The
great unraveling continues. If anything, it is accelerating. Earlier
this week we reviewed (in a special edition!) the astonishing Atlantic
article admitting babies died from the covid shots— right in the headline. On Thursday, Stanford Medicine News ran a similar but unrelated story headlined, “Stanford Medicine study shows why mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis.”
The study was titled, “Inhibition of CXCL10 and IFN-γ ameliorates myocarditis in preclinical models of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.”
It features a whopping 16 authors, all members of Stanford’s cardiology
institute. It was funded, in large part, by the National Institutes of
Health.
In other words, this is undeniably “gold standard” science.
Unsurprisingly,
the study starts with the regurgitated slogan that must always be
included for publication in a respectable journal: “The highly effective
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were essential for limiting the COVID-19
pandemic.” That was the first and last time it praised the jabs.
The dense, technical paper identified a potential and plausible
biological pathway between mRNA vaccination and myocarditis. It starts
with a potential immune overreaction to the presence of foreign
proteins, including in this case the lipid nanoparticles, transfected
cells, and the spike protein produced by them.
An
immune system overreaction can then damage the heart muscle, sometimes
leading to myocarditis, which is a kind of injurious inflammation. Even
asymptomatic myocarditis can cause permanent scarring in the heart,
which can lead to very serious problems years later.
That’s
why some doctors say “there is no such thing as mild myocarditis.” The
heart is kind of important. Mild myocarditis is like mild brain damage. After all, what are a few neurons here or there, between pharma friends?
Which brings us to the study’s first major takeaway. The Stanford
researchers’ conclusions weren’t limited to spike proteins. The authors
were careful, concise, and cautiously stayed in their lane, but the
obvious implication was that all mRNA vaccines
—not just covid shots— carry the same risk. Since they didn’t test any,
we don’t know whether the risk varies between types of mRNA shots; it
could be even worse for other types of mRNA vaccines.
It is worth noting that, so far, only covid
mRNA vaccines have been injected into large, diverse human populations
at sufficient scale to reveal rare or delayed adverse immune effects.
Other types of mRNA vaccines are mired in small clinical trials and lack
comparable exposure data.
In other words, this study is bad news for the entire
mRNA platform, not just the covid shots. Until now, the “consensus
group” believed that the lipid nanoparticles (tiny globs of artificial
fat carrying the mRNA payload) were immunologically neutral, and can safely travel around the body without notice or harm. But this study found that the platform itself
could trigger an immune response —sometimes a very bad one— independent
of the spike protein and even before many cells had been productively
transfected.
Even the UK Telegraph picked up on this point, proving that corporate media occasionally stumbles over a truth nugget:
Imagine that. But the next takeaway was even more significant.
From time to time over the last few years, several strong papers have
been published in various places finding problems with the jabs. But
this one is categorically different, because it comes down from the
tippy-top of the credentialed-class mountain. No one can wave away a
peer-reviewed Stanford study with 16 institutional authors. So the
publication of this study is, like the Atlantic article, more of a permission structure than any revolutionary scientific discovery.
It’s a green light: we can talk about covid jab harms now.
Which
is not to say this study failed to break any new ground. As far as I
know, it’s the first study to describe all three parts of an identified
injury pathway: (1) a concrete mechanism of harm (a cytokine loop), (2)
an organ-specific injury (the heart), and (3) confirmation of the
mechanism through blockability (using neutralizing antibodies or an
anti-inflammatory supplement).
Curiously,
all the work described in the study was completed in 2023. That’s a
long runway to publication in mid-December 2025. There is no smoking
gun, but it appears the publication of this study was delayed until now. Which raises the question: why now?
As
I conjectured before, my best guess is the drug cartel has finally
given up on pushing the covid shots, and maybe on the whole mRNA
platform. But that only shifts the question one step backwards: In other
words, what is now making them give up on the shots?
Which brings us to the next remarkable development.
Yesterday, CNN ran an exclusive story headlined, “FDA intends to put its most serious warning on Covid vaccines, sources say.”
It’s the dreaded “black box” warning, which the FDA reserves for the
most dangerous types of drugs. “The plan shocked outside experts,” CNN
reported, “who said there was no basis for the warning.” Well. There’s no basis for ‘experts.’ But I digress.
A
black box warning is the FDA’s nuclear option. It’s the strongest
safety label the agency can place on any drug or vaccine, reserved for
risks that are serious, potentially irreversible, or life-threatening.
The warning is literally boxed in black ink at the top of the drug label
so it cannot be overlooked, skimmed, or buried down in the fine print.
Black box warnings are not suggestions, footnotes, or talking points. They are how the FDA formally announces: this risk matters.
Black boxes are rare, reputationally toxic, and legally consequential.
Once applied, they signal to doctors, hospitals, insurers, and courts
that the risk is “material” as a matter of law, not opinion.
Once a black box exists, the ground rules permanently
change. Even the most enthusiastic, guideline-faithful physician cannot
realistically ignore it without stepping into legal quicksand. The
warning must be disclosed to patients as part of
informed consent; failing to do so is no longer a judgment call but a
liability problem. “Following APA guidance” stops working as a shield,
because FDA labeling outranks press releases and reassurance campaigns.
Hospitals’
risk management officers will mandate documentation, insurers will
demand compliance, software systems will prompt patient disclosures, and
plaintiffs’ lawyers will staple the warning onto every complaint.
Doctors may still recommend— but they can’t
minimize, pressure, or pretend there’s nothing serious to discuss. A
black box doesn’t ban a product; it forces patients to face true risks.
And once that bell has rung, it never unrings.
It’s not a done deal. The story was based on “two people familiar with
the agency’s plans,” which could be a couple of psychics, for all we
know. And, even assuming they were legit FDA leakers, CNN said, “the
plan has not been finalized and may still change.” So.
But even the story itself hurts the jab mission. “What’s happening now is death by a thousand cuts,”
said a “former federal health official,” who remained anonymous because
“they were not authorized to share information with a reporter.” Was it
leaked by foes or friendlies?
Either
way, the leak was designed to raise a small storm of controversy. The
article rounded up a baker’s dozen of ‘experts’ who enthusiastically
criticized the FDA’s alleged future move, which has not yet happened,
and may never happen. We shall overlook these premature doomcryers.
But
diabolical jab doctor, former vaccine committee member, and pharma
shill Paul Offit told a podcast host this week that “myocarditis was a
very small price to pay. People need to have realistic expectations;
you’re going to learn as you go.” Behold the grandfatherly banality of evil.
CLIP: Dr. Paul Offit confirms war criminal status (1:02).
How about that warm-spirited, scientific nuance? “We’ll learn about the risks together, as we go!” Now they tell us. Back when they were coercing people to take the shots —jab or job!— they weren’t nearly so nuanced. And, “it was a small price to pay,” Offit quite generously declared. Yes, but who paid the price? Do the people who paid the piper also agree how small the price was?
Easy for him to say.
One thing we know for sure is that Paul Offit didn’t pay the price. It’s not his
heart. Just the opposite. It’s well known that Paul made millions off
his rotavirus vaccine, which he sold to Merck. He currently hogs a
Merck-endowed chair at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (ironically,
‘CHOP’), runs the school’s endowed Vaccine Education Center, and mints
more money with grants related to vaccine development.
It’s pretty rich that he’s talking about the “price” that everyday people who aren’t compensated for injuries have to pay.
It
is literally impossible to find someone more conflicted than Paul
Offit. Why anyone listens to him at all is beyond my comprehension.
Well, I know why they promote him, but enabling evil is just as bad as what Offit is doing.
If
the FDA does black-box the covid shots (as it should), even pharma
shills like Dr. Offit will have to tread very carefully. The FDA
establishes the standard of care, and if doctors
like Offit advise patients to defy it, the docs can become personally
liable. (Which, by the way, is the same reason so few good doctors
defied CDC/FDA guidelines during the pandemic.)
Here’s
the thing: as CNN’s article showed, the FDA leaks like a rusty sieve.
Assuming pharma also has its sources inside the FDA, which seems pretty
safe to assume, then they all know what’s coming.
Maybe that’s why they’ve suddenly become so much more forthcoming about
the shots. By the time the FDA finally does something— it will be ‘old news.’
All
in all, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Democrats’ long,
failed experiment in coercive public health is finally, at long last,
reaching a shuddering stop. As we’ve previously discussed, once the
public finally grasps the horrifying extent of the fraud that was
perpetrated upon us, it will crush into powder the last remaining shards
of trust in the institutions. There’s no going back now.
