Coronavirus 2020



Modern academia is now so hierarchical that for a grad student, post doc or young academic to push the question like that, or to be vocal, would probably not get support for their further career, kinda like the Chomsky- Marr interview. Older staff or those not reliant on grant agency funding may be more independently minded, or eventually get so if something wakes them up. But critical thinking / devil’s advocate isn’t rewarded… Kary was a Nobel prize winner, methodical/scientific, ultra-smart & had the self-assurance to persist… most people are a lot more insecure & unlikely to be unswayed by the crowd I think.



Ah yes the online safety Bill


Too much of a group thing for me…:joy:


CCVAC launches major legal challenge on 5-11 yrs roll-out
In an unprecedented move, the British medical establishment, convened by the CCVAC, is launching a legal challenge against the UK government’s ‘offer’ of a covid ‘vaccine’ to healthy 5-to-11-year-olds, on behalf of a British mother and her children.




bad flu season threatens the terrible health service we overpay for so ya?


As we have some good slap acting going on at the moment, thought we’d remember some of the splendid acting from 2 years ago:


" Conclusion

Based on this information, it appears to me that the extensive random incorporation of pseudouridine into the synthetic mRNA-like molecules used for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may well account for much or all of the observed immunosuppression, DNA virus reactivation, and remarkable persistence of the synthetic “mRNA” molecules observed in lymph node biopsy tissues by Katharina Röltgen et al. Many of these adverse effects were reported by Kariko, Weissman et al in their 2008 paper “Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA yields superior nonimmunogenic vector with increased translational capacity and biological stability” and could have been anticipated by regulatory and toxicology professionals if they had bothered to consider these findings prior to allowing emergency use authorization and widespread (global) deployment of what is truly an immature and previously untested technology . Therefore, neither the FDA, NIH, CDC, nor BioNTech (which employs Dr. Kariko as a Vice President) nor Moderna can claim true ignorance. To my eyes, what we have seen is more appropriately classified as “willful ignorance” .

In conclusion, based on these data it is my opinion that the random and uncontrolled insertion of pseudouridine into the manufactured “mRNA”-like molecules administered to so many of us creates a population of polymers which may resemble natural mRNA, but which have a variety of properties which distinguish them in a variety of aspects which are clinically relevant . These characteristics and activities may account for many of the unusual effects, unusual stability, and striking adverse events associated with this new class of vaccines. These molecules are not natural mRNA, and they do not behave like natural mRNA.

The question that most troubles and perplexes me at this point is why the biological consequences of these modifications and associated clinical adverse effects were not thoroughly investigated before widespread administration of random pseudouridine-incorporating “mRNA”-like molecules to a global population. Biology, and particularly molecular biology, is highly complex and matrix-interrelated. Change one thing over here, and it is really hard to predict what might happen over there. That is why one must do rigorously controlled non-clinical and clinical research. Once again, it appears to me that the hubris of “elite” high status scientists, physicians and governmental “public health” bureaucrats has overcome common sense, well established regulatory norms have been disregarded, and patients have unnecessarily suffered as a consequence.

When will we ever learn."


Fun fact - all three stop codons contain uridine.


And what that mean please?


Wow. I had meant to come back to Diana about pseudouridine on a question she’d asked a couple of months ago. I was extremely busy at the time but I believe I may have read that 2008 paper Malone mentions in his posts and I read a couple of others at the time. I had come to the conclusion that maybe pseudouridine was not so bad as there was a natural process to make it so it was prevalent in the body. There were so many other potential bad things wrong with this new technology that I didn’t think it was worth my time to keep looking into it. However, the newer papers he mentions in his article here about the fact that pseudouridine would normally be regulated, and that the body does have balances and cycles for a reason, is pretty important. Also, the fact that it doesn’t get attacked and broken down in the body too readily is, of course, pretty darn important. The major point, which we were indeed mentioning back then, is that there was hardly any research done on this in the body previously. Even in animals. Even in vitro. I’ll say again, at every step, everything I read about these things is mind blowing. People thought the financial regulators were bad in 2008. The medical regulators are orders of magnitude worse. Just breathtaking.


Every six months? Better be sure there are no adverse effects from repeatedly taking this drug, then. Wouldn’t want to get tired now or anything…


Yes, the FDA just casually authorized a 5TH DOSE


Stop codons - basically the END command for reading the line of RNA or code. Mutations in it can cause a bunch of problems, apparently one of the Cystic fibrosis mutations (there’s a bunch of different ones that can cause the clinical disease) is a stop codon mutation.

It’s just we don’t know. About the liposomes, the mRNA, the pseudouridine, or even about the spike protein cell presentation/circulation itself even if all the others were fine.

We don’t know if it’s a nothingburger, or if it will have consequences. Or if the pseudouridine hangs around and gets recycled or incorporated into other mRNA then.

No idea. I’ll very happily admit that I am no expert in any of the above, but no one is an expert in what actually happens in vivo with any of the above either, let alone in combination, for all their theorising. So not a good idea to inject everyone IMO.


Greetings Pop Pickers, Not Arf




" A group of medical researchers and bioethicists have written a comprehensive assessment of Covid vaccine policies, encompassing passports, mandates and segregated lockdowns. They argue in no uncertain terms that these measures are “scientifically questionable” and “ethically problematic”.

While most of the points in their article will be familiar to readers of the Daily Sceptic , the article is valuable in virtue of its sheer breadth and attention to detail. I’ll try to provide a brief summary.

Kevin Bardosh and colleagues begin by noting that the publicly communicated rationale for Covid vaccine policies has shifted over time, from ‘ending the pandemic’ and ‘getting back to normal’, to reducing the burden on the healthcare system. (Such shifts do not inspire confidence that policymakers really know what they’re doing.)

The authors spend the bulk of the article discussing the harmful unintended consequences of Covid vaccine policies, drawing on insights from the behavioural sciences, law and bioethics.

They cite evidence that the coercive nature of Covid vaccine policies is likely to reduce compliance with other public health measures, including recommendations to take existing vaccines (which have much longer track records than the Covid vaccines). This owes to mechanisms of psychological reactance and loss of trust in the health authorities.

The authors argue that such effects will be compounded by the use of stigmatisation as a public health strategy, and by the dissemination of misleading or false claims on the part of health authorities (such as Anthony Fauci’s claim that, once vaccinated, “you become a dead end to the virus”).

As regards the former, the authors have compiled a list of some of the most incendiary statements made by politicians about unvaccinated people.

Emmanuel Macron admitted his aim was “pissing them off”. Justin Trudeau described them as “extremists who don’t believe in science”, adding “they’re often misogynists, also often racists”. Naftali Bennett accused them of “endangering their health, those around them and the freedom of every Israeli citizen”.

Yet as Bardosh and colleagues note, many unvaccinated people had perfectly good reasons for remaining unvaccinated, such as being in a low-risk category or having natural immunity from previous infection.

Turning to the legality of Covid vaccine policies, the authors note that many measures were merely decrees , passed under states of emergency in the absence of normal democratic governance. As a result, injured parties (such as those who lost their livelihood) have had fewer or no opportunities for proper redress.

Vaccine passports also constitute a significant infringement on privacy, insofar as they require the sharing of medical information with people other than one’s doctor, including not only border officials, but owners of pubs, restaurants and nightclubs.

What’s more, vaccine mandates that disproportionately restrict people’s access to things like work, education and social life can be considered violations of basic human rights, the authors argue. This may explain why the WHO’s Director of Immunisation said in 2020, “I don’t think we envision any countries creating a mandate for vaccination”.

There are many other interesting observations in the paper itself, which is worth reading in full. "