Nobelova nagrada za fiziologiju ili medicinu 2023.

nažalost, bil gejc d treći je ponovo ostao bez priznanja za usputno čipisanje urbi et orbi. no on ionak ima love pa se mogla bar neka moralna satisfuckcija, tipa "senkju, bili". 

To je bila pandemija bolesnih mozgova, koji su bili u velikoj večini na žalost, da je imalo bilo opasnije, neki opasniji virus (respekt preminulima i obiteljima, razumijem) ljudi bi se klali na cesti, ubijao brat brata i sl. još je kod nas i sve to bilo u nekim granicama no svi smo vidjeli šta se događalo u vani posebno kod onih bolesnih kineza, korone i sada ima kao i 2022 no nitko ništa ne spominje, ko da je isparila, odjednom nije tako opasno, a da izvuku prosjek umire se jednako.

.

Cjepiva su spasila milijune života i spriječila razvoj teških oblika bolesti kod još većeg broja drugih bolesnika, omogućivši nacijama da se nakon pandemijskog lockdowna otvore i vrate u normalne životne uvjete.

Cjepivo nije omogućilo ništa, a još manje je spasilo milijune života. Umirali su i cjepljeni i necjepljeni (i još uvijek umiru). One potpuno debilne mjere su učinile neizmjerne štete koje ćemo osjećati desetljećima, a ubile su i ubit će direktno/indirektno više ljudi, nego sama pandemija.

I to je novinarstvo?

Ni spomena o dr Robert Malone, jednim od izumitelja mRNK cjepiva, ovdje imate sve podatke pa i broj patenta.

Nezgodno što je Malone na svojoj koži uvidio sve mane tog „pripravka“ pa je javno progovorio protiv farmaceutskog narativa što ga je dovelo na crnu listu.

Zato bih volio vidjeti sučeljavanje autora ovog pamfelat sa njime ili bar s našim akademikom profesorom Krešimirom Pavelićem. Naravno da to toga neće nikada doći jer se puno lakše sakrivati iza narativa i farmaceutskog lobija

U nekoj drugoj državi bi autor ovog teksta zbog prijašnjih članaka bio optužen za širenje govora mržnje. A da se mene pita, kazna bi bila 12 mjeseci pomaganja onima koji su zbog ovog eksperimentalnog bućkuriša ostali trajni invalidi i nemaju nikakva prava!

Jedan moj poznati je nakon tog hvaljenog cjepiva dobio guillain barre syndrom. Trebalo mu je 2 godine da počne hodati bez štaka!!!!

Kad već faktograf i "fakt čekeri" okreću glavu, evo da ja onda prenesem upitne stvari jer je očito jop uvjek zabranjeno drugo mišljenje:

“For their discoveries concerning nucleotide base modifications that enabled the development of effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19”

There are three logic elements to the statement.

1. 1) “Discoveries concerning nucleotide base” refers to the incorporation of pseudouridine in place of uridine throughout an in vitro transcribed (synthetically produced) mRNA. Which results in a molecule which is quite different in many key biological properties from natural mRNA, but can still be translated into protein. The work in question is described in three publications and a patent. In contrast to my original work and patents none of which discuss use of this for vaccine development, which occurred 15 years prior to the initial publication.

   Karikó, K., Buckstein, M., Ni, H. and Weissman, D. Suppression of RNA Recognition by Toll-like Receptors: The impact of nucleoside modification and the evolutionary origin of RNA. Immunity 23, 165–175 (2005).

   Karikó, K., Muramatsu, H., Welsh, F.A., Ludwig, J., Kato, H., Akira, S. and Weissman, D. Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA yields superior nonimmunogenic vector with increased translational capacity and biological stability. Mol Ther 16, 1833–1840 (2008).

   Anderson, B.R., Muramatsu, H., Nallagatla, S.R., Bevilacqua, P.C., Sansing, L.H., Weissman, D. and Karikó, K. Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA enhances translation by diminishing PKR activation. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, 5884–5892 (2010).
   
   

2. 2) “Enabled the development” is actually a false statement. The incorporation of pseudouridine was not an “enabling” improvement on the existing state of the art. This is demonstrated by the robust clinical (human) adaptive antibody vaccine response to the CureVac SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate, which did not incorporate pseudouridine. The dose (and apparently the toxicity) of the mRNA formulation employed by CureVac in their clinical tests was lower than that employed by Moderna and BioNTech, and the antibody titers were also lower. But still quite substantial. There is no evidence that antibody titer translates to clinical protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 disease, but despite this fact it was widely inferred and publicized that the CureVac product was inferior. Whether or not this was the case we will never know, as further clinical testing at a higher dose was not performed- CureVac basically gave up on competing in the COVID-19 vaccine race, presumably due to lack of sufficient funds. However, there is no disputing the fact that incorporation of pseudouridine is not required for delivered mRNA to elicit an adaptive immune (antibody) response. In sum, the claim that pseudouridine incorporation is an “enabling” improvement on prior art (that being patent and inventorship language) is clearly false for this reason.
   
