Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch claim spike protein is Cytotoxic

Peter

Active Member
Well I guess the claim is in the title. Here's a video in which the 2 guys discuss their claims, along with some data and statistics in this video. My suspicion is that the statistics have been manipulated to lead the viewer to the wrong conclusion. They state that they assembled the data and produced a diagram to make things more visual.. I think there's something fishy going on here.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY&t=88s&ab_channel=DarkHorsePodcastClips


Of course in the mind of our conspiracy minded friends, the fact that mr Malone came up with the concept of RNA transfection is reason enough to believe anything he has to say on the matter. Here's the paper from 1989:

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/86/16/6077.full.pdf

And here's what's referred to as Steve Kirsch's 'Paper' in the youtube link of the discussion above:

https://trialsitenews.com/should-you-get-vaccinated/

It's got a whole litany of claims, so if anyone is a debunking mood, this could occupy your entire day.

The problem is that these guys do have actual backgrounds that would seem to lend them some credibility (but their recent claims don't, as far as I can see). The subject matter is also fairly complex to the untrained reader (such as myself), so it's a bit hard to make sense of it all without taking a really deep dive into the rabbit hole.

Anyway their main claim in the video is that spike protein is cytotoxic. Now I'm not sure if the spike protein generated through vaccination and that of the virus are the same. I think that there lies the key to debunking this claim. I'm looking around to see what I can find on this, and if anyone feels like jumping in to clarify things, that would be awesome.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can you show what their claimed evidence actually is? So people don't have to watch the video.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Alcohol is cytotoxic (more than 10% / 20 proof). Vitamin C is cytotoxic if it's highly concentrated. The danger is in the dosage, and that is very low for the amount of spike protein produced as a reaction to an mRNA vaccination.

If the cytoxic effect of mRNA vaccines exists, and if it makes people sick, the side effects should have shown up by now via the usual reporting system.
 

Peter

Active Member
Can you show what their claimed evidence actually is? So people don't have to watch the video.
Sure.

Here's a link to Steve's page where he makes some claims about te data:

https://trialsitenews.com/foia-docu...sion-as-to-mrna-based-vaccine-safety-signals/

From there he links to the actual research document (which is sadly partly in japanese, but if you scroll down the graphs are in English):

https://trialsitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Pfizer-report_Japanese-government.pdf

So this is the actual document they get their data from. They then go on to interpret it on this page:

https://trialsitenews.com/should-you-get-vaccinated/

You have to scroll beyond the 19 (nonsensical) points to get to the meat of it all.

Sorry, it's a lot of stuff.. I guess that's how people get entangled and overwhelmed in this whole mess, and just assume that the conclusion of it all is that the study indeed shows that spike proteins are indeed toxic.
 

Peter

Active Member
As a side note, I'm having a hard time finding anything that substantiates their claim that the spike protein that's produced by mRNA vaccines is actually toxic. This seems to be an a priori assumption on the part of Malone and Kirsch, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Point 16 on Steve's page is: Vaccines skipped proper toxicology studies in order to bring to market faster. We don’t know what we don’t know.

So is it in fact toxic? Or don't we know?

At the same time manufacturers of the vaccine go out fo their way to ensure there are all sorts of mechanisms in place to ensure the spike proteins are in sucha state that they can't cause harm. (see drBeen's video on youtube called 'Spike protein Cytotoxicity?')
 

044cents

New Member
Without getting all scholar...."cytotoxicity" is not always a bad thing first of all. To a non lab nerd, cytotoxicity is simply a reference to specific chemicals or mediators that trigger cells to die. Sometimes its like collateral damage and sometimes its purposefull. Easy way to think of it is like when a spider bites you and the venom causes cell death. Thats necrosis and not cool. On the other hand, "apoptosis" is the destruction of cells that is actually important and vital sometimes. You cant run around your entire life with the same cells lol! They need replaced for various reasons. It removes cells during development and also blows up precancerous cells along with cells FILLED WITH VIRUSES. The point is dont be so freaked about fancy and sexy words certain people try to use to excite and dazzle you with.

