[Technically it’s true that there are “no adverse outcomes reported” from the mistranslation of mRNA vaccines, but that’s because we don’t even know what that would look like.]
Yeah, I was laughing quite a bit when I read that part of the paper.
My opinion is this (I copy/paste from my article):
[This proves, once again, that modRNA is an unstable drug that cannot be properly tested for safety and efficacy in its current formulation, as it would create random distributions of peptides and potentially cause severe side effects in otherwise healthy individuals. This constitutes the opposite of a therapeutic, where a reliable knowledge on dosage, distribution, duration, reproducibility, fidelity, stability, integrity of the components, purity... is needed. None of this have been achieved so far in the application of this technology for immunization purposes.]
Finding new and different problems with mRNA transfections is dandy but my vote is with Jay Couey & Mike Yeadon's basic principle that the foundation of immune systems is distinguishing self from non-self and NO novel protein will ever tolerated.. foreign proteins cause auto-immune reactions full stop.. no transfections for healthy humans!.. they say it better! :~)
Every medical "professional" or "practitioner" who pushed the jabs as safe and effective should lose their license to ever "practice" again. If they want to push the jabs on themselves or their family members that's their business, but to push them on panicked patients in the name of making a buck is criminal.
Joomi your analysis is so reasonable and understated. I wish comedians understood what you explain so clearly because, let's face it, the "scientists" who parrot the "safe and effective" mantra, no matter what has been uncovered, are completely bonkers.
Did you people know that in Germany there are more than 400 law suits pending before courts where people are trying to get compensation for being injured by the vaccines? Do you also know that those courts will not hear anything that will contradict the EMA's mantra "safe&effective"? So regardless of what is being found and maybe even proven without a doubt, so far it does not lead to justice... I am wondering if it ever will. When I look back to 2001, I am sure it will not, since most people will not have a single effing clue of what I am talking about.
If I am not mistaken, the Nobel Prize was given exactly for the N1-Methypseudouridine discovery and how it stabilizes the modRNA... it seems that Prize is now rivaling for first place in terms of "Worst Nobel Prize ever!"... well, actually it's not even close for the lobotomy one, since more than 5 BILLION people have gotten at least one shot. Oh, do we know what happens with the "huge" amounts of N1-Methylpseudouridine in the cells after the modRNA has broken down? Is it then used for construction of other m- and tRNA's? That would be "fun"...
There is an excellent Twitter/X post from December 7 by Jeff Childers, Esq. that explains why the scientists are using the wording they used - it was to get it published. He explains the nuance that the scientists are using in order to seem "positive" about these vaccines (in order to jump through the hoops to get published), while subtly telling everyone that they are really bad.
Joomi does a great job presenting the new research showing that modified uridines in the COVID jab mRNA created frame shift errors that cause strange proteins to be created, and an even greater job of addressing the chorus which claims that no harm is caused by this.
Packing yourself with a random variety of non-native proteins obviously will have some kind of consequences.
Yaaaaa, that chorus is nonsense, but the claims of harmlessness have to be done in order to get the research published. You'll see this again and again digging through jab research data. Obvious troubles will show in the data, accompanied by calming platitudes in the intro, conclusions and abstract.
Wiseman et al. quote the Nature authors stateting that the "error prone code" has a "huge potential to be harmful.” But the Nature paper doesn't contain those words. Does anyone know the source?
Also in the Telegraph piece there is this description of the mRNA immunotechnology:
"mRNA jabs, such as the ones created by Moderna and Pfizer, use a string of genetic material to tell the body to create a specific protein that safely imitates an infection."
Hi Joomi,
On your comment:
[Technically it’s true that there are “no adverse outcomes reported” from the mistranslation of mRNA vaccines, but that’s because we don’t even know what that would look like.]
Yeah, I was laughing quite a bit when I read that part of the paper.
