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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.