Look, every single day your body is fighting pathogens and bad guys. Millions of years of evolution have created this gorgeous program we call our body. What you eat, breath and do all day causes "damage" and that is one of the most gorgeous parts of the human miracle... we heal. Sometimes it takes a little "destruction" to gain the upper hand so life can move on. Think of it like an old busted up apartment building. You cant just build a new apartment complex on top the old one! You have to knock down the old building using bulldozers and jackhammers, clear out the debris and then build NEW!
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Apparanently is has shown up. From this study.
Personally, I wouldn't call this a study since the author did not collect any data on their own.
It's a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed.

And it contains this:
Article:
(Correction June 18, 2021) IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THIS SECTION

See Twitter thread: Source: https://twitter.com/piercedgeek/status/1405996230753370117


Effectively, it appears the classification Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified (R00-R99) always increases near the most recent dates. Below is a screenshot showing based on the date collected from the CDC, the number of R00-R99 classifications appear to be updated.
CDC-Symptoms-signs-and-abnormal-clinical-and-laboratory-findings-not-elsewhere-classified-R00-...png
For a more detailed analysis see: Changes in the CDC Counts of Deaths by State and Select Causes. The magnitude of R00-R99 related deaths still appear to be increasing, at the same time the number of COVID-19 cases are decreasing. However, at this time, no clear claims can be made.


Here is what that data looks like as of today:
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Weekly-Provisional-Counts-of-Deaths-by-State-and-S/muzy-jte6
CDC mortality.jpg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Debunked here
i'm not sure anti vaxxers would consider that a debunk. Someone saying the opposite of what you are saying isn't a debunk imo. they do put source links for the pregnancy issues, which is good for pregnant women. but would make me wonder (if i was an anti-vaxxer) why no source links for there other sections.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
but would make me wonder (if i was an anti-vaxxer) why no source links for there other sections.
I wondered that, and I'm not even slightly anti-vaccination. Especially when some of it is basic biology stuff that would be easy to find a source for. Possibly the assumed some points were so basic that merely reminding people of them was sufficient -- if so, that was probably a poor assumption.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Especially when some of it is basic biology stuff that would be easy to find a source for.
I bet it's on Wikipedia. This is basic med school knowledge, any MD (and probably most registered nurses) should be able to explain it to you.
The source for this, if any, would be a med school textbook.

Kinda ironic if the "do your own research" crowd is asking for links here.


(They link to stuff that your average family doctor might not yet be aware of.)
 

Agent K

Senior Member
I wondered that, and I'm not even slightly anti-vaccination. Especially when some of it is basic biology stuff that would be easy to find a source for. Possibly the assumed some points were so basic that merely reminding people of them was sufficient -- if so, that was probably a poor assumption.
Some of the stuff is really basic and easy to find, like the fact that mRNA doesn't enter the nucleus and therefore doesn't alter DNA, whereas adenoviral vector vaccines do deliver DNA to the nucleus but still can't alter DNA, or at least shouldn't.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
This is basic med school knowledge, any MD (and probably most registered nurses) should be able to explain it to you.
The source for this, if any, would be a med school textbook.

Kinda ironic if the "do your own research" crowd is asking for links here.
Some of the stuff is really basic and easy to find...
Yeah, but I've already had folks other than just us here wonder why there is a set of unsupported claims -- which is going to be noticed by anti-vax folks. If I have a bit of time in the next week, I may try to hunt down citations, and maybe change where it says the mRNA is "fickle," which just seems weird to me (if that is a correct technical term, it still looks odd to me! ^_^)
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Find the package inserts, and/or FDA approval information, that should be a good place to start.
Would be worth doing to debunk the claim made on some conspiracy sites about the inserts bring blank, too, I suppose...
 

