Fiddling with Genes
On bad ideas, Bhakdi and the new book “mRNA Vaccine Toxicity”
It was the worst idea ever to install the genetic code by injection and allow the unbridled production of a potentially lethal protein in the human body for an uncontrolled period of time. Everything we have learned about the vaccine is horrifying. - Dr Peter McCullough
At this point, I’m not sure who this article is for.
With northern hemisphere winter on the way, and the coming amplification of virus fear and vaccine porn, maybe it’s for all those millions of one-dose anti-vaxxers. Yes, by not going back for number two, you joined the club. Welcome.
mRNA Vaccine Toxicity
The main reason for this article is to promote the recent book “mRNA Vaccine Toxicity” by Bhakdi et al.
It’s a detailed, yet accessible, explanation of what this wretched technology does in our cells.
It’s worth sharing, and when they do come again to pressure us into taking more of their poison, this book is a good resource to both build resolve and use against future fascist employers.
To my surprise, it contains a great section on HIV/AIDS by David Rasnick in Chapter 8. Here are the sub-headings:
AIDS & HIV: The Blueprint for the Perversion of Medical Science - David Rasnick, Ph.D.
8.1 AIDS does not behave like a novel contagious disease
8.2 AIDS and drug abuse
8.3 Peter Duesberg’s scientific critique of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis
8.4 HIV is not sexually transmitted
8.5 Kary Mullis’ quest for evidence that HIV causes AIDS
8.6 The crucifixion of a dissident
8.7 AIDS in Africa
8.8 Thabo Mbeki’s ill-fated attempt to get at the truth about AIDS
8.9 Some evidence to challenge the AIDS orthodoxy
I have a soft spot for Bhakdi.
He was the first, seriously credentialed person who called bullshit on the naked emperor.
Sucharit Bhakdi was born in Washington, DC, and educated at schools in Switzerland, Egypt, and Thailand. He studied medicine at the University of Bonn in Germany, where he received his MD in 1970. He was a post-doctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics in Freiburg from 1972 to 1976, and at The Protein Laboratory in Copenhagen from 1976 to 1977. He joined the Institute of Medical Microbiology at Giessen University in 1977 and was appointed associate professor in 1982. He was named chair of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz in 1990, where he remained until his retirement in 2012. Dr. Bhakdi has published over three hundred articles in the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology, and parasitology, for which he has received numerous awards and the Order of Merit of Rhineland-Palatinate. Sucharit Bhakdi and his wife, Karina Reiss, live with their three-year-old son, Jonathan Atsadjan, in a small village near the city of Kiel.
In March 2020, I came across his video where he calmly explains there is nothing to fear (still on YT, for now).
His book, Corona False Alarm (written with his wife Karina Reiss), was the most important and credible document I had at the time. Still worth physically buying, if only as an important historical document.
Anyway, Bhakdi is the man. He doesn’t have to be right about everything, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. But in a period of darkness and extreme chaos, he was right on everything that mattered. A wonderfully courageous man.
The Germans are trying to send him to jail. Here’s the timeline.
When listening to McCullough in the masthead video talk about what a bad idea this technology is, the obvious question that people will ask is “but why”?
“If it’s such a bad technology, why did they launch it and then keep pushing it?”.
What they are really asking is “what was the motive?”
I came across a great quote in 180 Degrees from Jung:
If you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences – and infer the motivation.
That’s worthy of a tattoo.
Just look at the actions and the consequences. That’s all you need.
Watch events as if they are a silent, black and white, movie, without the distraction, misdirection and illusion created by words.
Here are some excerpts I found interesting from the book “mRNA Vaccine Toxicity”.
I have recently come across the work of Jason Christoff. I like it a lot. Below I’m sprinkling some of his work between the excerpts.
With eternal thanks to Sucharit Bhakdi and Karina Reiss.
Are mRNA vaccines dangerous in principle, or is the observed harm accidental?
The facts presented in this book will make it clear that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have done very significant harm. We might wonder whether this damage was caused by these vaccines working as intended, or rather by undeclared ingredients or contaminants. This question cannot be dismissed out of hand. Several kinds of contaminations have been clearly documented; and furthermore, there is an unusually large spread in the rate of adverse events between batches of the same COVID-19 vaccines, which indicates at the very least that these were not manufactured to consistent standards (see Section 5.4). Each of these factors may potentially influence toxicity. However, we will make the case that most of the observed severe harm is best understood in terms of these vaccines doing what they are designed to do; the harm is not accidental but rather built into the mRNA technology.
The mRNA vaccine LNPs fly under the radar of the immune system
Another crucial difference between real viruses and mRNA vaccines is that the particles of the former, but not the latter, are decorated with copies of the protein molecules encoded by the nucleic acids contained in those particles. The consequences of this difference are illustrated in Figure 3.2.
We noted earlier that viruses typically cause significant disease only once, namely, when we are first infected with them; this is because at the first encounter we have no antibodies or other specific immune mechanisms yet which could prevent the virus from entering and multiplying within our body cells. However, after our first infection, we will have memory B-cells, which can meet any repeated infection with a rapid antibody response; the antibodies will then bind and neutralize the virus particles.
For this antibody-mediated neutralization to work, the particles of the virus must contain and expose at least some of the antigens encoded by it. That is indeed the case with all actual viruses. In contrast, the particles of an mRNA vaccine are encased with a shell of lipid molecules only, which are not effective antigens. Therefore, even though the first injection with the vaccine will induce antibodies against the encoded antigen, those antibodies will be unable to recognize and neutralize the vaccine particles when another dose is injected. The vaccine will therefore enter our body cells with undiminished efficiency. Only when the antigen is expressed and appears on the surface of those cells will the antibodies recognize it; and they will now direct the full destructive force of the immune system against those cells.
