checked last night it was no longer offered. In fact the only NAC sold at all were 2 brands of capsules, ridiculously priced.
Could I ask what the dosage is you take, mgs per cap?
Something I can't find a clear consensus on, so I'm hoping someone here can answer: what is the difference between n-acetyl cysteine and n-acetyl l-cysteine? Are they the same/offer the same benefits as one another?
I mean, the title of the abstract is literally how NAC perturbs the spike protein, which is what is being shedded...
The paper talks about varying ways that the NAC acts on the spike protein: disintegration of the binding site, or stereoisomerisation of the protein itself.
Bleeding disorder. N-acetyl cysteine might slow blood clotting. There is concern that N-acetyl cysteine might increase the risk of bruising and bleeding in people with bleeding disorders.
Surgery. N-acetyl cysteine might slow blood clotting. This might increase the risk of bleeding during and after surgery. Stop taking N-acetyl cysteine at least 2 weeks before a scheduled surgery.
I live in a small town in Japan and there have not been any reported "cases" of Corona-chan in our town. My wife and I are not vaccinated. She's 44 and she just had her period after several months of nothing. She says nobody at her work has been vaccinated, but I am starting to wonder.
You've probably heard about Suga deciding to not run for office again. That guy Kono (we call him "that vaccine guy") is likely going to replace him as PM. He's the one with the bushy eyebrows and he's been in charge of scaring everyone into taking those DNA-altering death jabs.
And you probably saw that just this past week, there were TWO massive shipments of Moderna vaccines that had to be trashed, millions each. At first they found contaminants that were millimeters thick, like visible to the naked eye. Of course the particles wouldn't fit through the needles, but upon further examination they found nano metal particles (probably graphene oxide) and even stainless steel particles. I saw a picture of it under the microscope and it was like fragments had been glued together. The stuff was magnetically responsive, even. Oh, and also PARASITES. Like, that can't be good for anything. Dr. Jane Ruby exposed all this on the Stew Peters Show last week. I dunno what kind of parasites they were, but Dr. Haruo Ozaki, the chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitain Medical Association is pushing for ivermectin to be used. Dr. Kazuhiro Nagao, the director of the Nagao Clinic and a university professor was on Japanese TV saying he's used ivermectin as early treatment for over 500 COVID patients with practically 100% success rate. He is also pushing for nationwide use.
The response to this? Now the government is pushing to restrict inter-prefectural travel now for non-vaccinated people. Australia is under martial law and apparently that gives these crooks raging boners and they want to do the same here too. This means that with all the bad news about vaccines and major voices in support for ivermectin (which was invented by a Japanese scientist and won the Nobel science prize for it), I can imagine that vaccination rates are probably plummeting and they are getting desperate. I hope that this restriction on travel doesn't go through. It was never really enforced before, but I hope there is enough pushback on that.
There is no evidence of vaccine shedding. All reports seem to be of menstrual sympathy, which is a pheromone response.
Nevertheless, NAC looks promising as a prophylactic or curative for the virus and possibly against the some of the harmful effects of the vaccine itself, if taken before and/or for a couple weeks after getting the vaccine.
I am responding to this post so that it has visibility under my original post in case someone later comes to this conversation. I am also using it to respond to you directly.
I am watching this show with Dr. Malone. It is long, and I am not very far in, but around the 15 ish minute mark they talk about the spike protein. They talk about how the part that is not in the membrane (so just a piece of the protein, not the whole thing) can be cleaved from the cells that the vaccine causes to express it and go off and interact with other cells in the body.
I have mentioned this possibility before (though not in my discussion with you). I have found no evidence to support their statement, but I am still listening and hopefully they will provide that information.
If that is going on, then my statement on S protein cross person transmission changes from "its impossible" to "maybe a piece of it is" (in this case, it would be a part that does do damage).
The maybe is still important. We really don't infect other people with our blood proteins. Its just not a thing in any meaningful way. Nevertheless, if I can find evidence to corroborate this protein cleavage from the vaccinated cells, and the cleaved part remaining intact and active, I will change my protest from impossible to unlikely.
I would also like to say my estimation of Dr. Malone has increased.
First of all, what he said had no basis in cell biology reality (see below).
Second, he said "in miniscule amounts". So you believe he must be telling the truth about it shedding (because it fits your fear of it) but then don't believe he is telling the truth about the scale (because it doesn't fit your fear of it).
That makes perfect sense, if you use fear to guide your reasoning.
I am a cell biologist and bio-nanotechnology researcher in a field related to the vaccines. There is no biological basis for a transmembrane protein to escape the lipid bilayer it is locked into, somehow escape the body, somehow enter into another body (apparently by teleportation) somehow cross into the bloodstream, somehow make it to a cell that is expressing the ACE-2 protein, and then somehow aligns with that protein, and then somehow do anything except cause that single receptor to shut down. That would do NOTHING to a whole cell, and less than nothing to the tissue it lives in.
So you understand, transmembrane proteins of the type that is the SARS S protein can't escape the membrane. it just doesn't happen. Even if they did, the lipid bilayer is essential for the structure and function, requiring both mechanical forces and the hydrophobic environment only existing within the lipid bilayer. So if it escaped, it would instantly unfold and would form some other structure. Considering that the ACE-2 ligand part of the S protein is dependent on the S Proteins tertiary structure, which instantly changes if it miraculously escaped the membrane, there is virtually no way it is still capable of activating the ACE-2 receptor even if all the other 10 miracles happened that got it into another persons body and interfacing with the right cell in the right orientation.
From the perspective of someone who does research in these things, the concept is beyond ludicrous that the S protein is "shedding" and making people sick.
Considering all "sickness" it is causing is related to menstruation, and menstrual sympathy has been a thing forever, and the vaccine itself has been shown to accumulate in the ovaries, BY FAR the most likely explanation is a pheromone response causing menstrual sympathy.
He said that the spike protein sheds (as a fact), and then offers his thought (a hypothesis) that the shedding is minor.
He said that it sheds. He invented it.
