TLDR: A paper was published in October showing how the mRNA vaccines could massively impact ovarian and breast cancer risk. Two scientists linked to the NIH and Pharma conspired to remove it from publication - putting a generation of women at risk.
Some information came to me from a colleague in the last few days that has cemented everything I have come to learn about where science and medicine is going and unless this changes quickly it will end badly for everyone. It involves the discovery late last year that a generation of women exposed to the SARS-CoV2 spike protein could be at significant risk of ovarian & breast cancer – and two bearded PhDs in influential positions went out of their way to make sure that information was buried. Because, who cares about women when you are trying to save the world, right?
The two beardos in question are Eric O Freed of the NIH (National Institutes of Health) – ironically a cancer researcher, and Oliver Shildgen “Head of molecular pathology at the Private University Witten”.
I made a picture of them. Shildgen is the one that looks like Jack-Black-meets-Mr-Potato-Head and Freed the one that looks like the love child of Chuck Norris and Steve Jobs. (Sorry, but it’s true).
Please bear with me because this story will need some explanation. The Handmaid’s tale reference is necessary to understand the significance of any misogynistic malfeasance involved, because if my suspicions are correct the paper that I’m going to discuss shows that women in every developed country are at risk of a tsunami of women’s cancers. It seems, however, that the premature death of a generation of women doesn’t matter to those who, presumably, envisage running the Committee of Gilead in the near future (where dystopia meets reality).
To give you some context of the medical issue at question here is the accomplished and talented Angelina Jolie whose history is relevant. If you weren’t aware Angelina underwent a prophylactic mastectomy to reduce her risk of breast cancer because she has a BRCA gene mutation.
You see, the BRCA gene is really important. It is part of the “homologous recombination DNA repair pathway”. Which is one of the mechanisms that the body uses to stop your cells turning cancerous in response to environmental stress, and which is why women with BRCA mutations are at much higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer than those without.
One of the most important components of this pathway is p53 (or TP53) which is commonly called the “guardian of the genome”. If you want to read more about it this is a nice summary or if you want a reverse-lispy Englishman’s cringey explanation go here. Either way, p53 is the king (ahem – queen) of cancer prevention and without it (or BRCA and its buddies) you’re going to get cancer before most other people. In particular, if you’re a woman with a BRCA-related mutation your chance of getting breast or ovarian cancer before the age of 50 shoots up dramatically.
So, if there was a novel therapeutic that interfered with the body’s cells’ ability to produce p53 and make the BRCA pathway work defending our genome – you would think that would be important, wouldn’t you? Well I guess it depends on who is funding the therapeutic and whether they care two hoots whether you (or your mother, wife or daughter) get cancer.
Well, someone cared. Two people actually. Let me introduce a paper on exactly this subject catchily entitled “SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro” (otherwise known as the Jiang study after the authors Hui Jiang and Ya-Fang Mei). On the face of it, the study is nothing to do with ovarian cancer or breast cancer, it’s about lymphocytes.
This is the paper – it’s worth archiving.
For the record, VDJ recombination is one of the coolest things in nature. It is the mechanism behind the body’s creation of immunity (or what we used to call immunity before Tony Fauci and the WHO changed the definition). It’s how T- and B- cells magically create new proteins to neutralise nasty bugs.
It also has something really important in common with our ovarian cancer pathway, in that it relies on DNA strand breakage and repair – it’s essential to the process, and it’s the same process seen in p53-dependent ovarian and breast cancer.
So when Jiang and Mei designed an experiment to look at the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 proteins might impact this pathway in lymphocytes they were doing an experiment that was of vital importance to world’s population.
What did they find? Well, unfortunately something really important. That is, of all the proteins produced by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of them – the spike protein – obliterated the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes. Yeah, that’s really bad. Here is the graph from the paper showing the level of “HR efficiency” (i.e. homologous repair efficiency, i.e. the ability of the cell to repair DNA) seen with the different proteins of the virus. The spike protein was so toxic to this pathway that it knocked 90% of it out. This is an environment that is almost guaranteed to cause cancer.
