Brits are dying in their tens of thousands - and we don't really have any idea why

[Amity Island]

And he chose figures for "benign neoplasm Brain infratentorial" and "Family history of malignant neoplasm of breast"?

Not, I confess, the first things I'd be looking at.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1771511293087740117

A new study on the mRNA vaccines. Pfizer are currently promoting their new mRNA anti cancer drugs.

Mounting evidence indicates that these vaccines, like many others, do not generate sterilising immunity, leaving people vulnerable to recurrent infections.

Additionally, it has been discovered that the mRNA vaccines inhibit essential immunological pathways, thus impairing early interferon signalling. Within the framework of COVID-19 vaccination, this inhibition ensures an appropriate spike protein synthesis and a reduced immune activation.

Evidence is provided that adding 100% of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine [as with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.

Based on this compelling evidence, we suggest that future clinical trials for cancers or infectious diseases should not use mRNA vaccines with a 100% m1Ψ modification, but rather ones with the lower percentage of m1Ψ modification to avoid immune suppression.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141813024022323

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Evidence is provided that adding 100% of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine [as with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1779166285424701486

In mRNA vaccines, modifications to the mRNA are made so that efficient production of the protein can be achieved before the mRNA gets destroyed by innate immune sensing mechanisms. This is not the only way to improve translation efficiency, but if you don’t improve it at all, the vaccine won’t work. However, in this melanoma model that Lindley here and others are trying to misrepresent, increased expression of an immune signaling molecule called IFN-1 was what mattered for preventing spread of the cancer implanted into the mice. And lower translation efficiency in this case was associated with increased expression of IFN-1. Meanwhile, 100% modified mRNA neither helped nor inhibited the cancer.​

 

[Amity Island]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1779166285424701486

​

There are a good few debunkers (and fact checkers) on the scene, especially since covid.

I just watched Susan Oliver latest (almost weekly) "debunking" of John Campbell's latest video. Problem is, there is usually an element of truth in most peoples opinions. Some knowingly make false statement others unknowingly/unwittingly do it. This is why I don't follow either of them.

In her latest debunk, she covers a lot of studies that Campbell has covered over the past few months in his videos. However, I don't agree with her take either. For example, she is saying that an adverse event after a mrna vaccination such as myocarditis is rarer than that after a sars-cov-2 infection, so therefore it is better to get a mrna vaccination -- note this is an issue in itself because many already had covid long before the novel products were available so this statement alone is not necessarily good advice -- Inferring then, that, mrna vaccination is the better of the two options (eg infection related myocarditis vs vaccination related myocarditis).

She says all this as if by having an mrna vaccination you will not be subject to a sars cov2 infection (note: prevention of infection is not the purpose nor how these vaccines work). My point being, if you have an mrna vaccination the risk of having vaccine related myocarditis is an additional risk NOT instead of the risk of infection related myocarditis. This risk of vaccine related myocarditis is with each and every shot, not as many stats claim as a per person event.

The other claim about risks being rare (before mass rollout) is as I understand it relating to a single persons level of risk. How about at a population level, are risks still still rare then, when millions have taken a novel drug?