Edit to add: Everyone assumed that the injection stays at the injection site too... and it doesn't... and now we discover that not only does it spread throughout the body, it also has the ability to cross the blood / brain barrier... so, shedding is truly not out of the realm of possibility, despite you trying to convolute and confuse with your Cell Biology terminology.
Everyone assumed that the injection stays at the injection site too... and it doesn't
When people were saying this, I was saying that there was NO POSSIBLE WAY it was remaining at the injection site. Such an idea was ludicrous. I made protest after protest about the design of the vaccines and how they would easily enter the cardiovascular and lymphatic systems and spread everywhere.
Which was completely obvious to me because I have designed lipid nanoparticles for cell specific targeting drug delivery...
So I know a thing or two about what is going on.
despite you trying to convolute and confuse with your Cell Biology terminology.
If what I said was confusing I apologize. I was trying to be specific and accurate. It is difficult to explain how ludicrous some of the ideas are without getting into the nitty gritty.
it also has the ability to cross the blood / brain barrier
Of course it does. I said that from the beginning. We create PEGylated lipid nanoparticles of that specific size precisely because they CAN cross the BBB.
so, shedding is truly not out of the realm of possibility
Just because someone else got a completely unrelated thing wrong, doesn't mean that this is also wrong. That is a logical fallacy.
I don't care to look into the mechanism of which chirality or stereoisomer does which or whatever. The point is, that we just DON'T KNOW. Do I want you to be right? Of course! But, we don't know.
I am letting you know the inventor is very likely incorrect. There is no biological basis for it to occur.
Its not a chirality thing... But I get your point.
But, we don't know.
No. We don't, and biology can be surprising. But given that there is zero evidence of ANYTHING other than menstrual sympathy, and given that as an expert in the field I am saying I can see no possible path for it to happen, and have given a detailed report of what my protests are, it is LUDICROUS to think it is something other than menstrual sympathy (AKA a pheromone response).
At the very least every protest I have made should be addressed specifically, since I am telling you what is known about the biology, and how such a thing is basically impossible.
Let me give you a little more on why a transmembrane protein such as the S protein can't exist outside of the cell membrane (and thus a cell) and remain in its proper interacting form.
For many decades they were able to figure out the shape of many proteins using X-ray crystalography. But for transmembrane proteins they never could. It took decades to figure out a way to keep them in their proper shape once taken out of the membrane to get a good picture of them (they had to put hydrophobic molecules in between in a very specific way). The instant a TM protein hits an aqueous environment they immediately change form in a violent way.
In addition, getting a transmembrane protein out of a membrane REQUIRES a hydrophobic environment. (Our entire body is an aqueous environment except in the cell membranes). If a cell were to die with those proteins on the membrane, they would stick with the membrane, making it basically impossible to go anywhere except down the gullet of some phagocyte. They must be in a bilayer (cell membrane or bleb membrane). Its not speculation, its physics.
in-silico protein-folding shape prediction for this spike protein has led to some interesting structural results, i think it validates the HIV conclusions those early research papers reached
And I fully understand your point and get where you're coming from. I'm not trying to argue and I really feel like this discussion is helpful!
But, another question... what about everyone who is offering anecdotes?? I realise that anecdotes don't necessarily carry much weight individually. Singly. But when more and more people are experiencing things, it gives me pause? Are they all experiencing psychosomatic responses? It would be remiss of me to classify ALL of them as such, right? It's hard to coalesce everything when the name of the game is CENSOR!
When all the information is censored, then getting those data points in order to compile reasoned research is near impossible.
Do I understand the mechanism of HOW shedding would work? Do you have to sniff people? How much sniffing is required? Ridiculous questions, but not necessarily completely irrelevant?? I always felt that good science happened when scientists were forced into semi-ridiculous hypotheses. Sometimes in the absurdity lies the answer.
And, full disclosure, I HATED my cell biology course work. One instructor I had put a multiple choice question on which elements comprised a cell membrane: lipids and sterols. I can't remember precisely which ones she had listed, but suffice to say, ALL of them comprised a cell membrane. She then asked us to pick the one that was less..... Ummmmm????
Of course it does. I said that from the beginning. We create PEGylated lipid nanoparticles of that specific size precisely because they CAN cross the BBB
I edited my comment while you were responding. Apologies for a sneaky edit!
I read what you wrote thoroughly. My days of cell biology courses are behind me but I can understand research papers just fine, thank you for your derision and condescension.
You're right, he's a poser, and don't let the tap dancing obfuscate what is plainly observed IRL- clinical observations proved transmission of blood-poisoning substances to individuals in the proximity of test subjects. And all injected are test subjects, because it's not a vaccine.
I do say blood poison because the effects CROSS SYSTEMS- reproductive, vascular, respiratory, nervous, etc.
Trying to identify the transmitted agent on our end is kind of futile because big pharma has been incredibly dishonest from the get go and we really do not know what is in the injections.
Learn how to address arguments. You are obviously not a researcher, at least not in the field of cell or molecular biology, or any field related to those topics. Researchers attack arguments with logic, reason, knowledge and evidence. You attack people with vitriol and insult.
plainly observed IRL- clinical observations proved transmission of blood-poisoning substances to individuals in the proximity of test subjects
Show me the evidence of this. Please. If this is true I would really like to see it.
I do say blood poison because the effects CROSS SYSTEMS- reproductive, vascular, respiratory, nervous, etc.
If you mean the vaccines, and more specifically the S proteins, I agree; the evidence suggests that they are poisons that attack all of these systems (but especially the endothelium, at least by the CDC data).
Trying to identify the transmitted agent on our end is kind of futile because big pharma has been incredibly dishonest from the get go and we really do not know what is in the injections.
On this I agree, on all counts. It is certainly possible that something is being transmitted. I never denied that. I am making a very sound argument for why it is almost certainly not the spike protein itself. Not one refutation has been presented for a single piece of my argument.
tap dancing
Don't know enough about cell and molecular biology to address my arguments?
