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.
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!