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.
They are definitely a large part of the issue, whether they cause inflammation in themselves, or carry the mRNA coding for the toxic spike protein which does the damage, particularly as they were DESIGNED to distribute themselves widely throughout the body and the organs and especially as it's been demonstrated that they accumulate in the ovaries.
I have to confess that when I saw your headline I thought "God, I hope it isn't me!". No such luck - I specialise in (unintentionally) sniffy responses.
I wouldn't take it to heart. Scientists (and I was one once) tend to be brusque, especially when you're questioning something that they thought they already knew. There's a good deal more similarity between those who question the narrative and those who don't than either side would like to admit.
I'm a fan of David Hume's dictum "reason is the slave of the passions" (he wrote "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."). The physicist Richard Feynman echoed this when he said that “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
In the end, the debate about LNPs will be resolved but there will be some RAISED VOICES, some hurt feelings and animosity before it's over. Keep asking questions!
Oh, I haven't taken it to heart, I'm used to such responses from tenured experts on the 'consensus' side of scientific debates, especially in the field of climate science. They don't come more arrogant than climate scientists, I can tell you! I guess I just wasn't expecting such a response from those trained academics on 'our side' who have positioned themselves ostensibly in opposition to the consensus.
Your question about VV is an excellent one.
I'm not surprised re MC's response which seems to be his style, although in this case it did seem particularly obtuse.
Have you asked the same question to Marc G on his own substack?
Dear Jamie
Many thanks for your post. I have done a lot on Covid 19 etc. and I would like to present my research.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/08/17/what-is-the-flu-a-k-a-covid-19-and-why-vaccines-are-pointless-at-best/
I fight for the UK which is my home, but also for the world, if that does not sound too grand.
Kind regards
IMO if the LNP are the issue they should be putting a halt to any and all future mRNA gene therapy development.
They are definitely a large part of the issue, whether they cause inflammation in themselves, or carry the mRNA coding for the toxic spike protein which does the damage, particularly as they were DESIGNED to distribute themselves widely throughout the body and the organs and especially as it's been demonstrated that they accumulate in the ovaries.
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/james-a-thorp-md-confirms-absolutely
I have to confess that when I saw your headline I thought "God, I hope it isn't me!". No such luck - I specialise in (unintentionally) sniffy responses.
I wouldn't take it to heart. Scientists (and I was one once) tend to be brusque, especially when you're questioning something that they thought they already knew. There's a good deal more similarity between those who question the narrative and those who don't than either side would like to admit.
I'm a fan of David Hume's dictum "reason is the slave of the passions" (he wrote "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."). The physicist Richard Feynman echoed this when he said that “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
In the end, the debate about LNPs will be resolved but there will be some RAISED VOICES, some hurt feelings and animosity before it's over. Keep asking questions!
Oh, I haven't taken it to heart, I'm used to such responses from tenured experts on the 'consensus' side of scientific debates, especially in the field of climate science. They don't come more arrogant than climate scientists, I can tell you! I guess I just wasn't expecting such a response from those trained academics on 'our side' who have positioned themselves ostensibly in opposition to the consensus.