Beaker

Member
Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA technology -- I would take his words with consideration.
Your point is reasonable and I take it seriously. I think its important to note:
  1. He's not the inventor: Calling someone "the inventor of" implies they were the sole, or at least primary, inventor. This is not the case with Robert Malone and the current mRNA vaccines, since many dozens (at least) of scientists and researchers played important roles in developing different aspects of mRNA vaccination beginning before Malone's work and continuing well after his work: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
  2. He has an open oft-stated grievance about not getting proper credit and profit: I was interested to learn recently that Robert Malone has a long-standing resentment over not getting sufficient credit, in his opinion, for his contribution in 1989 to inventing a precursor to modern mRNA vaccination technique. This includes:
    • Malone's claim that in 1990 his colleague Inder Verma struck a back-room deal with medical research startup Vical (at which Malone also worked) to control patents and subsequent licensing profits from the mRNA research Malone, Verma and others had conducted in the prior couple years, leaving Malone out of the future profits. The Salk Institute at which Malone continued to work (and through which Malone could have made licensing profits) dropped all similar patent claims for this research, leading Malone to conclude "They got rich on the products of my mind", an oddly self-congratulatory wording to use about a technology that you believe is harmful to patients.
      • Verma and Felgner categorically deny Malone’s charges. "It’s complete nonsense," Verma told Nature.
    • Malone then went on in the 1990s to continue his interest in mRNA. From the Nature article: "He completed medical school and did a year of clinical training before working in academia, where he tried to continue research on mRNA vaccines but struggled to secure funding. (In 1996, for example, he unsuccessfully applied to a California state research agency for money to develop a mRNA vaccine to combat seasonal coronavirus infections.)" Very interesting. So he even thought mRNA could be effective against coronaviruses specifically and applied for funding to research it further, but was denied the funding for reasons unknown, and thus concluded his period of making contributions to mRNA vaccination research.
    • Note that Malone's wife recently posted online a 6,000 word essay explaining why he deserves credit for inventing mRNA vaccination, again an oddly self-congratulatory thing to post about a technology if you believe its harmful to patients: https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...about+RNA+vaccination+generic+v5+June2021.pdf
    • Note that Malone has made irate comments about the fact that biochemist Katalin Karikó has been featured in numerous news stories as a pioneer of mRNA vaccination research. To quote an Atlantic article about the subject: "'I’ve been written out of the history,' he has said. 'It’s all about Kati.' Karikó shared with me an email that Malone sent her in June, accusing her of feeding reporters bogus information and inflating her own accomplishments. 'This is not going to end well,' Malone’s message says. Karikó replied that she hadn’t told anyone that she is the inventor of mRNA vaccines and that 'many many scientists' contributed to their success. 'I have never claimed more than discovering a way to make RNA less inflammatory,' she wrote to him. She told me that Malone referred to himself in an email as her 'mentor' and 'coach,' though she says they’ve met in person only once, in 1997, when he invited her to give a talk."
      • This is embarrassingly unprofessional behavior, which makes it look like he is badmouthing mRNA vaccines because he's upset and jealous that others are getting credit and profit for them.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Karikó shared with me an email that Malone sent her in June, accusing her of feeding reporters bogus information and inflating her own accomplishments. 'This is not going to end well,' Malone’s message says.

That even sounds like it might a threat. Is he threatening to do whatever it takes to trash her work? Is he presently trashing her work?
 

Beaker

Member
That even sounds like it might a threat. Is he threatening to do whatever it takes to trash her work? Is he presently trashing her work?
He is openly trashing her (and many others') work all over the internet, but Malone walked the threat idea back when asked about it directly by the Atlantic. Quoting from that same Atlantic article: "Malone insists that his warning to Karikó that 'this is not going to end well' was not intended as a threat. Instead, he says, he was suggesting that her exaggerations would soon be exposed. Malone views Karikó as yet another scientist standing on his shoulders and collecting plaudits that should go to him."
 

Rory

Senior Member.

Ideally it's not injected into the blood, but there are those who believe not aspirating - ie, checking that the needle hasn't hit a blood vessel - is the source of some of the problems caused by the vaccine. I have heard anecdotal evidence that some who asked to have their injection aspirated did find that the needle had hit a blood vessel (much to the nurse's surprise). Others who suffered adverse reactions also noted a metallic taste after injection, which some feel is a sign of having hit a blood vessel.
 

