Cyto_Sea

[Cyto_Sea @Cyto_Sea]

@foldsproteinsII Hilarious cope describing "breakthrough infections" 😁

[Cyto_Sea @Cyto_Sea]

@KCthehamster @foldsproteinsII Poorly understood to whom? The term is usually used as a description of growth rate _after_ the natural rate of tumor growth is characterized, which is then observed to increase post immunotherapy.

[Patent SUN @Patent_SUN]

Science is fundamentally descriptive and never says “Obey.” The voice that says “Obey” is always “Power.” Power attaches its own value judgments to scientific knowledge and uses them as a basis for demanding obedience from citizens.

This command takes on an ideological or even religious character not because of science itself, but because it requires submission to the external authority of what is institutionally constructed as “scientific evidence.”

Scientific evidence comes to function almost like scripture, treated not as something to be questioned but as something to be obeyed. In that process, the individual’s own value judgments are pushed to the margins, and being “scientific” comes to function as a source of legitimacy in itself.

This phenomenon is not only a form of self-sanctification by power through the authority of science, but also one that exploits cognitive biases among citizens.

Many people seek clear answers in a complex world and take comfort in the belief that, “If science says so, I should follow it.” Power merely has to provide a simple narrative for obedience to follow.

However, science inherently contains the possibility of error, and the value judgments made by power also contain their own possibility of error.

Therefore, “Follow the science” is a political command that carries a double possibility of error: the uncertainty of science and the uncertainty of the value judgments imposed by power.

That is why being a sceptic is not a vice but a fundamental virtue of a free citizen.

[Paul D. Thacker @thackerpd]

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked documents show Bill Gates spent over $430 million to sway NIH research.

When Gates came to the NIH in 2016, NIH police escorted his 3-car convoy from the federal entrance to a building where Francis Collins stood waiting.
https://t.co/RLhzaBV1t7

[Patent SUN @Patent_SUN]

Interesting. The medical economic value assigned to a human being as a collection of parts far exceeds the social and legal economic value assigned to a human being as labor.

[Jikkyleaks 🐭 @Jikkyleaks]

@pr0truth @DrNeilStone Also...

Diseases not eradicated by vaccination
▶️Measles
▶️Polio
▶️Smallpox (monkey pox)
▶️ Chicken pox

Infectious Diseases eradicated in developed countries since 1940 without vaccination
▶️Scarlet fever
▶️Plague
▶️Leprosy
▶️Epidemic cholera
▶️Typhoid

#justsayin

[Cyto_Sea @Cyto_Sea]

@GenericJes @LocasaleLab "Multiple tumor" (Polyoma) viruses in Salk and Sabin vaccines. Sequences of those viruses found in high copy numbers in human tumors.

[Cyto_Sea @Cyto_Sea]

Temporal + spatial correlations have been found in the case reports, where causation is near certain.
Where will the data come from for the population level research? CDC wonder? The same CDC who kept V-safe data hidden? Or one of the large patient level data aggregators who receive $ from the manufacturers and are already mixing in synthetic patient level data?

[Cyto_Sea @Cyto_Sea]

@LamKajubi Congrats!

[Wafik S. El-Deiry, MD, PhD, FACP @weldeiry]

The Cell paper from May, 2026 has a critical omission.

https://t.co/VkeyhMvTpU

Can you believe that in the human cohort they did not provide the COVID vaccination status of the people who developed or did not develop lung cancer??

Imagine that.

This is important because the cohort developed severe COVID related respiratory illness at a time when most people were vaccinated.

If the vast majority of those who became severely ill were vaccinated, you have to ask the question why they became so sick and are they representative of the general population.

I would say we do not understand why the vaccine didn’t prevent severe respiratory illness in those people.

I would say they do not represent the vast majority of individuals in the general population.

Instead of being dismissive, it is important to be honest and open about what we know and what we do not know.

Please tell me how the journal Cell published that paper with no mention of the COVID mRNA vaccination status of the human cohort.

I would add, and I have said this before, that the COVID mRNA vaccines increase PD-L1 expression in tumor cells.

Of course this makes the tumors more sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade.

But why not address PD-L1 some other way like epigenetic drugs, chemo or radiation, agents that actually have an anti-tumor effect.

Increasing PD-L1 by using agents that do not have an anti-tumor effect is by itself an immune evasion tumor promoting effect.

BTW, this is shown in the October, 2025 Nature paper whose discussion reads like marketing.

https://t.co/5yPjsaDQPy

Both NSCLC and melanoma respond to immune checkpoint therapy much better than other tumors with possible exception of MSI-high tumors.

Melanoma already has approved use of interferon therapy that is part of the COVID mRNA vaccine mechanism in that Nature paper.

Why not use IFN. Oh it’s because it’s pretty toxic.

The strategy suggested in the Nature paper has issues.

But, I did say it is OK to conduct clinical research with informed consent within a population that has very different risk:benefit considerations from the general population.

Oh, but we don’t have informed consent for the COVID mRNA vaccines as I said under oath a couple of days ago I don’t believe we have informed consent. https://t.co/gVxAWrWG4l

[Humanspective @Humanspective]

World Renowned Oncologist says there’s no informed consent with mRNA tech, as the Nobel Prize winning Pseudouridine takes the stage.