Take it from another researcher, you've made several assumptions and you're tying everything to one alleged protein. We know different test subjects are getting different injections, easily proven despite blank ingredient sheets, simply based on the extreme differences in event reporting by lot.
We know there's more side effects from SHEDDERS than menstrual, and even then, putting the extreme bleeding, sudden huge painful, off- cycle extended bleeding to magical synchronization which normally happens gradually over months is beyond ludicrous. Especially since MALES have caused the reactions in FEMALES. You have some lab vocabulary but clearly no clinical experience so kindly stop trolling and read moar.
you've made several assumptions and you're tying everything to one alleged protein.
I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing.
We know there's more side effects from SHEDDERS than menstrual
Please point to a single piece of credible evidence to support this statement. "I got tired" or "I didn't feel well" don't count as evidence. The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic. I have seen no actual evidence, even anecdotal that supports this claim. If some exists I would really like to see it.
You have some lab vocabulary but clearly no clinical experience so kindly stop trolling and read moar.
Really? You are attacking me and not my arguments? That is not the path to elucidation but the opposite.
I am well versed in what is going on. Yes, I am a researcher. Yes, when I inject things its mice, not people. That doesn't mean I am ignorant, and it certainly doesn't mean I can't analyze evidence or research.
Especially since MALES have caused the reactions in FEMALES
This could easily be a pheromone response.
I also have seen no evidence that it is true.
sudden huge painful, off- cycle extended bleeding
The evidence I saw for this was in a vaccinated person not an off target effect.
You have offered not one bit of evidence and a bunch of attempts to discredit without addressing my arguments in response. If you wish to converse, please do so.
So, why is the mRNA enveloped in fat? To trick the body to accept it. the sequence itself has no chance of survival inside a healthy body.
To make matters worse, you inject people with SM102. You admit to having developed that on purpose!
And of course, it may be that "statistically", it is hardly "measurable". So far, I have not seen any data on that. however, the extremely toxic shit is prohibited from:
reaching acquatic millieus (meaning: fresh/ saltwater; living organisms)
being administered to humans and animals.
Your mRNA can only survive in a toxic environment.
It attaches itself to ovaries, sperm, lymphnodes, the brain, and there it multiplies. See the biological distribution.
Hell is being raised over the fact that people in Brasil have bought 12 million prescription of Ivermectin, and of course the consequences to waste treatment was raised high.
Nothing of the sort has been done with the shit you helped design. Where is your ecological impact report?
Sarscov was shown to be in fecal matter, and thus in waste water treatment.
Whether that can be effectively killed of is a different matter, we still are investigating.
If millions of stupid MF-ers get in line to be jabbed with this shit you created with the purpose of transfecting anyone, you can rest assured nature too is being impacted, especially, since the sarscov-virus is advertised as an improved trans species hopper where gain of function: i.e. transmissbility is enhanced.
Therefor the "cure" that toxic gen-concoction you helped create, also must be suspected of being transmissible to other species. Especially, with regards to biosludge use.
You will scream: there is no evidence of that. Sure, we are still looking, but the lack of evidence is a plastic matter.
"plainly seen or perceived, manifest, obvious," late 14c., from Old French evident and directly from Latin evidentem (nominative evidens) "perceptible, clear, obvious, apparent" from ex "out, out of, fully" (see ex-) + videntem (nominative videns), present participle of videre "to see" (from PIE root *weid- "to see").
The reports are quite clear. And blaming pheromones does not cut it. And appealing to authority does neither do you any good.
And with the shit you helped create, you created NOT a solution but many additional problems.
And if you wish to see all that I have said on the topic, please read further above. I go into greater detail that helps explain my position. It extends into the "continue reading thread" section.
I never said you should trust me. That would be stupid. You absolutely should not trust me.
However, it must be understood that I have not made a statement, I have presented an argument. If the argument can't be refuted (which it hasn't) then the argument stands as the best argument until it is refuted.
That is all that is going on here. Never hand over your critical thinking skills to me or anyone else. Look at the evidence, hear the arguments.
Unfortunately, since there are no other actual biological researchers commenting on my arguments they are not able to prove that they stand up to debate. I really wish there were. I know there are at least a couple on the board, but they aren't chiming in.
you don't need an expert to disagree when common sense would do. The inventor himself stated they can shed. It's pretty clear. He also stated 'almost certainly can't cause disease'
One is presented as fact. The other is theory.
You yourself seem to make quite a few assumptions such as - 'The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic.' and "This could easily be a pheromone response." This was your argument, That's not arguing with facts. It would be just as valid to say. "This could easily be explained as a new virus infection or a parasite" , hell, make up anything. You can say whatever you want when you don't require evidence to back it up.
You have stated as fact - "I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing."
Yet Dr. Warren EXPLICITLY states it does. So one of you is incorrect. So who do we trust? The inventor? They thought the spike protein would stay in the area of the vaccination...they were wrong. You say you knew it wouldn't but we can't verify that so it's just your word. You say the protein doesn't shed. Warren states it does. One of you is incorrect right?
See, that's logic and reason without having a PHD in biology. The age old "my expert is better than yours" arguments. So you see you can use all the biological wording you want but you are still just a guy on the net saying the opposite what a very prominent expert has already stated.
Further even 'expert' opinions are in question. The experts just told us we went through one the deadliest pandemics since 1918 yet our 5 senses told us otherwise. We now find out the experts lied. Time and time again. Over masks, the source of the virus, HCQ, death rates, etc. And it's all documented.
So forgive us if we treat your arguments as bullshit. Other experts are saying the opposite of what you are and there has been so much bullshit shoveled around by so many people calling themselves experts that identifying the truth is difficult. There ARE people we trust who have been arguing against COVID and vaccines for a long time often at their own cost and reputation. I trust their motives and therefore their 'science'. They were RIGHT about HCQ, Ivermectin, etc while the people who stand to profit off a vaccine were lying about the cures and promoting an experimental vaccine that according to one inventor sheds the spike proteins. The doctors I trust saved lives. The experts lied.