My opinion is this (I copy/paste from my article):
(Link) https://agustinsanchezcobos.substack.com/p/what-kevin-mckernan-has-been-warning
[This proves, once again, that modRNA is an unstable drug that cannot be properly tested for safety and efficacy in its current formulation, as it would create random distributions of peptides and potentially cause severe side effects in otherwise healthy individuals. This constitutes the opposite of a therapeutic, where a reliable knowledge on dosage, distribution, duration, reproducibility, fidelity, stability, integrity of the components, purity... is needed. None of this have been achieved so far in the application of this technology for immunization purposes.]
Finding new and different problems with mRNA transfections is dandy but my vote is with Jay Couey & Mike Yeadon's basic principle that the foundation of immune systems is distinguishing self from non-self and NO novel protein will ever tolerated.. foreign proteins cause auto-immune reactions full stop.. no transfections for healthy humans!.. they say it better! :~)
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1997320607
Every medical "professional" or "practitioner" who pushed the jabs as safe and effective should lose their license to ever "practice" again. If they want to push the jabs on themselves or their family members that's their business, but to push them on panicked patients in the name of making a buck is criminal.
Joomi your analysis is so reasonable and understated. I wish comedians understood what you explain so clearly because, let's face it, the "scientists" who parrot the "safe and effective" mantra, no matter what has been uncovered, are completely bonkers.
Going to start calling my kids Unintended Protein Products.
Did you people know that in Germany there are more than 400 law suits pending before courts where people are trying to get compensation for being injured by the vaccines? Do you also know that those courts will not hear anything that will contradict the EMA's mantra "safe&effective"? So regardless of what is being found and maybe even proven without a doubt, so far it does not lead to justice... I am wondering if it ever will. When I look back to 2001, I am sure it will not, since most people will not have a single effing clue of what I am talking about.
If I am not mistaken, the Nobel Prize was given exactly for the N1-Methypseudouridine discovery and how it stabilizes the modRNA... it seems that Prize is now rivaling for first place in terms of "Worst Nobel Prize ever!"... well, actually it's not even close for the lobotomy one, since more than 5 BILLION people have gotten at least one shot. Oh, do we know what happens with the "huge" amounts of N1-Methylpseudouridine in the cells after the modRNA has broken down? Is it then used for construction of other m- and tRNA's? That would be "fun"...
It maybe the best they can ever do is admit something went wrong with the shots...
There is an excellent Twitter/X post from December 7 by Jeff Childers, Esq. that explains why the scientists are using the wording they used - it was to get it published. He explains the nuance that the scientists are using in order to seem "positive" about these vaccines (in order to jump through the hoops to get published), while subtly telling everyone that they are really bad.
Good work bringing this to the fore and translating for laypeople. Thank you for that.
The recklessness is beyond chilling.
Thank you, a great review of the study, explaining in a way that people can understand.
Here Igor addressing the same study (https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/covid-vaccines-produce-random-junk) evokes in my mind one of Joomi's prior columns re Nobel Prizes and lobotomies https://joomi.substack.com/p/nobel-prize-history-from-lobotomies.
Joomi does a great job presenting the new research showing that modified uridines in the COVID jab mRNA created frame shift errors that cause strange proteins to be created, and an even greater job of addressing the chorus which claims that no harm is caused by this.
Packing yourself with a random variety of non-native proteins obviously will have some kind of consequences.
Yaaaaa, that chorus is nonsense, but the claims of harmlessness have to be done in order to get the research published. You'll see this again and again digging through jab research data. Obvious troubles will show in the data, accompanied by calming platitudes in the intro, conclusions and abstract.
Wiseman et al. quote the Nature authors stateting that the "error prone code" has a "huge potential to be harmful.” But the Nature paper doesn't contain those words. Does anyone know the source?
Excellent clarity. However, the Telegraph assures us the frameshifting is "harmless." https://archive.ph/V9QTA#selection-2239.4-2239.80
Also in the Telegraph piece there is this description of the mRNA immunotechnology:
"mRNA jabs, such as the ones created by Moderna and Pfizer, use a string of genetic material to tell the body to create a specific protein that safely imitates an infection."
An infection is "safely" imitated.
trump jumped at mRNAs as a quick fix ... wrong!
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fda-chief-summoned-white-house-amid-pressure-authorize/story?id=74480021