The mRNA jab: a novel mechanism that was foreseeably going to do damage to all your tissues

Evolutionary biologists, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying - who have been utterly maligned for expressing their educated views on the Covid jabs and the pandemic - discuss how the dangers arising from the mechanism of action of the mRNA were foreseeable and predicted correctly by those 'outside the system'.

Watch on Bitchute or Rumble

Excerpts:

47:13 (Heather) “We were talking about the need to risk stratify both our understanding of Covid and our understanding of the mRNA vaccines, and almost no one was doing it. And that was part of why you got scared parents living in scared fear until they could get their tiny children vaccinated with so-called vaccines that were much more of a risk of doing damage to their children than the virus ever would.”

51:08 (Bret) “If you can see that I’m capable of taking the fact of this and somehow being way ahead of the folks at Pfizer - who apparently still can’t explain why myocarditis has anything to do with their damned shot - then you know that somehow this is legitimate analysis that is leading [me] to see things well ahead. [This pathology] was predicted by a hypothesis outside of any laboratory setting and that is an important consideration. We have been right - we didn’t guess – and where we were wrong, we corrected it, and that is what you want from people who are analysing situations on which our health depends.”

57:25 (Bret) “The brochure, if you will, of these vaccines - what we were told about how they were supposed to work – predicts this pathology if you simply extrapolate from it properly.

What it is, is a cell that has picked up lipid nanoparticle-coated mRNAs, transcribed a foreign protein and exported it to its surface. That’s all you need to know if you understand how the immune system works, in order to spot that it is at least a question whether or not this is going to trigger your own system to attack your cells, and then that will lead you to the obvious question of, “well which cells are going to do the transcribing?” They told us that the cells that were going to do the transcribing were in your deltoid. As soon as you know that’s not true, then you have a four-alarm fire!

This was all deducible. Why was it that the Academy didn’t deduce it? Why is it that the obviously excellent scientists who were capable of sorting out this mechanism and finding the empirical evidence that it exists – why is it that they haven’t been thinking that this was a likely explanation all along? Or if they were thinking it, why they didn’t lay it out as a pre-existing hypothesis here?

Now, we don’t know if they were lying or if they’re too dumb to get it, but it doesn’t matter. You have a novel technological mechanism being deployed massively across the globe that was foreseeably going to do damage to all your tissues, including your heart. That was foreseeable, based on what was understood, and the people who were supposed to do the foreseeing couldn’t see it.

You have dissidents on the outside saying: “Here’s a problem; it’s evident that it will be real; why are we not looking at it?” And the answer is, “Oh well, those are quacks – look at their Wikipedia page, these aren’t people you should listen to - you’ve got to listen to the institutions because they are the gold standard.” No, they are not.

All those fields in which the so-called experts were minted are broken – they are incapable of protecting your health. This is a material emergency in which we have injected a good fraction of the people on planet earth with something that should never have been injected into them, and we did so even though there were foreseeable harms that some of us tried to raise the alarm about, and instead of listening to those people and saying “that’s a good point, maybe we ought to study that”, they were demonised and belittled and that’s a pretty dire picture. But it is now a picture supported by the evidence. We don’t have to wonder whether Peter McCullough is a quack – nope, he was right.”

1:08:15 (Bret) “The way they were deployed is a double violation of Nuremburg. The fact that it was injected into people who were led to believe that these things were safe and effective means that those people were not informed, so they couldn’t engage in informed consent – and, in fact, there was a systematic campaign to prevent them from becoming informed. And then they were coerced. And both these things are forbidden.

You don’t get to inject a huge fraction of the population and then figure out what the dangers are and then back off your vaccination campaign and exclude some people from it. These things were not properly tested; they sped them right past all of the things that would have told us this was true. …What we now know about the pathologies emerging from this is that they are serious, they are well supported by evidence, they are not rare – and that that means nobody should be injected with these things, not another one. And that was true from the beginning - and now it’s very, very clear that it was true.”