So does it matter that some good guys in a Swedish university (that are experts in the field and have been producing papers on this stuff for years, by the way) published a paper showing that the nasty Ecohealth77(™) virus (aka SARS2, COVID, Wuhan-1 and a few other choice names) produced proteins that – if they hung around long enough – would stop your cells’ protection mechanism against cancer? Well, no – provided that the stuff (the protein it makes) didn’t hang around long, didn’t get into the nucleus, and didn’t get to the ovaries. Fortunately, if you get infected with said virus and your immune system is working the spike protein should be rapidly neutralised and so you shouldn’t be at risk of these cancers from a “COVID-19” infection.
But… What you really, really don’t want in this scenario is
(1) the spike protein in the vicinity of the nucleus, where the DNA repair happens
(2) the spike protein to be continually produced
(3) a full length spike artificial protein matching the viral spike, because we don’t know which bit of the spike protein is causing this effect.
Well, guess what?
It just so happens that there is a genetic therapy currently in production that
(1) induces spike protein to be produced in and around the cell nucleus
(2) is produced for at least 60 days and almost certainly longer
(3) produces the full length spike exactly matching (amino acid for amino acid) the full length of the viral spike protein
But, hold on I hear you say. All those clever commentators on my social media feed keep saying that the spike doesn’t get into the nucleus, don’t they? And they debunked the Jiang story on this basis didn’t they?
Well of course they tried, but they lied. And in fact the Jiang study simply reproduced what Pfizer had already done, proving beyond all doubt that the spike protein gets into the nucleus.
Here is the version of the confocal microscopy study from the Jiang study – blue is the nucleus (the black around is the rest of the cell) and the bright green is the spike protein tagged with a fluorescent marker. As you can see, the spike is completely in the nucleus. There is no doubt. And to reinforce this, the fact that the study showed 90% inhibition of p53 activity means that it had to be active in the nucleus (because that’s where p53 lives).
Yes but those nice government people that lied about all the other stuff said that the spike protein from the vaccine doesn’t get into the nucleus, right? They didn’t lie about that did they?
Well, I hate to let you down here but this next picture is from the TGA’s document referenced above from the pre-clinical studies of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. This is the document that the TGA had before they authorised the product. The EMA, MHRA and FDA had the same documents. In the TGA version it’s on page 25 of the “BioNtech BNT162 investigator’s brochure” (which sounds like a holiday brochure from the days we could go on holiday, doesn’t it?).
Here you are. I’ve put a big red arrow on to show you that there is plenty of spike protein in the nucleus of the cell shown. It’s a slam dunk.
But that’s just a one-off right?
Wrong. Here is the equivalent slide from the TGA “nonclinical evaluation report” , showing the spike protein being produced in the ER near the nucleus (as sold in the glossy brochure) but then being located (again) into the nucleus. This picture is a little faint but I suspect that is by design.
OK so it gets into the nucleus, but it doesn’t hang around does it? They said it only lasts hours or days and then disintegrates. That’s true isn’t it?
No. In fact this was shown in a huge study by one of the most respected molecular biology groups in the world at Stanford university in a mammoth paper. They showed that the RNA was still present and active after 60 days. Other researchers have shown activity beyond 28 days and others even longer, so it’s “a thing”. It doesn’t break down in 2 days, that was a lie.
So now we have the mRNA vaccines producing the same full length spike protein, entering the nucleus where Jiang and Mei proved that the protein stops DNA repair (i.e. induces cancer risk) in lymphocytes.
Well, Jiang did make a mistake. And the mistake he made was to admit in the paper that there was a possibility – or probability – that because the vaccine spike was the same as the virus spike, the vaccine had a real risk of causing cancer-inducing changes in DNA. Well, you see, you are not allowed to do that – because that will upset the pharma companies whose advertising funds nearly every major medical journal.
And once this paper was published it started dawning on people (and mice) what the implications were
Which meant that the Medical Establishment™ had to act, because we can’t allow those pesky mice to let it slip that this novel therapy (making the Medical Establishment™ billions of dollars) is going to put every woman that takes it at risk of cancers that are unique to them, can we?
So, within 2 months of the Jiang paper being published, Freed and Schildgen submitted the most ridiculous expression of concern I have ever seen to the journal. The claim was that they weren’t happy with the study design. But the phrasing was totally bizarre, suggesting that the author of the paper had expressed concerns about his own paper. This was false and it was Freed who had raised the concerns – referred to in the 3rd party as “one of the authors” – i.e. of the expression of concern!
So who is Eric Freed? Well he is a big-wig at NIH. Yes the same NIH that funded Moderna – one of the pharma companies producing covid-19 mRNA vaccines. An obvious conflict of interest. Did he declare his conflict of interest in the letter to MDPI? No, of course not. He just needed the paper gone (because, who cares about women, right?)
And Oliver Shildgen (Mr Potato Head)? Well not only is he listed as the “academic editor” on that same paper but he published in the same year a paper whose co-authors had declared disclosures with nearly every major pharma company including Pfizer. And he sure gets around with lots of fingers in government pies….
And of course he didn’t really declare his interest in developing gene therapy vectors (which are the same as the vaccine vectors, you’re just not allowed to call those gene therapy, obviously)
Nor did he declare here that his funding comes from foundations including the Else-Kroener-Fresenius foundation, whose history is interesting to say the least. In case you didn’t know, Fresenius another huge German pharma corporation.
But the weirdest thing about Prof Dr Schildgen is that he was the actual editor of the journal that accepted the Jiang paper – presumably ensuring that in October it met the high standards of scientific merit and probity required – yet in December it didn’t?
Yes, the same guy that supervised the peer review of this paper then, within 2 months, co-authors an expression of concern about the paper that he approved for publication. Clearly, he needs to resign. That is not good enough for an editor who then makes no commentary about his role in the paper’s publication or its retraction.
So, what was the complaint exactly that made this paper so bad that it needed to be retracted? Remember that scientific papers need to declare valid experimental results objectively following which the authors are expected to make their own subjective commentary about the interpretation of the results. If you don’t agree – tough, write a rebuttal. You can’t retract a paper based on your disagreement with the conclusions. Retractions are almost exclusively for fraud. Well here is the full complaint published at MDPI:
Bearing in mind that the highlighted “first author” refers to Eric Freed of the NIH (not Jiang), here is my translation of Freed’s trumped up claims:
(1) I’m not happy that you used a His-tag to show that the spike protein was in the nucleus, because that gives the game away. Yes, I know His-tagging is a totally appropriate method for this experiment but I didn’t like the result so…
(2) I’m not happy that you used a totally established and standard GFP reporter system for the same reason, even though I’ve written about its extensive use
(3) Although all experimental designs have the possibility of ambiguity in the results, I’m only bothered about this one and haven’t complained about any other paper using the same methods ever
(4) I know that you didn’t state the impact of vaccines on this pathway – merely raised theoretical concerns – but I am going to make out that you did and then ask you to retract the article based on claim that you did
(5) I realise that you stated that you didn’t use the full length spike protein, and that it was Pfizer and Moderna’s responsibility to do exactly these experiments – but I’m going to make out that the fact that no genotoxicity experiments were performed for these vaccines is actually your problem, not theirs
(6) I’m going to frame the whole thing as though your conclusions are not valid and even though conclusions in a scientific paper are solely the domain of the authors of the paper, I’m going to say that your conclusions don’t count and you will have to retract the paper. And I have the NIH behind me so you don’t stand a chance – because, science, you know.
Despite this ridiculous and politically motivated attack on the paper, and no suggestion of fraud, Oliver Schildgen said nothing but joined forces with Freed so that it was not-so-obvious that it was the NIH who didn’t like this paper. This is a massive conflict of interests and it is not only unscientific but arguably unethical for one person to have so much clout that they can order a paper retracted on a whim.
So what happens now?
Well, the spike protein circulating in large quantities, in the direct vicinity of the cell nucleus, for elongated periods of time, has the potential to induce cancer in those cells. Which cells are the most likely to be affected? Any that are known to be affected by p53 and BRCA abnormalities: ovary, pancreas, breast, prostate. lymph nodes. These cancers can take years to develop and so it’s possible that we don’t see much of a safety signal for 5 or 10 years, and then Pfizer and Moderna will claim that it was “COVID” or “lockdowns” that caused the deluge of women’s (and some men’s) cancers.
By then of course, we might be living under the “new normal” touted by so many of our world leaders and health chiefs, with people like Freed and Schildgen in charge. Imagine what kind of medical dystopia we look forward to when the very people who we rely on to keep us safe (or at least be honest and transparent in their attempts) instead ordain the suffering of a generation of women.
Not too far from Gilead, really.