Did the editors or reviewers purge your discussion to remove the disclosure that the trial substances were produced differently than the mass-marketed E coli produced vaxxes?
With the DNA contamination of the latter the "favourable" comments on RNA techniques might have had to be modified to placate the censors.
The reason for posting the further reading posts is that effects of contamination were outside the scope of our review, where you have a control and measure the effects of a variable, %m1u and OVA in a murine model.
If it was an investigation into adjuvants and cancer vaccines it would have been relevant.
"This is what a surgical mask looks like to an aerosolised virus. Particles either go straight through it, round it, or both. 1 layer or 10, if you can get enough air through it to breathe then you can get enough aerosols through it to infect you."
Before masking and more so now, when near people with masks, I try to mist an SBD or Ghost, just as a test. It's never backfired or failed with OMG proof positive results that masks don't work.
Thank you! If there is anything that needs further clarification, please let me know. I will go into the interferon effects and other m1Ψ induced issues in Part II.
I watched your presentation and for me this was extremely informative, thank you. Unfortunately when someone speaks of the mRNA platform injections in a positive manner I have an unpleasant visceral reaction to it, I understand that it may have a positive use in the future but the damage that has been done to individual lives on the road to that use is horrific to me. My very healthy fit friend died a year after her 3rd injection following a lengthy period of severe neurological symptoms which started within a week of her third injection. I understand Dr Raszek and his optimism that this platform may have potential benefit to humans with chronic diseases but my trust in the lack of ethics and morals shown by many scientists has been destroyed. Unfortunately it almost seems that the unethical scientists have been the ones to rise to the top and hold the most power and drown out the ethical scientists like yourself who works so hard to maintain their honesty, ethics and morals in the scientific field. I do hope that something positive will come out of the hard diligent work you have done.
I have to concur with Amat's opinion on the corruption and bastardisation of peer review. Usually I'd self-insert a reference to an article on TDB as evidence but I think most folks here know it is horribly astray.
I've watched the system for decades, and it is horribly broken.
1) Studies that aren't funded won't exist. Period.
2) Only profitable studies, or studies with a chance to become profitable, are funded.
3) Nearly all researchers chase money.
4) 98-99% of money comes from evil or self-interested sources (biggest: government).
5) Journals chase money, in every way imaginable.
6) Journals will continue to publish bunkem papers with no raw data because if they didn't they'd have nothing to sell or scam Universities and "institutions of higher learning" with.
7) Negative studies are either not published or ignored.
8) Any collection of studies that somehow meet all the criterion of a good research paper, all of them will pass through a capital finance filter, meaning only the profitable ones will be acted upon.
In my mind nearly all papers boil down into one of two categories:
1) Either to sell or shill a product (including overcoming the pathetic "regulatory" hurdles)
2) Grant-begging to acquire more financing for the researcher(s) in question (see every 'climate change' paper as of late rife with absolute garbage)
People will point to the tiny exceptions of self-funded, tiny, small-sample-size maybe-altruistic studies and cry 'BUT NOT ALL OF THEM', but that tiny 1% is meaningless in the deluge of crap that infects academia. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.
Thank you. I'm fast reaching the conclusion that due to off-target effects it's a technology that is just not ready yet, and possibly never will be.
You either have an uninhibited immune response that quickly destroys the agent and otherwise healthy cells, or you have to turn these responses down, non-specifically. This answers the question: it becomes the friend of cancer.
Congratulations on your publication!! Thatâs amazing! Now post-peer review, they will still try to attack it, Iâm sure.
