On the toxicity of the mRNA spike proteins (the jab), and commentary


URL for this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9EDHMtkUg

Michael Palmer, MD, Associate Professor of Biochemistry, University of Waterloo.
His research in molecular biology focuses on “the interaction of peptides and proteins with biological membranes. One current area of interest is the action mode of lipopeptide antibiotic daptomycin, as well as the mechanism of bacterial resistance to it.” He is an expert in the following fields:

  • Fluorescence
  • Antibiotics
  • Membranes
  • Lipopeptides
  • Pore-forming toxins

In this short statement for the layman, which appears to be casually conducted (I wonder if he gave his consent for it to go online?) he says:

No proper toxicity study has ever been done of mRNA spike protein shots, which is a scandal. It was rushed before the final studies, on human test subjects, were finished.

[NB – I believe that eventually the FDA and other regulatory bodies will mandate it en masse, for everyone, once those final studies have been completed, in a year or two, just as they are now forcing it as a condition of employment and travel though vax mandates and passports.]

Studies in support of what he says, appended to the video by the person who posted it to youtube:

Palmer says mRNA injections weaken the immune system: you accumulate toxicity from them. This is a technology designed to poison people, in his considered opinion as a medical doctor. He uses the word “poison.”

See this link for photos and videos of ‘adverse events’ (negative side-effects) caused by it.

What I found most intriguing is that Palmer says the total dose of vaccines you can have before you die is limited. In other words, the toxin in the jab will eventually kill you.

Palmer: The pharmaceutical corporations [e.g., Pfizer, Modern, Johnson & Johnson, et al] want to use mRNA not just against Covid but against many diseases, despite their risks.

Extended commentary by Think for Yourself

If Palmer is right, the cost of taking several shots cannot be justified. If it kills you, it’s not worth it just to mitigate a disease for which there’s a low incidence of transmission and a high rate of recovery and for which safer remedies already exist.

It’s like getting a lobotomy because you have a headache, or cutting off your arm because you have a hangnail.

How many shots can kill you? Nobody knows, he says, because it varies with the individual. Everyone will have their own limit beyond which you can’t go. It could be 10 shots for some, he speculates.

For some, it was just the one shot and they died. How many died from the jab? The death count, to date, is debated, but it ranges from 6,000 dead in the U.S. (based on VAERS reports) to 150,000.

The effectiveness of the jab wears off so we are being asked to take the jab every 6 months or lose jobs and access to travel and some public venues. This means that billions of people will be taking them for several years, like an annual flu shot.

If Palmer is right, then a large number of that group will start to die off. Luc Montagnier, Michael Yeadon, and other scientists have said the same.

Montagnier and Yeadon, though having more credentials than Palmer on the surface, seemed less credible, perhaps only because their tone was a bit more alarmist than his. Palmer is dispassionate so he comes off better in the presentation — like he’s giving a technical answer to a question in class.

At a certain level, it is just a science problem — but one with huge ethical implications. It is the ethical component that generates the emotional response we can feel when confronted with the world-ending implications of this topic.

The unholy cycle of illness and profit

Deaths will also occur in greater numbers than before, due to ADE, leading to more ‘vaccines’ for them. It would mean a permanently sick population, locked into a cyclical arms race of variants and ‘vaccines’ to supposedly remedy them. Human beings would be casualties both prongs of attack: engineered disease and remedy.

It’s interesting to note that in 2020 Covid deaths were inflated and reports of that were censored. Now reports of deaths from the jab are censored. It’s become very political. In war the first casualty is truth, and truth has been sacrificed in a bid for power.

At a certain point, perhaps the vaccinologists devising these jabs will solve the toxicity problem, but not before many millions have died from it. And will they want to give us a safer jab if by doing so profits go down as a result? A sick patient is more lucrative.

North and South

In one of the greatest ironies, millions or even billions of deaths from the jab would mean that the poorest people on the planet – e.g., in Africa – would have a better chance of long-term survival than the richest, simply because the poor have lower vaccination rates. There is a rough correlation of wealth, with the global South having fewer per capita.

It would be the inverse of global “climate injustice” — whereby the people who produced the least emissions – i.e., the global South – suffer the greatest casualties from climate change which is caused by emissions largely from the global North, due to the greater ability of the North for adaptation, due to proximity to the equator and better infrastructure for adaptation.

When the dust settles, some will look up mass deaths in the global North from the jab as just retribution for excessive dependence on technological solutions and greater emissions. The president of Mozambique, who is against the jab, might gloat.

But such corporate/collectivist thinking ignores the injustice of the harm done to the innocent. It’s more ethically sound to think in terms of individual rights. Reducing a person to a political identity can be dehumanizing and serve as a pretext for violence.

The thinkers at the World Economic Forum, who advocate the Great Reset and seek to remedy climate injustice, believe what they stand for is the greater good. But how many of them are willing to openly endorse a depopulation agenda?