Many Dr,’s are reporting multiple patients coming in with nosebleeds, severe bruising, some with abdominal bleeding, ITTP (idiopathic thrombocytopenia Purpura), patients having stillborns in the 2nd and 3rd trimester (uncommon), clotting abnormalities, and these are not isolated incidences.
Watch “Critical Thinking” on Rumble. It had the 5 Dr’s. every Thursday that discuss what they are seeing in clinic. Also, Dr. Judy Macovich has explained the shedding theory.
I personally didn’t believe it but I don’t believe that all of these Dr’s are conspiring to lie.
As a scientist, you know that sometimes science doesn’t explain everything. Sometimes we expect a certain outcome based on what we know and then scratch our head wondering why the heck something defies science. That’s when we have to listen to patients.
First of all: you can blabber on honored jargon, but that does not make you a certified knowledgeable scientist. Anyone on here can claim anything.
Dozens of highly educated and well established virologist do not share your view.
Second:
somehow escape the body, somehow enter into another body (apparently by teleportation) somehow cross into the bloodstream, somehow make it to a cell that is expressing the ACE-2 protein, and then somehow aligns with that protein, and then somehow do anything except cause that single receptor to shut down
Yet, you are willing to go with the narrative that natural "viruses" somehow spread from person to person without ANY evidence. All the evidence you have is concurrence, coincidental data. The only viruses that spread from person to person are designed to do that.
Third:
Any jabbed person is a spike protein factory. It get's into sperm, ovaries, lympfnodes, saliva, brain.
That it influences people with whom a test subject has close contact is even mentioned in the Pfizer contra-indications. You are neglecting a major implication.
You are appealing to the McCLintock effect, yet you have no evidence for it's pathway. You are reaching and you have no evidence.
Dozens of highly educated and well established virologist do not share your view.
Please point out one virologist (not MD, but actual scientist) who says they think the spike protein is shedding and causing problems and presents an argument or evidence for how that is happening.
Just one argument, or one piece of evidence, by one actual scientist.
Just one.
Yet, you are willing to go with the narrative that natural "viruses" somehow spread from person to person without ANY evidence.
There is a ridiculous amount of evidence that viruses spread.
Here is a paper that looks at mask efficacy in an outbreak of H1N1 (or some flu variant, I'd have to look it up by I'm busy finding evidence for you). It show quite clearly that masks don't work to stop the spread of a virus. (Note: "stop the spread of a virus").
Note: I am getting more stuff. I posted accidentally mid gathering. You have way too many things to respond to! At least you didn't put them all in one post.
I'm not entirely sure what you think that is saying or what it is supposed to be in response to, but I will assume it is intended to be refutation of my main argument, that the S protein can not exist outside of a membrane, and thus cannot "shed" on its own (obviously it can when its part of the virus itself, that's just called viral transmission of SARS).
The paper you are linking to says that the S protein interacts with and downregulates the ACE-2 protein and that that downregulation impairs endothelial function. That has been known (at least by me) for over a year, though this paper does a good job of explaining the pathways in greater detail, as well as some of the extent of the harm.
What it has nothing to do with is vaccine shedding, and it ESPECIALLY has nothing to do with the S protein that is created by the vaccines somehow magically "shedding".
I know biology is complicated. I know there is a lot of disinformation, so let me be specific.
This paper talks about the interaction of the S protein (on the virus, or created by a vaccine and expressed in the membrane of a cell) and the ACE-2 protein (on a target cell).
In order to test the interactions (and deleterious effects) of the S protein itself (without the vaccine stuff or the SARS virus stuff) they had to create a lipid bilayer aka cell membrane and have the S protein expressed on its surface (think of it like a mini cell with the S protein in its membrane without the machinery inside). They actually used an (otherwise) non functional virus to create the "mini cells" and express the S protein on the surface. This is because there is no way for the S protein to exist on its own (as I have been saying, ad naseum).
That is a protocol definition not evidence of an event.
In that vaccine protocol they include protocols to look for vaccine shedding. This is because real vaccines are made out of viruses. Real viral vaccines can absolutely shed. That is why all vaccine protocols include these specific protocols. In truth its really misnamed. It should just be "viral transmission" because that's what it is, its just called "shedding" to distinguish it from another virus other than the real virus that is the vaccine.
The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is NOT a viral vaccine. It has absolutely nothing to do with a viral vaccine. That does not mean there can't be off target effects. But this protocol definition is not evidence that any off target effects have been found.
Still, we should keep an eye out for off target effects. There is evidence that there may be off target effects. But off target effects are not necessarily vaccine shedding by the definition of that term, They most certainly are not evidence of SARS S protein shedding in any way, shape or form.
I see what you are saying. Sort of like the warnings on your water bottles to beware of the water eating through your clothes if you spill it or make other contact as well as protocols on how to handle water acidity and wet clothing....
I am saying it is standard vaccine trial procedure to include looking for viral vaccine transmission. It is part of every vaccine protocol experiment. It has nothing to do with this vaccine specifically, and being a protocol it just gives what to look for because of previous viral vaccine experiments.
It has nothing to do with this vaccine having found something. (Like, literally nothing.)
Someone just had a thread on here about NAC being very difficult to find. Others put some vendors that still sell it.
FDA just regulated it.... It now requires a prescription.
So we now have confirmation that it works!
What??? I've been buying it bulk . Not enough, now, if it's being regulated. It's been studied for copd. Evidence that it helps reduce flares with mucous build up.
I only have one bottle of 120. It's getting rationed!
I just bought a bottle on iherb. To hell with AmaCIAzon!
I use it for COPD and it is amazing. Still available in Canada, but just stocked up with another 480 caps last week. You can probably order online. I use a company called healthy planet.
Thank you for the info! I ordered powdered, bulk from a company through Amazon. When I checked last night it was no longer offered. In fact the only NAC sold at all were 2 brands of capsules, ridiculously priced. Could I ask what the dosage is you take, mgs per cap?
