A Sniffy Response From a Substack Author To A Simple Question

You may be familiar with Marc Girardot’s theory that most or all of the adverse reactions to the mRNA Covid jabs are due to the lipid nanoparticles which he maintains get into the bloodstream because of a faulty injection protocol, i.e. the occasional erroneous injection of the products into a vein rather than the deltoid muscle.

When I was on Twitter, I debated with him on this because I was, and still am sceptical. He is very polite and likeable but I still came away from those exchanges not entirely convinced by his arguments - at least, those that I could comprehend because his technical knowledge of the subject is rather more extensive than my own!

So anyway, Mathew Crawford put this post up today:

RTE Roundtable Talk #18: Nanoparticle Model of Vaccine Injury

I posted what I thought was a simple, straightforward question and got this slightly sniffy response:

So, I replied again and got an even sniffier response:

You’ll note that I wasn’t providing info “in principle”; I was pointing out that the ‘principle’ (my spelling error - I should have used ‘principal’) difference between the viral vector vaccines and the mRNA was in the mode of delivery of the genetic material - LNPs are used in mRNA whereas they are not in viral vector jabs. So what explains the similar adverse events, at a similar rate, occurring after the Astra Zeneca jab? I thought that was a reasonable question to ask, which deserved a simple response, before demanding ‘data and links’. Apparently not. I replied once more, then crickets from Mathew:

Mathew made clear his position on Marc’s hypothesis. This does not leave a lot open to interpretation. He is clearly coming down on the side of accepting that a majority of mRNA vaccine ADRs of special interest are due to the LNPs. That being the case, he needs to explain what is causing the clinically very similar ADRs observed after viral vector vaccine injections.

The more I learn, the more I think Marc is correct that the nanoparticles are a serious problem—and very possibly responsible for the majority of the vaccine adverse events—but I think that his resistance to the multi-effects model that allows for discussion of spike protein (or other) harm is overdone. But I can just as easily (more easily) blame that on those who attack him rather than talk to him. We are in an environment in which there are those who intend to cause chaos by shutting down discussions (even aside from those of us who over-focused on the strange choice of using the novel spike protein, complete with evidence of its toxic inserts, for the purpose of vaccination).

This was an interesting brief conversation because it does highlight the divide which exists between commenters like myself on Substack with no formal training in medicine, vaccinology or immunology and those Covid dissident Substack authors trained in medicine who nevertheless question the received wisdom on the ‘safe and effective vaccines’ and the dominant media and state enforced narrative. We both share a critical and sceptical approach to what the authorities and their own ‘experts’ tell us, but sometimes I get the impression that even the experts on our side of the fence can become a little too detached from their predominantly layperson readers.

Another commenter did point me in the direction of more info from Marc’s substack, for which I was grateful, but it only reinforced my hesitation in embracing Marc’s theory that it is the LNPs which are almost entirely responsible for the serious adverse reactions we’re seeing: