We’ve Now Got Ourselves A Peer-Reviewed Study Of The Jab… And Fauci Won’t Like It

Getting called anti-vax because you questioned the untested Jab is a little like getting called anti-automotive because you wondered why so many Pintos exploded. The question is only as ‘dangerous’ as the answer it uncovers.

One of the most obvious and reasonable reasons to question the jab in the first place was the fact that it was a new technology whose risk profile had yet to be studied.

And yet, for some reason, the same people who go out of their way to restrict the purchase of raw milk and farm-fresh eggs had no hesitation in not only making the COVID shot available to the general public… but took it that one step further by obligating the public to use it. (Or else.)

Lab work takes time, you see, and the COVIDictators were in a hurry to save the world, they said. Cynics looked at this and saw a little more than a massive coordinated wealth transfer, and a way to reward the sheep while punishing those who don’t appreciate being conscripted into enormous social engineering experiments.

Fast forward a few years and the COVID panic has (mostly) abated. We still have some people looking at the vaccine as a net positive good, while others range in opinions from thinking it helps a few people in some situations, to rejecting the project altogether.

During the pandemic, we saw claims and counter-claims about what this new species of jab (is vaccine even the right word for this new tech?) did to help or harm those who took it. But until we could get to the lab and really study these things, they were never more than rival claims of uncertain reliability.

The wise people in white labcoats could give us all the assurances they liked, but until they can say ‘double-blind tested’, it was at best, an ‘educated guess’.

Until now.

Peter McCullough MD, one of the more well-known dissenting voices during the pandemic era, is one of the researchers behind a recently published peer-reviewed study entitled ‘Genomic Integration And Moleclular Dysregulatoin In Aggressive Stage IV Cancder Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinations.’ It can be found in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science, and has raised an issue about the mRNA product that we were explicitly told was nothing more than a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Because of the role that mRNA (messenger RNA) plays in the direct interaction with a cell’s DNA, many wondered if there was any risk of an unintended consequence in how the mRNA might interact with the host’s cells.

Those concerns, as we recall, were waved away as nonsense. But the study asked those questions anyway.

And they have an answer. As McCullough indicates in a tweet, we were 100% right to be asking such questions.

Skipping ahead to the abstract’s end result:

Conclusions: This sentinel case report provides the first documented evidence of genomic integration of mRNA vaccine-derived genetic material in a human subject, documenting a temporal association between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and aggressive malignancy, reproducible multi-omic evidence of oncogenic signaling, and a non–safe harbor host–vector integration event. While causality cannot be established from a single case, the con-vergence of (i) close temporal proximity to vaccination, (ii) genomic integration of a vaccine plasmid–derived spike gene fragment, and (iii) consistent transcriptomic and proteomic instability across biospecimens represents a highly unusual and biologically plausible pattern. These findings highlight an urgent need for systematic genomic sur-veillance, orthogonal validation with long-read sequencing, and larger cohort studies to rigorously define the im-pact of synthetic mRNA vaccine platforms on genome integrity and cancer risk.

In plain English?

We’re looking at the ‘first documented evidence’ in ‘a human subject’ of…

… integration of mRNA vaccine-derived genetic material… (e.g. some aspect of the mRNA has been fused into the human patient’s DNA)

… evidence of oncogenic signaling… (‘onco’ is a reference to cancer, and ‘oncogenic‘ is ‘relating to tumor formation)

Our readers can alredy see where this is taking us… right?

And what was that one famous feature of both COVID and the jab? You guessed it, the Spike protein.

… genomic integration of a… spike fragment…

The cell took some portion of the spike protein and integrated it into its own DNA.

He’s stopping short of claiming he’s got smoking gun evidence that the cancer jump we’ve seen since the pandemic is ‘directly’ caused by the jab. But he IS saying we need to dig deeper into this connection to really understand it.

Golly gee, you think that might be a good idea?

Wait until the ‘believe the science’ crowd hears about this. Surely they’ll all gladly just admit they were wrong all this time. Right?