The order looks backwards:

1. Inject billions.
2. Give them a Nobel Prize.
3. Publish a peer reviewed paper finding something unexpected.

@weldeiry - “It should be clear to everyone. Pseudouridine modified mRNA were used for the first time in the population... NEVER BEFORE.”

Months after Pseudouridine won the Nobel Prize, a peer reviewed paper was published saying this “upgraded” technology is leading to the production of “strange proteins in the body”.

Professor Clancy says: “No one knows what those proteins are doing”.

“The Nobel Prize in 2023 was given to two people for putting pseudouridine in a messenger RNA, to make it work better... within three months, a group in Cambridge found that 20% of readouts, and about 10% of people, had strange proteins circulating in their bodies, some of which have the capacity to form amyloid”

[Kevin McKernan @Kevin_McKernan]

I confess to chuckling a bit when I heard this on the senate floor.

After 60K citations.
I know what a Peer comment is.

And I know what a Smear comments is.

All the flunkies and awkward kids are over at PubSmear.
Occasionally they do find issues. Twitter is more effective at it and their PubSmear walled D&D garden only has influence over equally low wattage administrators salivating over their next woke witch hunt. The 10% accuracy is used as the cover to politically target people who don’t subscribe to their incoherent woke cult

[Aaron Siri @AaronSiriSG]

“Looking at the totality of up-to-date evidence and what you've heard from eminent witnesses today, in my view, millions of Americans and millions more across the world may be in clear and present danger of suffering premature cardiovascular disease and cancer.” - @DrAseemMalhotra

[Off The Press @OffThePress1]

🚨WATCH: Physician and cancer researcher @weldeiry recalls facing "repercussions" early in the pandemic for voicing uncertainty about "the natural origin of the COVID virus."

[Wafik S. El-Deiry, MD, PhD, FACP @weldeiry]

@gorskon @doritmi @BenMazer @RenoDrew @HHSGov Here is a chapter I wrote as PubPeer attacked me when I was down and recovering from major surgery in August of 2025. https://t.co/n86DqiMVvm

[Cyto_Sea @Cyto_Sea]

@carl_jurassic @karrichapus @dystopian_DU @Jikkyleaks @P_McCulloughMD @PierreKory @RWMaloneMD @joshg99 @brownstoneinst @jeffreytucker @Fynnderella1 @SciGuardians Maybe at that time her Ai tools were "in the shop" for repair

[Wafik S. El-Deiry, MD, PhD, FACP @weldeiry]

Revised on 6-2-2026:

Vaccines can save lives if safe and effective.

Those vaccines that are recommended by physicians after discussing individual risks and benefits with patients should be given with informed consent and covered by insurance.

But there have been some unexpected findings with pseudouridine-modified COVID mRNA vaccines tested for the first time in the global population at large.

These include unexpected persistence of the modified mRNA and spike protein in tissues, DNA fragment impurities and plasmid impurities with Process 2 production that were not tested in the early clinical trials that used Process 1 for COVID mRNA vaccine production.

Altered host immune responses with IgG4 class-switching, increased PD-L1 expression on cancer cells, neo-peptides resulting from ribosomal frame-shifting in pseudouridine-modified Spike mRNA, potential inhibition of tumor suppression mechanisms along with reported cases of cancer raise concern especially for individuals who may be at higher risk.

The unexpected observations warrant investigation including forensic evidence into impurities, biodistribution, mechanisms that affect the immune system and disease risk that includes cancer.

All known plausible mechanisms by which COVID mRNA vaccines might cause cancer as summarized in Kuperwasser and El-Deiry, 2026 are shown in the diagram below.

More research is needed on who is at greatest risk especially in the setting of 5, 6, and 7 modified-mRNA COVID vaccine injections.

Scientists should be allowed to ask questions and pursue the truth about disease risks and mechanisms without politics, attacks on their reputations or other career-altering consequences.

In my opinion, mRNA (and peptide) vaccines hold promise for cancer in a population with different risk benefit characteristics and should be further tested in clinical trials.

@KUPERWASSERLAB @Kevin_McKerna @DJSpeicher @RetsefL @SenRonJohnson @NIHDirector_Jay @NCIDirector @RandPaul @HHSGov @US_FD @kharaguchi @MaryanneDemasi @RWMaloneMD @JanciToxDoc @danaparish @xazalbert @JesslovesMJK @efenigson @DrAseemMalhotra @AaronSiriSG @RobertKennedyJr

[Cyto_Sea @Cyto_Sea]

@Lorenzo7127 @DrJ_surgeon @weldeiry He essentially did here
https://t.co/OnTl5aubg5
Just not in the long GPT sounding post above, which you refer to as "his words" but I doubt many are convinced of that.

[Dr Terry Simpson @drterrysimpson]

There is no link

[Jikkyleaks 🐭 @Jikkyleaks]

@zerohedge It's money laundering through HHS.

MODERNA = HHS.

https://t.co/JlrjxG06jF