6 Medicine
6.1 Biobots
Houser
Tiny “biobots” made from human windpipe cells encouraged damaged neural tissue to repair itself in a lab experiment — potentially foreshadowing a future in which creations like this patrol our bodies, healing damage, delivering drugs, and more.
The background: In a study published in 2020, researchers at Tufts University and the University of Vermont (UVM) harvested and incubated skin cells from frog embryos until they were tiny balls.
They then sculpted the spheres into specific shapes — dictated by an algorithm — and added layers of cardiac stem cells to them in precise locations.
When they were done, they had created “xenobots,” assembled from frog cells, that could move around and perform entirely new actions based on their designs — one kind of xenobot would push pellets around a petri dish, for example, while another would spin in circles.
“These are novel living machines,” co-lead researcher Joshua Bongard said at the time. “They’re neither a traditional robot nor a known species of animal. It’s a new class of artifact: a living, programmable organism.”
These biological robots might one day navigate the human body, delivering drugs, performing surgery, clearing plaques from artery walls, and more, the team hypothesized in its study.
In 2021, the researchers updated their xenobots to be faster, have memories, and no longer require heart cells. But a major hurdle still stood between the group and its dream of using the biobots in medicine: they were made from frog cells.
That meant the xenobots would likely trigger an immune response in a person, and while immunosuppression could prevent this, it leaves patients at high risk of infection.
Anthrobots, assemble: Building on this xenobot research, Tufts scientists have now developed “anthrobots.”
These biobots are derived from adult human cells, meaning a patient could use their own cells and avoid triggering an immune response. The biobots don’t reproduce and biodegrade after about 45-60 days in the lab, which would further reduce risks to patients.
Anthrobots are also easier to make than their predecessors.
“Anthrobots self-assemble in the lab dish,” said study co-author Gizem Gumuskaya. “Unlike xenobots, they don’t require tweezers or scalpels to give them shape, and we can use adult cells — even cells from elderly patients — instead of embryonic cells.”
Houser (2023) Tiny biobots surprise their creators by healing wound
6.2 mRNA Vaccines
Eddebo
The covid mRNA vaccines can plausibly be connected, via several evident, separate, and likely synergistic causal mechanisms (rather than just through the epidemiological correlations), to heart disease, clotting and thrombotic events, cancer, immunity & autoimmunity issues, neurological issues, reproductive problems, an immunological priming that creates susceptibility to future infections, and finally, they also engender a non-sterilizing immunity that promotes rapid viral evolution with problematic tendencies among the general population.
The effects of these products are going to be somewhat erratic.
We’re dealing with a complex cocktail of biologically active, synthetic substances that interact with the human body on several levels, and likely also in synergistic ways (i.e. the ingredients, when combined, bring about additional effects beyond that of the separate substances). This can be contrasted to something like insulin, which is a single substance familiar to the body that interacts with us in a predictable way when it is injected.
With erratic and complex negative effects, it’s harder to establish clear and unambiguous correlations through empirical data since the signals get fuzzier.
A treatment that cumulatively does many times more damage than a less harmful substance will be harder to recognize as unsafe if the negative effects 1) are individually moderate and 2) come through a wide variety of pathways, and 3) are slower to manifest.
The vaccines involve at least three major kinds of foreign substances introduced into the body, each with complex effects on the human being - the synthetic nanolipids, the “preservatives” stabilizing the mRNA, as well as the specific mRNA payload itself and the spike protein it generates.
This set of foreign substances enter the bloodstream and also accumulate in the liver, spleen, adrenals and the ovaries - following the straightforward and recommended intramuscular (and not intravenous injection.
The lipid nanoparticles - LNPs - and their payload do not remain at the site of injection. Marc Girardot argues that they “trickle back” into the bloodstream via the lymphatic system even if they’re administered into muscle tissue, which is plausible. They “trickle back” into the bloodstream via the lymphatic system even if they’re administered into muscle tissue, which is plausible. They are nonetheless evidently distributed throughout the tissues in the body via the bloodstream or the lymphatic vessels, and they accumulate in certain important organs. You mainly find them in the blood and the filtering organs. The vaccine LNPs were not supposed to get into the bloodstream, and there’s now unambiguous, mainstream evidence that they generally do.
The synthetic nanolipids (or lipid nanoparticles, LNPs) are basically small globs of partially synthetic fat that encapsulate the mRNA so it can be distributed to the ribosomes and produce the spike protein for immunization. In the covid vaccines, the LNPs consist of four separate types of fats or fat-like substances: cationic lipids, polyethylene glycol, phospholipids and cholesterol.
The main problems of the LNPs or synthetic nanolipids are toxicity issues (mainly the cationic lipids), allergy issues (anaphylaxis from the polyethylene glycol), immune system dysregulation, and the fact that the LNPs and their payload tend to accumulate in the liver, spleen, adrenals and in the reproductive organs.
Two of the compounds in the LNPs have a significant toxicity profile by themselves, and there’s a long list of potential chemical interactions that could promote further toxic effects in vivo
This LNP delivery system is both quite new, and involves a lot of moving parts. The for-profit pharmaceutical industry first began to investigate them as a vehicle for drugs back in 2005, so there has not been much time to evaluate their effects. Due to the complexity of the compounds, proper evaluations would also have been both costly and technically difficult.
