What if we had not thought insane enough just yet?

Why do the adverse reactions to the new modRNA/LNP drugs seem so similar to radiation sickness induced by radiation therapy or exposure to radioactivity?

Let me start here.

As the multi-systemic components of COVID-19 emerge, parallel etiologies can be drawn between SARS-CoV-2 infection and radiation injuries. While some SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals present as asymptomatic, others exhibit mild symptoms that may include fever, cough, chills, and unusual symptoms like loss of taste and smell and reddening in the extremities (e.g., "COVID toes," suggestive of microvessel damage). Still others alarm healthcare providers with extreme and rapid onset of high-risk indicators of mortality that include acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-organ hypercoagulation, hypoxia and cardiovascular damage. Researchers are quickly refocusing their science to address this enigmatic virus that seems to unveil itself in new ways without discrimination. As investigators begin to identify early markers of disease, identification of common threads with other pathologies may provide some clues. Interestingly, years of research in the field of radiation biology documents the complex multiorgan nature of another disease state that occurs after exposure to high doses of radiation: the acute radiation syndrome (ARS). Inflammation is a key common player in COVID-19 and ARS, and drives the multi-system damage that dramatically alters biological homeostasis.

So it seems the inflammation caused by both events is similar in its outcomes. I think the mechanisms of how the modRNA/LNP drugs can induce this state of systemic inflammation are well known and understood by now. One should be able to follow this, at least if you posses of a 9th grade understanding of Immunology/Biology.

We also know by now, that there was a internationally concerted effort to hide the possible lab origin of the Pandemic. I remember the first long article that I read (and actually heard about on NPR! That was a huge surprise to me) on the idea of a lab leak or laboratory origin of the virus in Vanity Fair.

Here is a quote that I thought really important, but that somehow never really got the scrutiny it actually deserved.

In an internal memo obtained by Vanity Fair, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that staff from two bureaus, his own and the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, “warned” leaders within his bureau “not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19” because it would “‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.”

It really bothered me, that somehow this did not get the attention it actually deserved.

Now lets turn to some of Dr. Sabine Stebel’s work. Her Substack can be found here.

Some bullet points to take note of and think about

• Why was there error-prone manganese in the PCR tests used to detect coronavirus infections?

• Why was the synthetic Spike protein never fully characterized to determine important features such as folding kinetics, denaturation temperature, and binding profiles? The structure of a protein is as important as its “composition,” and to date, it is not possible to predict a protein’s structure from its nucleotide sequence or by computational models.

• Why is the GC content of the synthetic Spike (S) protein much higher than in the natural S when it is known that more GC changes protein stability, increases its denaturation temperature, and influences folding phases? [G = Guanine, C = Cytosine]

• And what about co-translational folding? How fast and in what stages does the protein fold as it is translated by the ribosome? What happens to misfolded proteins and their byproducts?

• And then there is the modified nucleoside Pseudouridine (Ψ), or more precisely N1-methyl-Pseudouridine, which has a very different molecular structure and mass number from the normal Uridine that makes one of the letters of RNA sequences. How is Ψ metabolized or recycled within the cell? Will it be re-used in the various forms of RNA in the cells? We believe it will, and that means that these modified building blocks of cellular organelles (such as ribosomes and mitochondria) will gradually damage the overall protein manufacturing and energy production of the organism.

Basically what she is describing is a slow death of the complete organism, because of the reuse of N1-methyl-Pseudouridine. This very much looks similar in outcome to a situation where the organism was exposed to enough full body radiation, that the result of too much damage being done, leads to a gradual “shutdown“ of all bodily function. Or as it is otherwise known: Death.

So far, so good. Now I will get to the Non-plus-ultra insane stuff.

Lets pull in some more “facts”. We know from the studies that were done by the US Energy Department over the years in the field of nuclear armament and of course the defense against it, that one thing the military was always concerned with was, a) how to determine a radiation dosage a soldier was exposed to/got and b) how to protect soldiers from the damage of radiation exposure. I recommend reading the ”Plutonium Files” and the final report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments.

We also know that the US military seems to be in a bad spot in terms of competing with its rivals in Russia and China when it comes to having weapons the other side basically has no defense against. See this article by Sharon Weinberger published in the Wall Street Journal. This is a link to a non-paywalled version.

Could it be, that there is still the idea hanging around, that a nuclear could be winnable by the United States? After all, the US has the most nuclear weapons of any Nation and recently there have been programs to devise new small yield nuclear devises and overall modernize the nuclear stock pile.

If you think that “loosing“ tens of millions of people is acceptable how far would you go? What would you need to research in order to make sure that you would “survive” a nuclear confrontation? Would you continue the programs that you started decades ago to figure out how to protect yourself against the effects of radiation? How much data would you need? How many “trial participants” would you need?

Would you be insane enough to release a virus, which you lie and say it is stupendously deadly, would you then go and introduce a “vaccine“ and encourage as many people as possible to get those? Would you go and change the formulation in the batches? Knowing that some batches might be more “potent“ than others? Quick insert: according to the Danish scientist who looked into the batches the German PEI was the institution that would have to release the batches, but the ones that caused the most severe adverse reactions were not released by the PEI but by someone else and no one knows who.

Would you then be insane enough to change the virus to become more virulent but less pathogenic, to have it spread even faster and wider, so you could introduce more variation? What about finding new drugs that could help protect your soldiers against radiation exposure/damage?

Have you heard of the agency by the name of BARDA yet? It was created in 2006 and I am sure it really deserves a lot more scrutiny. Did they know that at some point in the future they would need the general population to trust them when it comes to vaccination programs?

Maybe you also want to read this article from October 2022.

How insane and utterly reckless do you think some people are?