In 1989, Dr. Robert Malone invented the platform technology that allowed mRNA to transfer into mammalian cells.
Dr. Malone’s invention stabilized nucleic acid by packaging it in a liposome with a positive charge. A liposome is a lipid sac that can carry drugs or other substances like mRNA into tissues.
Lipid nanoparticles are new and improved delivery devices based on Malone’s technology.
And these lipid nanoparticles are the foundation of our currently used experimental mRNA vaccines. These are widely used globally and even mandated in the United States.
However, the scientific literature has recognized the toxicity of these positively-charged lipid nanoparticles since 2010.
This 2010 study from Tel Aviv University showed that these lipid nanoparticles dramatically increased inflammatory markers in mice such as interleukins, interferons, TNF alpha, and Toll-Like receptors. Furthermore, inflammatory cytokines were elevated up to 75 times higher in the lipid treatment group than in the controls.
Dr. Kedmi warned, “These results suggest that careful attention must be made when different types of (+)NPs are being developed as nanotherapeutics.” See the last sentence of his abstract below.
Although Katalyn Kariko and others attempted to make the mRNA nucleic acid portion of the vaccine less inflammatory through studies published in 2005 and 2008, the inflammation produced by the lipid nanoparticles persisted, as Dr. Sonia Ndeupen explains in her introduction – first paragraph – in the link below.
Dr. Ndeupen of Thomas Jefferson University and colleagues recently published the results of a pre-print study that tested the inflammatory effects of positively-charged lipid nanoparticles (LNP) in mice. The researchers challenged the mice with various types of injections of these LNPs. Some were delivered intradermally – under the skin – while others were delivered intranasally.
The results were shocking.
The LNP inoculated mice developed rapid and visible signs of inflammation with significant elevations of inflammatory cytokines, including the signature ones, Interleukin 1 beta and Interleukin 6. In addition, thousands of genes involved in the inflammatory response were upregulated, including the CXCL series.
Mice are particularly “susceptible to intranasal inoculation of inflammatory compounds.” Thus it was not surprising that 80% of those mice who received the highest intranasal doses of LNP suffered massive lung inflammation. Within hours, the lungs were visibly reddened and inflamed.
Moreover, 80% of those LNP inoculated mice died within 24 hours.
The scientists concluded, “Thus similar to skin inoculation, intranasal delivery of LNPs leads to massive inflammation. Furthermore, the LNPs’ inflammatory properties are not site-specific; and show a fast diffusion, dispersion and distribution rate in the (other) tissues.”
The researchers advised that it is highly likely “that intramuscular injection of the LNPs triggers similar inflammatory responses in muscle.”
They warn, “However, further studies will be needed to determine the exact nature of the inflammatory responses triggered by the mRNA LNP vaccines in humans, and how much overlap there might be with the inflammatory signatures documented here for mice.”
Further studies? Concerning our mRNA vaccines already in widespread use, the horse may already have left the barn. I know no other studies the vaccine manufacturers are interested in conducting. They have been granted immunity from lawsuits, so why would they conduct further tests?
In a further alarming legal development, the courts have held that Life Insurance Death Benefits need not be paid to a vaccine recipient as they should have known the risks based upon published reports.
The insurance company argued that the use of experimental medication or treatments, including the COVID vaccination, was excluded from the insurance contract. The court agreed and wrote this,
“The side effects of the experimental vaccine are published, and the deceased could not claim to have known nothing about it when he voluntarily took the vaccine. There is no law or mandate in France that compelled him to be vaccinated. Hence his death is essentially suicide.”
Suicide was also expressly excluded in the death benefit coverage, and the court agreed that taking the experimental vaccine was essentially the acceptance of a potentially fatal risk that was equivalent to suicide.
In a commentary on the Thomas Jefferson University article, Dr. Ramya Dwivedi wrote, “While the vital role of LNPs in these vaccines’ action is established, the potentially inflammatory nature of these LNPs is not assessed. Also, in the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines’ human trials, it is reported that side effects often linked to inflammation, such as pain, swelling, fever, and sleepiness, are common.
Because the vaccine was presumed to be non-inflammatory, these side-effects were taken to be generated from the potent immune response to the vaccine. Therefore, there is a need for a systemic approach to analyze the inflammatory properties of LNPs and understand their role in the vaccination process.”
For my readers who may not be familiar with Interleukin-1, Interleukin 6, and Tissue Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-alpha); these are inflammatory cytokines that are highly associated with disease. Think of the cytokine storm in COVID-19.
I wrote about them extensively in my cancer book. They are associated with heart disease, cancer, and premature death. Conversely, longevity is associated with low levels of inflammation.
While the dangers of the spike protein are known, this inflammatory property of the lipid nanoparticles was not widely appreciated. And although there was ample evidence the spike protein was toxic and could account for the VAERS adverse effects and deaths, this new PubMed information should alert every one of us to this little-known toxic property of the mRNA vaccines – the inflammatory potential of the lipid nanoparticles.
Indeed it is widely known the current experimental mRNA vaccines were rushed to market with corners cut, with insufficient safety testing conducted. As a result, we now face a mechanism of vaccine injury that would undoubtedly have surfaced had the vaccines taken the usual five to ten-year route in safety testing.
Like the problematic VAERS data, the widespread reports of sudden death in elite young athletes, and more recently, the 40% increase in Life Insurance deaths, this paper is another one of many sounding the alarm on these inadequately tested but highly profitable vaccines.
The French courts now say that accepting the experimental mRNA vaccine is the equivalent of sky-diving or bungee cord bridge jumping. It is a high-risk activity to take an experimental vaccine that has been associated with so many unexplained deaths. Thus a death following such high-risk activity would be the person’s own fault and not recoverable under many life-insurance contracts.
What about the excuse, “I didn’t know?” The law often attributes the standard to whether you knew or should have known. The standard is what a reasonable person should know or should have known based on publicly available material – including this article.
And by now, the information is overwhelming.
We have more than enough data now to bring a halt to this experimental vaccine program and call it what it is – an abject failure. Moreover, Dr. Peter McCullough notes that a government-sponsored early treatment program (including HCQ, Ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies) could have saved 95% of the lives lost during the pandemic. See mark 3:18.
“The vaccine swath of injuries and deaths is like a whole new disease category now,” says Dr. McCullough. See mark 17.13.
Dr. Robert Malone, the Father of mRNA vaccine technology, has frowned upon what the vaccine makers have done to corrupt his brainchild, and he can no longer recommend the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines “in any age cohort.” See mark 21:30.
It is unfair to coerce citizens to take these experimental shots and then provide no legal recourse for the consequences. Dr. Malone feels so strongly about opposing these mandates that he has organized a March on Washington for January 23rd.
If Dr. Robert Malone, the original inventor, is against their use, who can rationally be in their favor, other than those who stand to profit?
Dr. Justus R. Hope, writer’s pseudonym, graduated summa cum laude from Wabash College where he was named a Lilly Scholar. He attended Baylor College of Medicine where he was awarded the M.D. degree. He completed a residency in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at The University of California Irvine Medical Center. He is board-certified and has taught at The University of California Davis Medical Center in the departments of Family Practice and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has practiced medicine for over 35 years and maintains a private practice in Northern California.
Source: The Desert Review