The dangers of repeated jabs and the new bivalent boosters

The latest round of jabs are marketed as an ‘upgrade’ that will stimulate your immune system to respond to both the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron.

It’s unclear what the make-up of these are – is it a full dose for each strain in one jab; have they engineered one mRNA to do a double-job… - but Robert Malone believe the shots contain a half-dose targeting original ‘Wuhan’ and a half-dose targeting Omicron.

Why?

There is wide consensus that the original strain is no longer circulating and, even if it was, people have been pumped with three or four ‘vaccinations’ against it over just 18 months and/or probably been exposed to the wild virus. In other words, it’s old news, so why include it in the upgrade? 50% of this new jab is essentially a pointless health risk, simply stimulating cells around your body that are haphazardly taking up the mRNA to produce spike, to then be destroyed by your immune system’s natural killer cells. And that’s definitely not okay if the cell is in an organ that doesn’t repair itself, such as the heart.

Even where the tissue is repairing itself, there’s a cost to the body when it’s repeatedly destroying its own cells – over time, the capacity to repair decreases and that will accelerate the aging of the tissue that these cells are in.

Evolutionary biologist, Bret Weinstein and his wife, Heather Heying, discuss the bivalent jab in their Dark Horse podcast from 5th November:

If you want to watch the full Dark Horse podcast episode 148, the excerpt runs from 1:43:27 to 1:53:40.

Here's a rough transcript:

Bret: It occurred to me that I had accepted the idea of a bivalent booster – bivalent means that it responds to two different antigens, one of them being the OG strain out of Wuhan, the other being Omicron – and so, okay, all well and good as far as that goes. They’ve got a single inoculation, an mRNA that triggers the production of the proteins from two different strains of Covid, with the idea of alerting the immune system to either one of them so it can respond.

But the more I thought about it, it’s not entirely clear – ‘bivalent’ doesn’t explain which version of bivalent they are delivering, and the particular catastrophe that one predicts depends on which one of these mechanisms they are using.

It could be that they’ve taken two full doses – a Wuhan dose and an Omicron dose – and they’ve put them together and they’re giving you effectively a double dose, one of which is targeting a strain that, as far as we know, is extinct in the wild. It could be that they have linked these two things together in a single mRNA transcript and so a cell will take in both messages and transcribe both proteins from one transcript. It could be that they’ve taken two transcripts and they’ve mixed them together and you get a half dose of each.

Heather: I haven’t looked into this, but presumably that’s proprietary – what they mean precisely, what the mechanism is…

Bret: I called Robert Malone and asked him because this is his area, and he knows it well. What he believes is going on is that these are two separate transcripts being delivered at a half dose each. And I wanted to put a little colour on what that implies.

Heather: He doesn’t have direct insider information, but that it was he predicts….

Bret: That is what he infers from what he has seen. Now, I had a particular concern about this and he suggested another one, which was on my radar but probably not at a high enough priority.

Long-term viewers will have heard me describe the hazard of this very poorly targeted vaccine that is supposed to have stayed locally at the site of injection, but instead seems to circulate around the body and has no targeting mechanism whatsoever so that it is taken up…randomly is probably the wrong word..stochastically is probably the wrong word…haphazardly is certainly a correct word, which is to say it is taken up by the cells it encounters that have a high affinity for the lipid nanoparticles – and those aren’t in any way good calls inherently to be transcribing this protein.

The problem is that if you take the brochure and what is says about how these vaccines are supposed to work…so you’ve got these lipid nanoparticles coating these mRNAs - the particular message that gets translated in the cells and exported to the surface of the cells where it’s supposed to stick and, at least in the original versions, didn’t. The problem is that when the body sees a cell producing your own antigens, as all cells do, and also producing a foreign antigen, that is a red flag that the cell has been compromised by a virus. In this case it’s a pseudo-virus, one made in a laboratory, but your body doesn’t have any way of understanding what that would be. The body recognises that as infection and there is only one rational thing to do with a virally infected cell from the point of view of the immune system - that is to kill it.

Killing cells can be not that big a deal if they are in tissues that are well positioned to replace them. It has some cost - it accelerates aging somewhat, it reduces the capacity to repair somewhat, but probably very tolerably in some tissues. In other tissues, it’s catastrophic. You do not want your heart cells attacked by your immune system, which has come to understand them as virally infected. That is an insane thing to allow to happen.

Now, here’s the crazy thing abut these bivalent boosters. The Wuhan strain, as far as we know, is extinct in the wild. For them to give you half a dose of Wuhan in order to give you half a dose of ‘updated’, means that you are wasting half of the cardiac risk – and the risk of these clots and strokes - for nothing. [This half] isn’t liable to be valuable to you because the Wuhan strain isn’t circulating. So why would we put you at any extra risk? If this was really about boosting your immunity by updating what they had given you already, it would make sense to just update you. Why would you give this crazy cocktail that is half out of date?

That’s one thing. What Robert clued me into was what he was calling ‘imprinting’. When you alert the immune system to a hazard with something that functions in some way like a vaccine – in this case, these transfection agents turn your cells into a vaccine factory, so there is a vaccine involved here…it’s not what they inject you with, you produce it – but when you have this mechanism where you are alerting the immune system to something enough for it to mistake you for infected, enough to mount a response that is then useful when challenged with the pathogen, when you do that you are tracking the immune system into an understanding of what world it is in.

And when you keep vaccinating or triggering the production of a vaccine in the same neighbourhood, what you’re doing is you’re broadcasting a message into your immune system that causes it to become, effectively, obsessed. And this is an insane thing to do in light of a world in which this isn’t the only pathogen you face. Tracking your immune system so that it sees Covid and only Covid is not a good idea. What’s more, you’re creating an environment in which you’re pushing the virus around, evolutionarily, so it's changing rapidly because you keep nudging it and, at the same time, you’re tracking your immune system to focus narrowly – this is not a rational course of action.

So I wanted to clarify: There are a lot of bodies buried under the word ‘bivalent’. The fact that we are using mice instead of people, the fact that we are using antibodies as proxies for effectiveness, the fact that we haven’t recognised the massive hazard that comes from the fundamental mechanism - even when this thing works, it’s because it got into your cells and it got them to produce a foreign antigen - we haven’t talked about the cumulative cost of the tissue that you’re burning up as you keep getting more of these things and the body keeps regarding some new tissue as having been infected. We haven’t talked about that, and if it’s worth it – if the cost/benefit analysis reflects that – we would only know that from having had that conversation, rather than forbidding that conversation.

It sounds like a whizz bang bit of scientific cleverness when it’s a whizz bang bit of scientific recklessness.