Excellent write up. I had a very rare form of melanoma 2 years ago. In my follow up, post surgery, where luckily (and so far, knock on wood), they got everything out, which was really lucky, as chemo and radiation would not have worked, I met up with a very tired Head of Oncology at Yale. She was in charge of monitoring and keeping tabs on all of the cancer and giving info and advice. She was a smart woman, you could see the gears turning and she kept staring at me as I asked my detailed questions. What saved me was my low mitotic rate (so far) and she asked me why did I think I had a low mitotic rate? I said I guessed that I had unwittingly started an intermittent fasting diet AND I did not get a covid jab. Then s he asked, why did I not get one- I responded, because it was a p53 suppressor. It just so happened that Arkmedicâs article about the Jiang and Mei study was something that came out a couple of weeks before my meeting and I was able to say a couple reasonably well founded sentences based on that article. She visibly blanched. Iâm telling you she KNEW that the jabs were killing her patients,, I was probably just one of the first to openly admit I didnât get one and that I knew that it was a huge factor. Oddly enough, that hospital did not require me to get one to receive treatment- I know there were hospitals that did. Maybe she was responsible for that, I donât know. I didnât know enough about the pseudouridine at that point to say much, but I think I did mention that the LNP model was dangerous. I still cannot fathom how they recommended cancer patients to get these jabs when before, those with depressed immune systems were recommended to stay away from all vaccines. It simply beggars belief.
Thank you! I'm really pleased that you got the all clear and did your own research đ. You shouldn't have to though. Of all the specialists who should be speaking out with difficult questions, most of them preferred to remain silent even now. It's as if they forgot all their training & years of study, as well as the precautionary principle and took a stupid pill.
There are some heroes who have spoken out though, such as Dr. William Makis & Prof. Angus Dalglish.
Thank you. Follow da monay! Talking of not reading the full paper, it is paywalled by Elsevier but if I can find an open access source I will post the link in the introduction.
Open access link to a pdf of the full paper (posted by others):
Review: N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ): Friend or foe of cancer?
https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rubio_Casillas_Methylpseudouridine_Promotes_Cancer_Wow_2024.pdf
Did the editors or reviewers purge your discussion to remove the disclosure that the trial substances were produced differently than the mass-marketed E coli produced vaxxes?
With the DNA contamination of the latter the "favourable" comments on RNA techniques might have had to be modified to placate the censors.
The reason for posting the further reading posts is that effects of contamination were outside the scope of our review, where you have a control and measure the effects of a variable, %m1u and OVA in a murine model.
If it was an investigation into adjuvants and cancer vaccines it would have been relevant.
With your overt disclosure of identity, I find it puzzling that you redacted the "Fact-Checker" 's identity.
Great respect and thanks for your work.
R
I prefer to err on the side of caution when naming names!
Cyprinus Carpio - part 1 of a "pseudo" opus.
"This is what a surgical mask looks like to an aerosolised virus. Particles either go straight through it, round it, or both. 1 layer or 10, if you can get enough air through it to breathe then you can get enough aerosols through it to infect you."
Before masking and more so now, when near people with masks, I try to mist an SBD or Ghost, just as a test. It's never backfired or failed with OMG proof positive results that masks don't work.
What's an SBD or Ghost?
SBD = Silent But Deadly
It's an art-form to have that degree of control. When seated on a couch it is described as a "cushion-creeper!"
Not gonna lie; it's going to require quite a bit of time and effort for me to obtain a rudimentary comprehension of this presentation.
That said, this is the sort of review and evaluation that is worth the time and effort to understand.
A thousand thanks for taking the time to write and publish it.
Thank you! If there is anything that needs further clarification, please let me know. I will go into the interferon effects and other m1Ψ induced issues in Part II.
I watched your presentation and for me this was extremely informative, thank you. Unfortunately when someone speaks of the mRNA platform injections in a positive manner I have an unpleasant visceral reaction to it, I understand that it may have a positive use in the future but the damage that has been done to individual lives on the road to that use is horrific to me. My very healthy fit friend died a year after her 3rd injection following a lengthy period of severe neurological symptoms which started within a week of her third injection. I understand Dr Raszek and his optimism that this platform may have potential benefit to humans with chronic diseases but my trust in the lack of ethics and morals shown by many scientists has been destroyed. Unfortunately it almost seems that the unethical scientists have been the ones to rise to the top and hold the most power and drown out the ethical scientists like yourself who works so hard to maintain their honesty, ethics and morals in the scientific field. I do hope that something positive will come out of the hard diligent work you have done.