2 x 500mg caps a day, also take NOx lozenges 2 x day. A bottle of 240 nac was around $40
Thank you, friend. Very much appreciated!
https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/2020/09/08/fda-again-flags-n-acetylcysteine-as-a-drug-not-a-supplement/
https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/les-labs-593764-07232020
https://www.soperlawfirm.com/blog/the-fdas-drug-exclusion-provision
https://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/regulatory/stakeholders-cant-sue-fda-over-nac-warning-letters
More??
Be careful with garlic (arginine) as it can stimulate dormant viruses (herpes) so you would have to balance it with Lysine.
D3 supplement also helps in reigning this in.
Recommmended to first read carefully. make a balanced approach preferably with a holistic doctor, and test carefully, document the effects!
reining - as in horse's rein not in queen's reign.
Yup. My G gets stuck......
It must be masonic.
beet extract/powder supplies nitrates for the arginine/nitric oxide synthase to act on...
Saving this one! Thx fren
Something I can't find a clear consensus on, so I'm hoping someone here can answer: what is the difference between n-acetyl cysteine and n-acetyl l-cysteine? Are they the same/offer the same benefits as one another?
Amazon pulled NAC from its site.
The article isn’t about shedding.
I’ve been screaming for a while now that NAC given at 900mg (it’s used for folks with cystic fibrosis) would help prevent infection of Covid.
I am vindicated to the 5 people I mentioned this to. ??
I mean, the title of the abstract is literally how NAC perturbs the spike protein, which is what is being shedded...
The paper talks about varying ways that the NAC acts on the spike protein: disintegration of the binding site, or stereoisomerisation of the protein itself.
Do you have some sauce on studies that confirm spike protein shedding?
There were studies last year (2020) conducted on IC patients where it worked miracles.
How to buy it? What's a pure form without all the added crap?
Thanks for this. Do you know the difference between N-acetyl cysteine and N-acetyl l cysteine?
Is there any difference at all?
Thanks buddy
https://files.catbox.moe/o8uz36.pdf
Wow.
From the Webmd article:
good info! thanq
I live in a small town in Japan and there have not been any reported "cases" of Corona-chan in our town. My wife and I are not vaccinated. She's 44 and she just had her period after several months of nothing. She says nobody at her work has been vaccinated, but I am starting to wonder.
Hey old post, but how's it going over there now?
You've probably heard about Suga deciding to not run for office again. That guy Kono (we call him "that vaccine guy") is likely going to replace him as PM. He's the one with the bushy eyebrows and he's been in charge of scaring everyone into taking those DNA-altering death jabs.
And you probably saw that just this past week, there were TWO massive shipments of Moderna vaccines that had to be trashed, millions each. At first they found contaminants that were millimeters thick, like visible to the naked eye. Of course the particles wouldn't fit through the needles, but upon further examination they found nano metal particles (probably graphene oxide) and even stainless steel particles. I saw a picture of it under the microscope and it was like fragments had been glued together. The stuff was magnetically responsive, even. Oh, and also PARASITES. Like, that can't be good for anything. Dr. Jane Ruby exposed all this on the Stew Peters Show last week. I dunno what kind of parasites they were, but Dr. Haruo Ozaki, the chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitain Medical Association is pushing for ivermectin to be used. Dr. Kazuhiro Nagao, the director of the Nagao Clinic and a university professor was on Japanese TV saying he's used ivermectin as early treatment for over 500 COVID patients with practically 100% success rate. He is also pushing for nationwide use.
The response to this? Now the government is pushing to restrict inter-prefectural travel now for non-vaccinated people. Australia is under martial law and apparently that gives these crooks raging boners and they want to do the same here too. This means that with all the bad news about vaccines and major voices in support for ivermectin (which was invented by a Japanese scientist and won the Nobel science prize for it), I can imagine that vaccination rates are probably plummeting and they are getting desperate. I hope that this restriction on travel doesn't go through. It was never really enforced before, but I hope there is enough pushback on that.
Thorne (research) sells NAC.
I knew I'd seen NAC somewhere before and searched for it.
There is no evidence of vaccine shedding. All reports seem to be of menstrual sympathy, which is a pheromone response.
Nevertheless, NAC looks promising as a prophylactic or curative for the virus and possibly against the some of the harmful effects of the vaccine itself, if taken before and/or for a couple weeks after getting the vaccine.
Oh, I dunno... The inventor seems to think they can...
https://greatawakening.win/p/12ih0RwtBH/mrna-inventor-censored-for-confi/c/
So does this study.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2020/12/04/2020.12.04.409144.full.pdf
I am responding to this post so that it has visibility under my original post in case someone later comes to this conversation. I am also using it to respond to you directly.
I am watching this show with Dr. Malone. It is long, and I am not very far in, but around the 15 ish minute mark they talk about the spike protein. They talk about how the part that is not in the membrane (so just a piece of the protein, not the whole thing) can be cleaved from the cells that the vaccine causes to express it and go off and interact with other cells in the body.
I have mentioned this possibility before (though not in my discussion with you). I have found no evidence to support their statement, but I am still listening and hopefully they will provide that information.
If that is going on, then my statement on S protein cross person transmission changes from "its impossible" to "maybe a piece of it is" (in this case, it would be a part that does do damage).
The maybe is still important. We really don't infect other people with our blood proteins. Its just not a thing in any meaningful way. Nevertheless, if I can find evidence to corroborate this protein cleavage from the vaccinated cells, and the cleaved part remaining intact and active, I will change my protest from impossible to unlikely.
I would also like to say my estimation of Dr. Malone has increased.
First of all, what he said had no basis in cell biology reality (see below).
Second, he said "in miniscule amounts". So you believe he must be telling the truth about it shedding (because it fits your fear of it) but then don't believe he is telling the truth about the scale (because it doesn't fit your fear of it).
That makes perfect sense, if you use fear to guide your reasoning.
I am a cell biologist and bio-nanotechnology researcher in a field related to the vaccines. There is no biological basis for a transmembrane protein to escape the lipid bilayer it is locked into, somehow escape the body, somehow enter into another body (apparently by teleportation) somehow cross into the bloodstream, somehow make it to a cell that is expressing the ACE-2 protein, and then somehow aligns with that protein, and then somehow do anything except cause that single receptor to shut down. That would do NOTHING to a whole cell, and less than nothing to the tissue it lives in.
So you understand, transmembrane proteins of the type that is the SARS S protein can't escape the membrane. it just doesn't happen. Even if they did, the lipid bilayer is essential for the structure and function, requiring both mechanical forces and the hydrophobic environment only existing within the lipid bilayer. So if it escaped, it would instantly unfold and would form some other structure. Considering that the ACE-2 ligand part of the S protein is dependent on the S Proteins tertiary structure, which instantly changes if it miraculously escaped the membrane, there is virtually no way it is still capable of activating the ACE-2 receptor even if all the other 10 miracles happened that got it into another persons body and interfacing with the right cell in the right orientation.
From the perspective of someone who does research in these things, the concept is beyond ludicrous that the S protein is "shedding" and making people sick.
Considering all "sickness" it is causing is related to menstruation, and menstrual sympathy has been a thing forever, and the vaccine itself has been shown to accumulate in the ovaries, BY FAR the most likely explanation is a pheromone response causing menstrual sympathy.
No, please don't put words in my mouth.
He said that the spike protein sheds (as a fact), and then offers his thought (a hypothesis) that the shedding is minor.
He said that it sheds. He invented it.
Edit to add: Everyone assumed that the injection stays at the injection site too... and it doesn't... and now we discover that not only does it spread throughout the body, it also has the ability to cross the blood / brain barrier... so, shedding is truly not out of the realm of possibility, despite you trying to convolute and confuse with your Cell Biology terminology.
When people were saying this, I was saying that there was NO POSSIBLE WAY it was remaining at the injection site. Such an idea was ludicrous. I made protest after protest about the design of the vaccines and how they would easily enter the cardiovascular and lymphatic systems and spread everywhere.
Which was completely obvious to me because I have designed lipid nanoparticles for cell specific targeting drug delivery...
So I know a thing or two about what is going on.
If what I said was confusing I apologize. I was trying to be specific and accurate. It is difficult to explain how ludicrous some of the ideas are without getting into the nitty gritty.
Of course it does. I said that from the beginning. We create PEGylated lipid nanoparticles of that specific size precisely because they CAN cross the BBB.
Just because someone else got a completely unrelated thing wrong, doesn't mean that this is also wrong. That is a logical fallacy.
Look, you said "Shedding can't happen."
And I offered the INVENTOR saying otherwise.
I don't care to look into the mechanism of which chirality or stereoisomer does which or whatever. The point is, that we just DON'T KNOW. Do I want you to be right? Of course! But, we don't know.
I am letting you know the inventor is very likely incorrect. There is no biological basis for it to occur.
Its not a chirality thing... But I get your point.
No. We don't, and biology can be surprising. But given that there is zero evidence of ANYTHING other than menstrual sympathy, and given that as an expert in the field I am saying I can see no possible path for it to happen, and have given a detailed report of what my protests are, it is LUDICROUS to think it is something other than menstrual sympathy (AKA a pheromone response).
At the very least every protest I have made should be addressed specifically, since I am telling you what is known about the biology, and how such a thing is basically impossible.
Let me give you a little more on why a transmembrane protein such as the S protein can't exist outside of the cell membrane (and thus a cell) and remain in its proper interacting form.
For many decades they were able to figure out the shape of many proteins using X-ray crystalography. But for transmembrane proteins they never could. It took decades to figure out a way to keep them in their proper shape once taken out of the membrane to get a good picture of them (they had to put hydrophobic molecules in between in a very specific way). The instant a TM protein hits an aqueous environment they immediately change form in a violent way.
In addition, getting a transmembrane protein out of a membrane REQUIRES a hydrophobic environment. (Our entire body is an aqueous environment except in the cell membranes). If a cell were to die with those proteins on the membrane, they would stick with the membrane, making it basically impossible to go anywhere except down the gullet of some phagocyte. They must be in a bilayer (cell membrane or bleb membrane). Its not speculation, its physics.
in-silico protein-folding shape prediction for this spike protein has led to some interesting structural results, i think it validates the HIV conclusions those early research papers reached
And I fully understand your point and get where you're coming from. I'm not trying to argue and I really feel like this discussion is helpful!
But, another question... what about everyone who is offering anecdotes?? I realise that anecdotes don't necessarily carry much weight individually. Singly. But when more and more people are experiencing things, it gives me pause? Are they all experiencing psychosomatic responses? It would be remiss of me to classify ALL of them as such, right? It's hard to coalesce everything when the name of the game is CENSOR!
When all the information is censored, then getting those data points in order to compile reasoned research is near impossible.
Do I understand the mechanism of HOW shedding would work? Do you have to sniff people? How much sniffing is required? Ridiculous questions, but not necessarily completely irrelevant?? I always felt that good science happened when scientists were forced into semi-ridiculous hypotheses. Sometimes in the absurdity lies the answer.
And, full disclosure, I HATED my cell biology course work. One instructor I had put a multiple choice question on which elements comprised a cell membrane: lipids and sterols. I can't remember precisely which ones she had listed, but suffice to say, ALL of them comprised a cell membrane. She then asked us to pick the one that was less..... Ummmmm????
No winning here. This guy is waaaaay smarter than the people who invent the vaccines.... Derp.
WE?
State your affiliation + proof.
"We" being people who design lipid nanoparticles.
Proof.
You don't get my affiliation. Nice try doxxer.
If anyone doxxes, it is you. You claim to be something. If there is any doxxing, you did that yourself.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2020/12/04/2020.12.04.409144.full.pdf
Did you read what I wrote or did you stop at the fear statement.
I am a researcher in the field. If you would like to learn why what he said is almost certainly not true I recommend reading what I wrote.
I edited my comment while you were responding. Apologies for a sneaky edit!
I read what you wrote thoroughly. My days of cell biology courses are behind me but I can understand research papers just fine, thank you for your derision and condescension.