Is a depopulation agenda in play right now, under the guise of the remedy for a pandemic? It so, it would be a tragic irony for our innate fear of disease to bring about the very thing we fear, like pouring gasoline on a fire or a stampede of animals, running in fear, going over a cliff. And it would be a great evil on the part of those orchestrating it, even if they believe it’s being done for a greater good.

Dissident scientists

Here is a list of links to what I term dissident scientists and physicians, after the term for similar dissidents in the former USSR. Here is just one: Janci Lindsay, for example, who of course was smeared in the official account. I view them as courageous for speaking out, knowing that doing so means the end of their careers and reputations; they choose conscience over career.

Just as dissident scientists were smeared in the USSR and later vindicated (many after being murdered by the state), so too will the dissidents of our time be vindicated in time — but we have not reached that point yet. Right now, their warnings are being ignored and ridiculed.

The aphorism at the start of the Palmer interview above, from Bonhoeffer (who gave his life to speak out against evil): “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” That’s why I started this blog. To act.

A nonviolent solution, through open debate, is best. That’s why censorship is wrong: if people are silenced, they often turn to violence. Freedom of speech is necessary for a functioning civil society.

Cytotoxins and biodistribution

See this video (below) from a few months ago, interview with Robert Malone, a vaccinologist who invented the mRNA spiked protein, who reminds me of Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who invented the atomic bomb and spent the rest of his life trying to atone for it, by speaking against the use of those weapons.

The interview is with Bret Weinstein, a science teacher who a few years ago was famous for speaking up against racial discrimination in public education, which angered a mob of BLM students, for which he was scapegoated and lost his teaching position. He thus calls himself an “evolutionary theorist, professor in exile.”

In the interview, Malone and Weinstein note a few things:

  • The inadequacy of the animal models [NB – not the issue of prediction, so much as the need for more thorough human trials); note that the FDA study on 0 to 19 years olds produced a high percentage of adverse events but was approved anyway!]
  • How fast this ‘vaccine’ was developed [they normally take years] and lack of long-term studies.
  • The hazard of the deaths reported on VAERS (“the harm equation”); the the long-term harm is plausible but is being officially denied.
  • That the harm comes because the jab forms a cytotoxin.
  • That we’re stuck with this virus for the rest of our lives [NB – Some countries such as Denmark have lifted all restrictions and offically accepted that they ‘have to live with Covid’ rather than destroy their economies and way of life through lockdowns and restrictions]
  • The danger of “escaped mutants” (variants) from ADE [which cause “breakthrough cases”. See this study: “Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination?”]


This is a short clip from a longer interview with Malone at this link. Note that there was a good short clip of this that millions viewed but Youtube censored it, but it’s still up on Rumble. I made notes from it back when it was up on youtube:

They encode the spiked protein, it’s cytotoxic. Meaning that it’s toxic. There is “biodistribution” – i.e., it does not stay anchored to the cell. It moves around in your body and affects different systems, randomly.

The FDA did not know this was the case, apparently [though they must know it now, and yet despite that, the FDA has irresponsibly approved it for political reasons, just as they approved opioids, despite them killing 50,000 Americans per year].

The press won’t tell the stories of the victims. 200,000 users were wiped from Facebook because they reported problems. Media and social media censorship has been going on for the last year. We should have full disclosure of risks, free and open discussion.

The biodistribution peaks in the ovaries — which is bad for women who seek to be pregnant, despite what the official narrative claims. Birth defects that could be caused by the vaccine – but no one is allowed to know about it.

Maybe the next generation of ‘vaccines’ will be better OR is this toxicity deliberate and diabolical, to depopulate the world, as some claim?

What is their real objective, if not public health?

The big question is why? What’s the motive? Why is this all going ahead, despite the dangers of toxicity to human lives, and why are the establishment health authorities backing something that’s so dangerous, especially when Ivermectin worked for tens of millions of people in India, Japan, and elsewhere?

The short answer: politics and profit. In terms of politics, it is just to impose autocracy, or something even more sinister, i.e., depopulation?

And how did we get to this point? It was all based on a false scare promoted in the media. The disease is real enough but did not warrant the extreme reaction it got, which drove our society to bad solutions, including masks, lockdowns, and mRNA injections, and discriminatory vax passports & mandates.

The deficits of each far outweigh the benefits, from a cost-benefit perspective.

Convenient scapegoats

The problem we have, if the dissident scientists such as Montagnier and Yeadon are right, is that by the time people start figuring this out, a lot of people will have died and it will all be conveniently blamed on the unvaccinated, who become the scapegoats.

Given the power of scapegoating in human history, it’s possible that if people got scared enough they would engage in mass murder to protect themselves. History demonstrates this to be the case on numerous occasions.