The above assumes that the antigen does appear on the cell surface in intact form. This is indeed the case for the COVID-19 spike protein, but it may not apply with some future mRNA vaccine that encodes a different antigen which remains inside the cell. In this case, however, we must expect the antigen to be processed and presented in the form of MHC1-associated peptides; these would then attract the attention of cytotoxic T-cells. Thus, regardless of whether B-cells or T-cells dominate the memory response—the upshot is that prior immunity to the antigen encoded by the mRNA vaccine will aggravate the damage caused by repeated exposure to the agent. In keeping with this theoretical prediction, the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis after the second mRNA vaccine injection reportedly exceeds that after the first one (see Li et al.  as well as Section 7.3).
In a nutshell, therefore, while specific immunity mitigates or entirely prevents disease caused by repeated virus infections, it will worsen the harm done by repeated injection of an mRNA vaccine. It bears mention that such prior immunity need not have been induced by a preceding vaccine injection; the effect will be much the same when someone who has previously been infected with the virus in question receives his first mRNA vaccine injection. Thus, in the context of the COVID-19 vaccinations, the authorities’ refusal to exempt those with such natural immunity from their vaccine mandates has likely increased the number of severe adverse events substantially.
We also note that the problem discussed here is less acute with the adenovirus vector-based genetic vaccines. While with these vaccines, too, the antigen of interest is not part of the infectious particles, the antibody response triggered against the proteins of the adenoviral vector will tend to neutralize the vaccine virus particles upon repeated injection. This is, of course, not to be understood as an endorsement of the adenovirus vector technology; the virus-based vaccines against COVID-19 have caused severe adverse events on the same scale as the mRNA vaccines .
The fundamental mechanism of damage by mRNA vaccines is completely general
Since all of the evidence of harm discussed in this chapter relates to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, you might wonder what we should expect from future mRNA vaccines against other pathogenic microbes. Should we chalk up the toxicity of the COVID-19 vaccines to the specific antigen which they encode, or is such grievous harm inherent in the mRNA technology?
In our considered opinion, the outcome with any mRNA vaccine will be much the same as it was with the COVID-19 vaccines. It is true that the spike protein itself can promote blood clotting and inflammation without any help from the immune system . Nevertheless, the evidence which will be shown in Chapter 4 indicates that the grave, widespread and sustained injury to tissues and to blood vessels is mostly caused by the immune attack on spike protein-producing cells.
This attack occurs simply because the spike protein is a non-self antigen; and since every other mRNA vaccine will necessarily encode its own non-self antigen, derived from whichever particular microbe it targets, we must expect that it will cause harm by the same mechanism and to a similar extent.
DNA damage is cumulative.
Broadly speaking, drug effects may be reversible or irreversible. Alcohol is a good example of a drug that can have both reversible and irreversible effects: the effect of alcohol on mood and vigilance subsides when it is inactivated by metabolism, whereas alcohol-induced inflammation of the liver will fester and may turn into cirrhosis, which is permanent even after complete withdrawal of the drug.
Reversible drug effects will give rise to cumulative toxicity only if the drug itself accumulates within the body, that is, if repeated applications occur before previous doses have been completely eliminated. However, as the example of liver cirrhosis illustrates, the same is not true of irreversible drug effects. DNA damage is by its very nature irreversible, even though some DNA lesions are successfully reverted by the cell’s DNA repair systems. Since ROS induced by cationic lipids induce such DNA damage, we must assume that these lipids pose a problem of cumulative toxicity regardless of their own accumulation as such.
The genotoxicity risks of recombinant RNA were dismissed based on outdated science. In the EMA assessment report on the Pfizer vaccine, we find the following succinct statement [60, p. 50]:
No genotoxicity studies have been provided. This is acceptable as the components of the vaccine formulation are lipids and RNA that are not expected to have genotoxic potential.
Apparently, EMA’s experts were under the impression that RNA in general will not affect the integrity of the host cell genome. The first exception to this rule has been known since 1970, when oncogenic retroviruses were found to carry a reverse transcriptase activity. This enzyme will copy the viral RNA genome into DNA, which then inserts into the host cell genome [235, 236]. The realization that eukaryotic cells themselves have similar reverse transcriptase activities came several years later , but it could hardly be considered a novelty in 2020.
Dutta et al.’s disproportionality analysis of the WHO’s VigiBase surveillance data found that the neurological adverse events associated with the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines included ageusia, anosmia, burning sensation, dizziness, facial paralysis, headache, hypoaesthesia, lethargy, migraine, neuralgia, paresis, parosmia, poor sleep quality, seizure, transient ischemic attack, and tremor .
Hosseini et al.’s systematic review of adverse neurological effects found evidence that the mRNA vaccines are linked to headache; myelinating disorders including transverse myelitis, multiple sclerosis, and neuromyelitis optica; small fiber neuropathy; Parsonage-Turner syndrome; Guillain Barre syndrome; Bell’s palsy; abducens nerve palsy; acute disseminated encephalomyelitis; encephalopathy; olfactory dysfunction and phantosmia; tinnitus and cochleopathy; akathisia; seizures; epilepsy; delirium; and cerebrovascular disorders including cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, and transient ischemic attack .
Lies are Unbekoming is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks for being here.
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to help covid vaccine injured Australians.
If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes
Here are three eBooks I have produced so far: