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...
 
Top