I have to concur with Amat's opinion on the corruption and bastardisation of peer review. Usually I'd self-insert a reference to an article on TDB as evidence but I think most folks here know it is horribly astray.
I've watched the system for decades, and it is horribly broken.
1) Studies that aren't funded won't exist. Period.
2) Only profitable studies, or studies with a chance to become profitable, are funded.
3) Nearly all researchers chase money.
4) 98-99% of money comes from evil or self-interested sources (biggest: government).
5) Journals chase money, in every way imaginable.
6) Journals will continue to publish bunkem papers with no raw data because if they didn't they'd have nothing to sell or scam Universities and "institutions of higher learning" with.
7) Negative studies are either not published or ignored.
8) Any collection of studies that somehow meet all the criterion of a good research paper, all of them will pass through a capital finance filter, meaning only the profitable ones will be acted upon.
In my mind nearly all papers boil down into one of two categories:
1) Either to sell or shill a product (including overcoming the pathetic "regulatory" hurdles)
2) Grant-begging to acquire more financing for the researcher(s) in question (see every 'climate change' paper as of late rife with absolute garbage)
People will point to the tiny exceptions of self-funded, tiny, small-sample-size maybe-altruistic studies and cry 'BUT NOT ALL OF THEM', but that tiny 1% is meaningless in the deluge of crap that infects academia. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.
Thank you. I'm fast reaching the conclusion that due to off-target effects it's a technology that is just not ready yet, and possibly never will be.
You either have an uninhibited immune response that quickly destroys the agent and otherwise healthy cells, or you have to turn these responses down, non-specifically. This answers the question: it becomes the friend of cancer.
đđťđđťđđťđ
Congratulations on your publication!! Thatâs amazing! Now post-peer review, they will still try to attack it, Iâm sure.
Excellent write up. I had a very rare form of melanoma 2 years ago. In my follow up, post surgery, where luckily (and so far, knock on wood), they got everything out, which was really lucky, as chemo and radiation would not have worked, I met up with a very tired Head of Oncology at Yale. She was in charge of monitoring and keeping tabs on all of the cancer and giving info and advice. She was a smart woman, you could see the gears turning and she kept staring at me as I asked my detailed questions. What saved me was my low mitotic rate (so far) and she asked me why did I think I had a low mitotic rate? I said I guessed that I had unwittingly started an intermittent fasting diet AND I did not get a covid jab. Then s he asked, why did I not get one- I responded, because it was a p53 suppressor. It just so happened that Arkmedicâs article about the Jiang and Mei study was something that came out a couple of weeks before my meeting and I was able to say a couple reasonably well founded sentences based on that article. She visibly blanched. Iâm telling you she KNEW that the jabs were killing her patients,, I was probably just one of the first to openly admit I didnât get one and that I knew that it was a huge factor. Oddly enough, that hospital did not require me to get one to receive treatment- I know there were hospitals that did. Maybe she was responsible for that, I donât know. I didnât know enough about the pseudouridine at that point to say much, but I think I did mention that the LNP model was dangerous. I still cannot fathom how they recommended cancer patients to get these jabs when before, those with depressed immune systems were recommended to stay away from all vaccines. It simply beggars belief.
Thank you! I'm really pleased that you got the all clear and did your own research đ. You shouldn't have to though. Of all the specialists who should be speaking out with difficult questions, most of them preferred to remain silent even now. It's as if they forgot all their training & years of study, as well as the precautionary principle and took a stupid pill.
There are some heroes who have spoken out though, such as Dr. William Makis & Prof. Angus Dalglish.
âwe certainly donât have the time or see the point in walking them through all these.â
Why should you? Why should any one us. THEY DONâT CARE. They just want to yank our chains.
I am a big fan of your work
Thank you. Follow da monay! Talking of not reading the full paper, it is paywalled by Elsevier but if I can find an open access source I will post the link in the introduction.
Ugh. Elsevier is the worst.
Yes, follow the money. So cliche but true.
Thank you!