Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bird's avatar

This is a lot of work and good data to build on.

I think there's one point for improvement. "Acute toxicity" is a very narrow view within the hundred other ways that these molecular combinations can eventually cause death. By focusing on this terminology, you risk having an audience not familiar with the breadth of Spike pathology misuse your work to say that "little (observable) *acute* toxicity" = "not harmful".

Falling into this trap is what pharmaceuticals / regulatory agencies have historically relied on in order to define "safety": if it's not a gunshot with death 30 minutes later, then it is defined as "safe" (think of the historic battles to have tobacco / asbestos danger acknowledged).

In our case, it is already well established in the medical literature that a great number of organs and cell types are targeted by the Spike motif and therefore for immune attack and eventual destruction. This takes time – it won't be acute, but it may be debilitating and deadly – something that your data may be showing us if we stop focusing on "acute".

For this reason, you may consider rewording some of these points here so that conclusions are not drawn prematurely.

Expand full comment
cm27874's avatar

I agree that excess mortality in 2022 can not have been caused by acute toxicity alone, but it might still play a significant part. Around 92% of deaths have occurred in the 60+ age group. In this group, 38% have had four or more jabs, and basically all of these have been dealt out in 2022.

Expand full comment
49 more comments...

No posts