   

3. 3) “Effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19” is a very controversial statement. The basis cited by the committee for this assertion is included in the corresponding press release (attached below). “Protective effects of around 95% were reported” refers to the initial interpretation of the clinical trial results obtained, both the interpretation of which and the trials themselves have since been shown to have been fraudulent. This statement is not consistent with current understanding of those trial results, but rather reflects initial propaganda subsequently demonstrated to be highly misleading. “The vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented severe disease in many more” is also not fact based, but rather is also often repeated propaganda. This assertion is largely based on the difference between initial analysis and modeling data suggesting a 3.4% case fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 infection, subsequently shown to have been highly inflated, and the current best estimates of case fatality rates which are in the range of a fraction of 1%. This difference has been asserted to be the consequence of vaccine efficacy, but this is not supported by actual clinical epidemiology data. Current analyses based on all cause mortality data actually indicate either no effectiveness of the vaccines or negative effectiveness (multiple studies demonstrate that the onset of vaccination campaigns (both general types and mRNA genetic types) are correlated with an increase in all cause mortality, not a decrease). In addition, data from many different databases indicate negative effectiveness for these mRNA-based products beginning from two to seven months after administration. Negative effectiveness in this case refers to the observation that recipients are more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than those not receiving these mRNA - based products.
   
   

4. 4) To the extent that there was a relevant enabling improvement on the work of myself and my named co-inventors from the 1987-1991 time frame, that would be the formulation advancements of Dr. Pieter Cullis and colleagues at the University of British Columbia. Not the incorporation of pseudouridine. Dr. Cullis and colleagues were not included in this award decision.
   
   

5. 5) The remarkably rapid development and deployment of these mRNA products parallel and correspond to the timelines achieved by other more traditional COVID-19 vaccines (“Sputnik” series etc.). This is not the consequence of the mRNA/pseudouridine technology, but rather to the willingness of regulatory authorities worldwide to suspend normal vaccine non-clinical and clinical development processes required to assess safety and efficacy. The committee asserts that these vaccines were “approved” as early as December 2020, which is another falsehood. These products were Emergency Use Authorized via suspension of normal testing, processes and review.

6. The demonstrable falsehoods employed by the Nobel Prize committee to justify this award indicates that the decision was not based on scientific and medical fact, but rather reflects non-scientific and medical considerations other than those cited by the committee.
   
   

7. 6) Pfizer is a major donor to the Karolinska Institute.

bio u subotu zaokružiti broj davanja krvi na 80. na pregledu neka mrzovoljna doktorica, možebitno u zavodu po kazni. pitam ja nju polumrtvo-ozbiljan: "a hoće li mi ostati čipovi od cjepiva kad dam krv?" pogleda ona mene preko naočala, onako ubojito. no valjda je skužila da je zajebavam, pa kaže: "niš se ne brinite, gospon. to vam s krvi nema veze." čulo se "tup!" kad mi je, a poradi olakšanja, opal šum sa srca na plafon.  

Nobelova nagrada...

Otkad su je dali Obami 2009 godine kao "za mir",od tada je ta nagrada postala sprdačina, ili totalno glupo i nebitno priznanje.

Evo jedan ogledni primjerak dnovinara, a koji piskara za notorni Imbex:

 

https://x.com/nevenbarkovic/status/1708792808243384369?s=20https://x.com/nevenbarkovic/status/1708792808243384369?s=20

Nobel za mRNA cjepiva, a ne za ivermektin. Pa ima li kraja urotama protiv malog poštenog ćovijeka?

 

Oće li ga opomenuti iz Ministarstva istine ili ne? Mislim da neće, jer besramno laže napaćeni narod i to je poželjeno.

 

 

 

Usput:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/

In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world's most devastating tropical diseases.

 

I tako jedna od važnijih stvari za djecu nisu više čitanje, sati stranog jezika, klavira, violine ili napucavanja lopte. Učite djecu kako razlikovati i prepoznati istinu od laži. Sve polako postaje jedna velika laž. I kako bi rekao Mark Twain "Dok istina tek obuva cipele laž je već proputovala pola svijeta" Sretno nam svima bilo.

 Oduvijek je trebalo znati prodati maglu ili prepoznati maglu. Ništa se nije promijenilo osim što se trebamo vratiti u 19. stoljeće ili ranije jer slika, zvuk i film više nisu dokaz.