Beaker

Member
Addressing the primary claim about spike protein cytotoxicity that started this thread:
  1. I am not aware of, and cannot find after a lot of searching, any claim of vaccine spike protein cytotoxicity made by any reputable specialist in their own work or in any reputable peer reviewed scientific paper.
  2. When I encounter this claim, which I have several times recently from claimants like Robert Malone and Byram Bridle, it is always by a claimant most specialists consider disreputable, and its always a misrepresentation of the work of others, such as selectively quoting 1-2 sentences from a large paper and when the authors of the paper are directly asked about the claim they say the claim is inaccurate and not something they agree with. For example:
    • The following Japanese documents are sometimes cited as evidence for this claim, despite Reuters fact checkers finding no evidence of dangerous toxins in them and "Rather, the document detailed early pharmacokinetic laboratory studies that assessed how the vaccine moved through the bodies of mice and rats. The study found expected inflammation associated with an immune response and concluded the shot was safe. No toxins were found in the vaccine":
    • The following paper is sometimes cited as evidence for this claim, despite Reuters fact checkers finding no evidence of dangerous toxins in them and "The study co-author, David Walt, denied this. 'Bridle is taking our results and completely misinterpreting them,' he wrote in an email to Reuters. Walt said the study found tiny concentrations of the spike protein in the first five days following vaccination, which showed that the body was producing the protein as intended. Crucially, these spike proteins declined in the subsequent weeks, and no spike proteins were detected after the second injection. This is because the individuals developed antibodies to remove the antigen from the bloodstream, creating an immune response exactly as the vaccine was designed to do. The tiny quantities measured in the bloodstream of vaccinated people were not toxic, Walt explained. By contrast, people who catch the coronavirus and become infected with COVID-19 can develop high levels of the spike protein that can cause adverse effects."
  3. General debunkings of this claim from outside sources, some of which I have already summarized above:
  4. The Covid-19 spike protein is similar in nature to the spike proteins on the surface of many viruses (MERS and SARS for example), so their general structure and nature are not unique to Covid-19, nor are they uniquely "cytotoxic" to human cells. The purpose of the spike protein itself in all such viruses is to bind to a specific portion of the outer membrane of cells inside the infected person and to then further fuse with that outer membrane so the rest of the virus is attached closely to the outer cell membrane. The spike proteins in and of themselves are not a "toxin", although when making this type of claim any careful person should add the caveat that any material in high enough quantity could cause problems when injected into any living thing. Sources:
  5. mRNA vaccines get your cells to produce and present immune-antibody-generating spike proteins in a very similar manner to how the virus itself accomplishes the same thing. mRNA is a type of substance that instructs cells to produce specific proteins. Viruses like MERS and SARS first attach to your cell, then inject themselves into the cell, then exude mRNA that instructs the cell to produce all of the several protein components of the virus and assemble them. As this happens, our cells automatically transport some of the proteins being produced (such as the spike protein) to the outer surface of the cell membrane, extended outward (a.k.a. "presented") in a small nook at the end of specialized presenter molecules so your immune system can notice them and start gearing up to recognize them as antigens quicker and fight them quicker later on. Interestingly, this happens when you get an actual Covid-19 infection, in which case your cells are full of lots of types of mRNA instructing them to factory-produce lots of elements of the virus including the spike protein, and it happens in the same exact way when the vaccine gets mRNA into your cell, in which case your cell contains only the one type of mRNA instructing it to factory-produce only the one type of spike protein and thus never resulting in anything resembling a fully-constituted virus. Sources:
That last paper I linked above is pretty darn interesting and explains a lot about the role viral mRNA (or vaccine mRNA) plays and the process the body uses to produce immune responses. I was especially surprised to learn how cells "present" antigens on their surfaces and how this process is the same whether an RNA virus or an mRNA vaccine caused the offending protein to be produced. That's just plain cool.

Like a lot of complex subjects, the more you learn about it, the less scary it becomes since its not mysterious anymore, but the less likely simple solutions seem since the staggering complexity and nuance of the subject starts to reveal itself.
 
Top