You're right, he's a poser, and don't let the tap dancing obfuscate what is plainly observed IRL- clinical observations proved transmission of blood-poisoning substances to individuals in the proximity of test subjects. And all injected are test subjects, because it's not a vaccine.
I do say blood poison because the effects CROSS SYSTEMS- reproductive, vascular, respiratory, nervous, etc.
Trying to identify the transmitted agent on our end is kind of futile because big pharma has been incredibly dishonest from the get go and we really do not know what is in the injections.
Learn how to address arguments. You are obviously not a researcher, at least not in the field of cell or molecular biology, or any field related to those topics. Researchers attack arguments with logic, reason, knowledge and evidence. You attack people with vitriol and insult.
Show me the evidence of this. Please. If this is true I would really like to see it.
If you mean the vaccines, and more specifically the S proteins, I agree; the evidence suggests that they are poisons that attack all of these systems (but especially the endothelium, at least by the CDC data).
On this I agree, on all counts. It is certainly possible that something is being transmitted. I never denied that. I am making a very sound argument for why it is almost certainly not the spike protein itself. Not one refutation has been presented for a single piece of my argument.
Don't know enough about cell and molecular biology to address my arguments?
Then why are you speaking on it at all?
Take it from another researcher, you've made several assumptions and you're tying everything to one alleged protein. We know different test subjects are getting different injections, easily proven despite blank ingredient sheets, simply based on the extreme differences in event reporting by lot.
We know there's more side effects from SHEDDERS than menstrual, and even then, putting the extreme bleeding, sudden huge painful, off- cycle extended bleeding to magical synchronization which normally happens gradually over months is beyond ludicrous. Especially since MALES have caused the reactions in FEMALES. You have some lab vocabulary but clearly no clinical experience so kindly stop trolling and read moar.
I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing.
Please point to a single piece of credible evidence to support this statement. "I got tired" or "I didn't feel well" don't count as evidence. The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic. I have seen no actual evidence, even anecdotal that supports this claim. If some exists I would really like to see it.
Really? You are attacking me and not my arguments? That is not the path to elucidation but the opposite.
I am well versed in what is going on. Yes, I am a researcher. Yes, when I inject things its mice, not people. That doesn't mean I am ignorant, and it certainly doesn't mean I can't analyze evidence or research.
This could easily be a pheromone response.
I also have seen no evidence that it is true.
The evidence I saw for this was in a vaccinated person not an off target effect.
You have offered not one bit of evidence and a bunch of attempts to discredit without addressing my arguments in response. If you wish to converse, please do so.
interesting.
So, why is the mRNA enveloped in fat? To trick the body to accept it. the sequence itself has no chance of survival inside a healthy body.
To make matters worse, you inject people with SM102. You admit to having developed that on purpose!
And of course, it may be that "statistically", it is hardly "measurable". So far, I have not seen any data on that. however, the extremely toxic shit is prohibited from:
Your mRNA can only survive in a toxic environment.
It attaches itself to ovaries, sperm, lymphnodes, the brain, and there it multiplies. See the biological distribution.
Hell is being raised over the fact that people in Brasil have bought 12 million prescription of Ivermectin, and of course the consequences to waste treatment was raised high.
Nothing of the sort has been done with the shit you helped design. Where is your ecological impact report?
Sarscov was shown to be in fecal matter, and thus in waste water treatment.
Whether that can be effectively killed of is a different matter, we still are investigating.
If millions of stupid MF-ers get in line to be jabbed with this shit you created with the purpose of transfecting anyone, you can rest assured nature too is being impacted, especially, since the sarscov-virus is advertised as an improved trans species hopper where gain of function: i.e. transmissbility is enhanced.
Therefor the "cure" that toxic gen-concoction you helped create, also must be suspected of being transmissible to other species. Especially, with regards to biosludge use.
You will scream: there is no evidence of that. Sure, we are still looking, but the lack of evidence is a plastic matter.
The reports are quite clear. And blaming pheromones does not cut it. And appealing to authority does neither do you any good.
And with the shit you helped create, you created NOT a solution but many additional problems.
Thanks.
And if you wish to see all that I have said on the topic, please read further above. I go into greater detail that helps explain my position. It extends into the "continue reading thread" section.
Soooooooo why should we trust you over other researchers? Because you said you were right on the GAW page?
I never said you should trust me. That would be stupid. You absolutely should not trust me.
However, it must be understood that I have not made a statement, I have presented an argument. If the argument can't be refuted (which it hasn't) then the argument stands as the best argument until it is refuted.
That is all that is going on here. Never hand over your critical thinking skills to me or anyone else. Look at the evidence, hear the arguments.
Unfortunately, since there are no other actual biological researchers commenting on my arguments they are not able to prove that they stand up to debate. I really wish there were. I know there are at least a couple on the board, but they aren't chiming in.
An argument without evidence can be rejected out of hand. An argument rejected does not remain standing.
you don't need an expert to disagree when common sense would do. The inventor himself stated they can shed. It's pretty clear. He also stated 'almost certainly can't cause disease'
One is presented as fact. The other is theory.
You yourself seem to make quite a few assumptions such as - 'The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic.' and "This could easily be a pheromone response." This was your argument, That's not arguing with facts. It would be just as valid to say. "This could easily be explained as a new virus infection or a parasite" , hell, make up anything. You can say whatever you want when you don't require evidence to back it up.
You have stated as fact - "I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing."
Yet Dr. Warren EXPLICITLY states it does. So one of you is incorrect. So who do we trust? The inventor? They thought the spike protein would stay in the area of the vaccination...they were wrong. You say you knew it wouldn't but we can't verify that so it's just your word. You say the protein doesn't shed. Warren states it does. One of you is incorrect right?
See, that's logic and reason without having a PHD in biology. The age old "my expert is better than yours" arguments. So you see you can use all the biological wording you want but you are still just a guy on the net saying the opposite what a very prominent expert has already stated.
Further even 'expert' opinions are in question. The experts just told us we went through one the deadliest pandemics since 1918 yet our 5 senses told us otherwise. We now find out the experts lied. Time and time again. Over masks, the source of the virus, HCQ, death rates, etc. And it's all documented.
So forgive us if we treat your arguments as bullshit. Other experts are saying the opposite of what you are and there has been so much bullshit shoveled around by so many people calling themselves experts that identifying the truth is difficult. There ARE people we trust who have been arguing against COVID and vaccines for a long time often at their own cost and reputation. I trust their motives and therefore their 'science'. They were RIGHT about HCQ, Ivermectin, etc while the people who stand to profit off a vaccine were lying about the cures and promoting an experimental vaccine that according to one inventor sheds the spike proteins. The doctors I trust saved lives. The experts lied.
So good luck with that!
Many Dr,’s are reporting multiple patients coming in with nosebleeds, severe bruising, some with abdominal bleeding, ITTP (idiopathic thrombocytopenia Purpura), patients having stillborns in the 2nd and 3rd trimester (uncommon), clotting abnormalities, and these are not isolated incidences.
Watch “Critical Thinking” on Rumble. It had the 5 Dr’s. every Thursday that discuss what they are seeing in clinic. Also, Dr. Judy Macovich has explained the shedding theory.
I personally didn’t believe it but I don’t believe that all of these Dr’s are conspiring to lie.
As a scientist, you know that sometimes science doesn’t explain everything. Sometimes we expect a certain outcome based on what we know and then scratch our head wondering why the heck something defies science. That’s when we have to listen to patients.
I pray to God that your right.
First of all: you can blabber on honored jargon, but that does not make you a certified knowledgeable scientist. Anyone on here can claim anything.
Dozens of highly educated and well established virologist do not share your view.
Second:
Yet, you are willing to go with the narrative that natural "viruses" somehow spread from person to person without ANY evidence. All the evidence you have is concurrence, coincidental data. The only viruses that spread from person to person are designed to do that.
Third: Any jabbed person is a spike protein factory. It get's into sperm, ovaries, lympfnodes, saliva, brain.
That it influences people with whom a test subject has close contact is even mentioned in the Pfizer contra-indications. You are neglecting a major implication.
You are appealing to the McCLintock effect, yet you have no evidence for it's pathway. You are reaching and you have no evidence.
THAT is by FAR the most likely explanation.
That leaves us with the observation as is.
By Fauci shill.
Please point out one virologist (not MD, but actual scientist) who says they think the spike protein is shedding and causing problems and presents an argument or evidence for how that is happening.
Just one argument, or one piece of evidence, by one actual scientist.
Just one.
There is a ridiculous amount of evidence that viruses spread.
Here is a paper that looks at mask efficacy in an outbreak of H1N1 (or some flu variant, I'd have to look it up by I'm busy finding evidence for you). It show quite clearly that masks don't work to stop the spread of a virus. (Note: "stop the spread of a virus").
Note: I am getting more stuff. I posted accidentally mid gathering. You have way too many things to respond to! At least you didn't put them all in one post.
Seriously?
challenges such as these in this time and age are a clear demonstration of you being a shill.
Sorry, I gave you wrong link before. Here is the Pfizer doc admitting it.
https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf
Looking forward to digging in! Thank you!
You mean like this?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2020/12/04/2020.12.04.409144.full.pdf
I'm not entirely sure what you think that is saying or what it is supposed to be in response to, but I will assume it is intended to be refutation of my main argument, that the S protein can not exist outside of a membrane, and thus cannot "shed" on its own (obviously it can when its part of the virus itself, that's just called viral transmission of SARS).
The paper you are linking to says that the S protein interacts with and downregulates the ACE-2 protein and that that downregulation impairs endothelial function. That has been known (at least by me) for over a year, though this paper does a good job of explaining the pathways in greater detail, as well as some of the extent of the harm.
What it has nothing to do with is vaccine shedding, and it ESPECIALLY has nothing to do with the S protein that is created by the vaccines somehow magically "shedding".
I know biology is complicated. I know there is a lot of disinformation, so let me be specific.
This paper talks about the interaction of the S protein (on the virus, or created by a vaccine and expressed in the membrane of a cell) and the ACE-2 protein (on a target cell).
In order to test the interactions (and deleterious effects) of the S protein itself (without the vaccine stuff or the SARS virus stuff) they had to create a lipid bilayer aka cell membrane and have the S protein expressed on its surface (think of it like a mini cell with the S protein in its membrane without the machinery inside). They actually used an (otherwise) non functional virus to create the "mini cells" and express the S protein on the surface. This is because there is no way for the S protein to exist on its own (as I have been saying, ad naseum).
So yes, if that's what you are asking...
Exactly like that.
Oops. Wrong link. Here.
https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf
That is a protocol definition not evidence of an event.
In that vaccine protocol they include protocols to look for vaccine shedding. This is because real vaccines are made out of viruses. Real viral vaccines can absolutely shed. That is why all vaccine protocols include these specific protocols. In truth its really misnamed. It should just be "viral transmission" because that's what it is, its just called "shedding" to distinguish it from another virus other than the real virus that is the vaccine.
The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is NOT a viral vaccine. It has absolutely nothing to do with a viral vaccine. That does not mean there can't be off target effects. But this protocol definition is not evidence that any off target effects have been found.
Still, we should keep an eye out for off target effects. There is evidence that there may be off target effects. But off target effects are not necessarily vaccine shedding by the definition of that term, They most certainly are not evidence of SARS S protein shedding in any way, shape or form.
I see what you are saying. Sort of like the warnings on your water bottles to beware of the water eating through your clothes if you spill it or make other contact as well as protocols on how to handle water acidity and wet clothing....
makes sense now. Thanks!
Lol, I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not.
I am saying it is standard vaccine trial procedure to include looking for viral vaccine transmission. It is part of every vaccine protocol experiment. It has nothing to do with this vaccine specifically, and being a protocol it just gives what to look for because of previous viral vaccine experiments.
It has nothing to do with this vaccine having found something. (Like, literally nothing.)
Previous vaccines shed proteins?