Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mike R.'s avatar

I wouldn't trust either of them. Makis bizarrely posts deaths from months or years ago that have already been posted on other free sites but he feels the need to charge money for it. The MFM has morphed into a money-making cottage industry with very few asking the tough questions or doing real research.

Expand full comment
J Shannon's avatar

This was an excellent piece. The following quote from this essay is extremely important:

"The point is that if the spike proteins in vaccines caused myocarditis, then presumably the spike proteins in the alleged virus would also cause myocarditis. None of the publications listed by Makis and McCullough reference a myocarditis death caused by a spike protein in an alleged virus. It would be especially newsworthy if Makis or McCullough could find some evidence of a surge in Myocarditis in 2020 and link it to the Spike Protein in the alleged virus."

There are many reasons why what you say above is highly significant. Here are several of them:

First, there were not supposed to be any Sars-CoV-2 specific spike proteins in the gene-based vaccines, (if they exist at all), only the genetic code necessary to synthesize them. The claim is that mRNA in vaccines after being administered, caused human cells to manufacture spike proteins which after circulating throughout the body/circulatory system, caused damage to cardiac myocytes. The exact mechanism of this purported damage has not been satisfactorily elucidated in patients who developed symptoms and signs of severe post-CV19 vaccine myocarditis. Any number of mechanisms could be involved, including as you assert, GFN's (toxicity). Another is autoimmune generated myocarditis.

Second, in order to have Sars-CoV-2 spike protein specific antibodies, it would be necessary to properly prove the physical existence of the Sars-CoV-2 virus, which was not accomplished. That is to say, no such virus was ever properly isolated (meaning completely physically separated from all other constituents in the sample collected from a patient allegedly ill with CV19), purified, genetically characterized and administered to a proper test animal to see if the same clinical picture could be produced (as specified by Koch's postulates). If there is no physical Sars-CoV-2 virus there can be no spike protein or nucleocapsid protein from which to form a specific antibody. In-silico (computer-based) models are not proof of physical existence, contagion or pathogenicity.

Third, it has been pointed out for several years that the validity of the immunohistochemistry studies used on post-mortem tissue, is in doubt. The late pathologist Arne Burchardt first described this technique I believe in 2021, in which he reported using commercially available Sars-CoV-2 antibodies to demonstrate what he said was evidence of spike protein in the tissues (lungs, heart and other tissues) of patients obtained at autopsy in a small series of suspicious deaths. He alleged as have many others, that there are antibodies to spike protein and nucleocapsid protein that are specific for Sars-CoV-2. How these alleged antibodies were obtained, has never been satisfactorily explained in my estimation since the virus with its alleged very specific proteins, (which would need to be present in the human body, in order to produce them), has never been proven to physically exist. Recall that antibodies are formed in response to the presence of antigens in the body. The virus in question with all of its various subunits is/are the antigen(s). If it does not exist, it cannot be in the body and no antibodies will form.

To briefly summarize, then, if there is no physical Sars-CoV-2 virus proven to physically exist, there can be no spike protein or nucleocapsid proteins produced from a non-existent virus. If that is the case, there can be no specific Sars-CoV-2 antibodies to use in immunohistochemistry tests on patient tissue whether obtained from living (through biopsy) or dead (from autopsy) patients.

Given these realities, the cause of myocarditis in CV19 vaccinated persons must be completely elucidated. A toxic injury is to be highly suspected. Given the over 20 independent analyses of vial contents that show either no or trivial amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus (meaning, no RNA or DNA) but large amounts of carbon and oxygen by spectrophotometric signature e.g. micro-Raman spectroscopy, GFN's should be strongly considered as causative until ruled out.

Expand full comment
32 more comments...

No posts