Already there is legal discrimination and the kind of rhetoric that precedes atrocities that are based on fear and panic. It’s possible for governments to start arresting the unvaccinated and forcing shots on them.

Anything is possible when individual rights are eroded as they have been and people learn to accept that loss out of fear

The importance of rights

The lack of concern with human life is obvious from the fact that children who don’t need the jab and for whom the risk of taking it is high are now the targets of a campaign to force it on them. The majority have not yet caught onto it.

This is also being used to wipe away a system of governance that took centuries to build, in a very short time. The liberal democracy based on egalitarianism and the sovereignty of the individual was the best system ever devised.

Though not perfect, it gave us freedom of press, speech, assembly, religion, fair trials, and something as close to real justice and fairness in politics as we’ll ever have. It was a protection against dictatorships and tyranny. It protected us from the worst aspects of ourselves, so to speak.

But now it’s being replaced with the worst form of governance in human history, one that is practiced in China right now and has been termed corporate Communism because it’s a combination of corporate oligarchy and absolute state autocracy.

So is there anything to hope for? Yes, of course. This current trajectory can be challenged if enough people learn about the facts (thus this blog) and if it’s caught in time — before it goes too far.

Depopulation and ethics

Perhaps it’s true that there are too many people in the world, and Bill Gates by doing this is providing a solution — but there is a fundamental ethics question here: is it not wrong to commit murder even for what seems like a good cause? What about human rights? Utilitarianism doesn’t believe in rights — but that’s why I disagree with it.

Ethicist Garrett Hardin postulated the famous lifeboat thought experiment in response to the “tragedy of the commons” — in which it would be necessary to embrace a utilitarian cull of humanity at a certain point, as resources were depleted, in order to avoid mass suffering and a loss to all. He offers a classic utilitarian position.

It seems rather selfish if one is in the group to be saved – though it can provide an opportunity for true selflessness through self-sacrifice. The “solution” to the utilitarian dilemma is to give one’s own life for others.

Obviously, there are serious ethical objections to that. These can be expressed formally through deontology as the moral duty to respect the inalienable rights of all.

Bill Gates et al seem to have adopted some version of Hardin’s lifeboat ethic and have found a way to impose the coercive solutions Hardin advocates. They have done this by creating a climate of fear in the media.

Misanthropy

If one is a committed misanthropist who wants to see humanity extinguish itself without too much harm to the planet and its other animal inhabitants, the ‘pandemic’ and toxic jab would seem like a wonderful development.

I’m familiar with that thinking from the animal rights movement, where it’s not uncommon, but have personally always struggled with it, ethically because I also viewed human beings as having fundamental rights, including the right to live.

This is based on Tom Regan’s ethic of the “subject of a life.” All sentient beings with a life history have rights, including human beings. It would be thus wrong t eliminate our species or a good portion of it.

Basic rights should not be traded away so easily for any kind of ideal, even the noblest sounding. We should strive for a more enlightened solution to our collective problem than the lifeboat ethic or some technological fix.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

I don’t think Gates is at his core a fundamentally evil man; I think he’s well-intentioned in his quest to avoid a climate catastrophe and consequent mass suffering through resource depletion and climate wars and social breakdown.

But if the solution he seeks is to cull a good portion of humanity, it can certainly be construed as evil. The greatest evils have always been done in the name of the greatest good.

I also think Gates is naive if he thinks the CCP won’t use this opportunity for world domination. As we know, their actions are anything but just; for example, right now, the CCP is committing genocide.

Respecting everyone

Humanity is at a crossroads. If there is no backlash against medical tyranny and we continue on the current trajectory, doing away with basic rights and imposing absolute state autocracy instead, it will be a great tragedy – though I’m confident that the desire for freedom in the human soul will assert itself eventually. No earthly kingdom can last.

Moreover, the premature death of millions or even billions of people would be tragic. I cannot accept the utilitarian calculation that culling people is good or necessary. There are other solutions, ones that respect human life and dignity.

Ideally, we’d be in a world in which all living things were respected more — including all animals. I don’t see human and animal interests as necessarily at odds. In fact, it’s the opposite: they can greatly enhance and benefit us and we them.

We can learn to love and respect one another. We don’t have to use them instrumentally. We don’t have to use each other instrumentally.

Right now, medical tyranny is treating both humans and animals instrumentally, as expendable tools in an enormous experiment. There’s something wrong with this.

But I have faith that a good portion of humanity will awaken from its moral laziness and ideological blindness and see what’s happening before it’s too late. We all have the capacity to think for ourselves. It’s time we started doing so.

Published by

Ungekrzte

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity ... the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This immaturity is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the [European] Enlightenment. "Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet [or vaccine], and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind ... should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts. "Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas [e.g., Leftist ideology, identity politics] these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting immaturity. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from immaturity by cultivating their own minds." - Kant, "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s