The cytotoxic effects of the LNPs are still an important causal factor in the etiologies we see here, however. They are particularly important in connection to the cardiovascular system and the etiology of heart disease, clotting and thrombotic events.
Transfection is the intended process by which the mRNA is introduced into the cell to generate the immunizing spike protein, but it’s also going to damage and eventually kill the host cell, specifically by necrosis or apoptosis. If this briefly happens in the muscle tissue at the site of inoculation, it’s no big deal even if the inflammation persists for some time. If it takes place in the endothelium it can trigger cardiovascular disease.
The synthetic pseudouridine is used as part of the LNP as a sort of preservative. Its intended function is to stabilize the mRNA so that it doesn’t decay, and can be effectively transmitted into the ribosomes, which then produce the immunizing spike protein.
The main issue with the N1-Methylpseudouridine is that it disrupts the mRNA translation process through something called frameshifting, causing the ribosomes to produce other things besides spike, while also destabilizing the proteins manufactured by the ribosomes.
The specific modifications of the mRNA molecule through what’s known as “codon optimization” which serves to fine-tune the mRNA translation (so that maximum amounts of spike are produced in the ribosomes) also increase translation errors.
The massive introduction of billions of LNPs with their codon-optimized payload and synthetic pseudouridine can trigger aberrant protein production and the misfolding of proteins.
Prion-related diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (“mad cow disease”), but also Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, certain forms of diabetes, MS, and many other conditions, are manifest through the cascading misfolding of prion proteins. Cascading means, in other words, that the mere presence of misfolded prions will cause further misfolding in other proteins, reproducing the problem.
The mRNA translation problems thus provide a causal mechanism for various pathological conditions in addition to the basic inflammatory and cytotoxic issues we can connect to the LNP as such. It also explains the emergence of disease apart from and in addition to the mechanisms described by the bolus theory, i.e. the LNPs can through translation problems trigger various sorts of illness even without any significant local inflammation and cytotoxicity.
The potential consequences of a large-scale introduction of spike protein are an obvious explanation for the unprecedented number of adverse neurological events being reported in pharmacovigilance databases such as VAERS in connection to the covid vaccines.
Spike protein is toxic to marine animals with potential ecological harm from contaminated wastewater, and the damage seen in the animals is wide-ranging. Spike protein also, through this signal triggering, seems to play a direct and independent role in the emergence of clotting disorders, thrombosis, pulmonary damage and neurogenerative disorders.
The disturbance of DNA repair mechanisms is one of the central causal factors behind cancer, cellular aging, and a long list of catastrophic syndromes. That the spike protein “significantly” disturbs DNA repair mechanisms in general, is very much a cause for alarm.
The mRNA covid vaccines generate a certain form of immune system suppression and dysregulation. There’s a substitution in the vaccinated of virus-neutralizing antibodies for non-inflammatory ones, a “class switch” from antibodies that work towards clearing the virus from our system, to a category of antibodies (IgG4), one of whose purposes is to desensitize us to irritants and allergens. One of their important roles is to render you “immune” to allergens, so that they do not trigger an unneccessary inflammatory response. When this happens in relation to a viral pathogen like SARS-CoV-2, the unhelpful result is rather that the virus can remain in the body and its tissues and keep replicating. The reported increase in IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines may not be a protective mechanism; rather, it constitutes an immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses.
It’s therefore plausible that multiply vaccinated individuals will tend towards a situation of long-term, repeat infections that do not get cleared, and which promote systemic damage.
Combine this with the extensive data on OAS/the Hoskins effect, and we potentially get two separate avenues for immune suppression. I.e. the first one would be the Hoskins effect/antigenic original sin where immunity fixates on the narrow vaccination, the SP from the classic “Wuhan strain” (rather than to the 29 proteins of the entire virus, which would engender a more robust immunity that minor mutations in the virus could not easily get around), and the second one would be in terms of this IgG4 substitution.
Both of these separate avenues could then independently undermine the capability of the multiply vaccinated to clear not only covid infections but increasingly also other viral infections which may opportunistically evolve to exploit this immunity gap created by substitution and an overabundance of antibodies that do not clear viruses. This then potentially results in these “invisible”, low-intensity infections which elicit a weak inflammatory response - yet which crowd the body with viruses and promote systemic damage.
This situation manifests with a whole set of potential long-term complications of its own. Conclusions
There are so many modalities of possible harm here that it’s almost preposterous.
We’re not just talking about a couple of elevated risks, but a whole plethora of significant causal mechanisms, with several factors synergistically that can be connected to every single potential negative health outcome that can be discerned in the research.
And paradoxically, this overwhelming set of indications are part of the problem. It immediately generates cognitive dissonance. Because on the face of it, it’s not reasonable to entertain the idea that an ostensibly beneficial pharmaceutical product that almost everyone agrees has saved millions of lives, is associated with such an extensive set of etiological mechanisms.