Transcription
Today, I'll be talking about my own publication, the one that recently came out, in which I participated as one member of many scientists. It's a fairly controversial topic, heads up, because it discusses how the synthetic pseudo-urines used in the construction of mRNA vaccines might be involved in promoting cancer growth—not cancer development. So, we are not saying that these mRNA vaccines are causing cancer, but that they might be promoting cancer growth, and this might specifically be happening primarily due to suppression of the innate immune system.
That's what we're going to be discussing based on that review. The reason we're doing this is primarily because this group of scientists, of which I am very privileged to be a part, is focused on finding solutions to the problems. We're not here to necessarily point fingers and blame anyone; at this point, there's a problem, and we're more interested in figuring out if there is a problem and how to solve that problem.
Okay, so let's get going. The big topic is, of course, mRNA vaccines. When they're made, they have this not typically natural component in them, so they are called N1-methylated pseudo-urines. Basically, think of it this way: I'm going to refer to them as synthetic pseudo-urines from now on because they're not typically seen in nature at all.
When you have RNA, it is made up of four chemicals: A, C, G, and U. U stands for uracil, and it's basically an arrangement of these four chemicals in a specific pattern that constitutes the genetic information, which acts as a blueprint that tells cellular machinery how to use mRNA in order to produce a protein of interest. In this case, that would be the spike protein. So, all of the uracils in the genetic code of mRNA used for vaccines were substituted, and those synthetic pseudo-urines were used 100%.
There's a very specific reason why this was done, and we're saying that it might be a double-edged sword. Why mRNA vaccines? Why this technology? The primary technology that we used to respond to the pandemic has some amazing benefits that you have to understand. One of them is the fact that it can be very rapidly developed and executed—super quick. This allows for some of the fastest response times when it comes to biological threats, such as a pandemic. That was the number one attractive component of why that technology was used, precisely because it allowed for the rapid development of vaccines.
Number two, it also allows for very rapid change from one type of vaccine to another. We can very quickly change the variant used in the vaccine, and that's exactly what we did during the pandemic. We were switching from one type of variant to another throughout the pandemic. It took us a while, but eventually, there were switches that were observed, right? That's another benefit of this technology.
However, mRNA technology was never used before in humans; it was the first time ever. So, when we employed it so rapidly, we also did so with some gaps in knowledge. We simply never had enough time to test what the consequences of what we were doing might be. Why? Because we employed every single trick in the book to achieve one singular point, and that was to produce as many antibodies in vaccinated individuals as possible against the spike protein. That was the number one goal because this was what was desired the most to ensure that these vaccines were working properly.
Basically, this might be the double-edged sword because we used every single trick known to science in order to increase the amount of antibodies, and that included also suppressing the innate immunity in the context of these mRNA vaccines.
So, why mRNA vaccines? Because they had two major benefits. The first big problem was to solve how mRNA should be delivered to your cells. So, this amazing lipid nanoparticle construct was created that finally allowed us to achieve that problem and ensure easy entry of this genetic mRNA content into our cells. The other super important aspect was the use of these synthetic pseudo-urines. Why is that? Because it achieved three big things.
Number one, it suppressed the innate immunity. Why would we want that? We wanted that because previously, the immune system was recognizing it powerfully and destroying it. By suppressing the innate immunity, it guaranteed increased longevity of the genetic construct. If you increase its longevity, it means you can increase how much more spike protein is being produced. If you're increasing more spike protein being produced, the outcome should be that you're going to produce more antibodies. Whether that's actually true or not, I think that would be the reasoning here.
So, that's a big deal; it basically allowed the construct to hide itself away from recognition by the immune system. That's the biggest benefit in terms of how this genetic material could survive longer. The second one is that it increases the stability of that construct as well. So, in its own accord, it makes the actual molecule more stable, and it also lasts longer because of that. The last one, which is also very welcome, is the fact that the use of these synthetic pseudo-urines, according to some studies, shows that they reduce cytotoxicity. That's very welcome; it basically means that it decreased how likely some cells were going to be destroyed because of encountering such a product.
Of course, you want minimal cytotoxicity; you want minimal destruction to your cells that encounter this. So, this is all great, and this is one of the reasons why the mRNA vaccines were heralded as one of the greatest scientific achievements ever. However, it's this innate immunity that might become a potential problem—the suppression of that innate immunity.
Now, let's start breaking this down. What are we talking about? In order for me to explain specifically, we need to start with what is referred to as pathogen recognition receptors. We have these receptors as part of our immunological system, including innate immunity. These receptors recognize everything under the sun that is either foreign or abnormal, meaning our normal cells are no longer looking normal, such as cancer cells. Changes in the makeup are happening, and of course, those changes can lead to three-dimensional changes.
We can recognize RNA, DNA, and proteins—all of these have very complex three-dimensional structures. But also, sugar molecules can adopt very complex three-dimensional structures, and any of that can interact with lipids, which are molecules that also have their own shape. All of this can be recognized by these receptors. These receptors are inside the cell as well as outside the cell. So, inside the cell, they can recognize if the cell is already invaded and can signal that information. Of course, if the problem is moving outside the cell, that can be recognized as well.
These are very good. Normally, sometimes they can be abused. How do the mRNA vaccines with the synthetic pseudo-urines trick the system? Normally, what happens is these receptors send a signal from the surface when they recognize a problem to the nucleus. The nucleus is like the brain of the cell; this is where you house all the genetic material. Its information tells the cell how to respond, and you do that by sending a bunch of mRNA from the nucleus. That basically determines how the cell will respond.
One of those responses is the production of a molecule called interferon. This molecule is a big part of the innate immune system—one of the big molecules in inducing inflammation. Inflammation is good when it fights a problem; inflammation is bad if it's destroying or attacking your own body, right? So, that's when you don't want it. But otherwise, you can see how interferon is important in making sure you're protected.
How does it do that? It can interact with certain types of immune cells called dendritic cells. These types of cells can do different things, but one of them is that they can present antigens. Antigens are fragments of a problem that was discovered. So, that's what antigen means. It can present that fragment of either something that invaded us or a cancer cell to the immune system so they can start training the immune system: "Hey, this is a problem; you need to start recognizing this and dealing with this."
They also play a role in helping to activate T-cells. T-cells are killer cells that ultimately get rid of a problem. In the very end, you need to kill all of the damaged cells or cells that are a problem, and you need killer cells. There are two types of these killer cells: the cytotoxic T-cells and natural killer cells. These are the only two types I'm aware of; I wouldn't be surprised if there are more that we eventually discover. But these killer cells basically clean up things.
Activation of T-cells can also be called cytotoxic T-cells; they are basically what we need to clean up. This is important to fight cancer; you want to destroy cancer cells with these killer cells. You can see now how potentially, when you remove interferon, that could be a problem down the road. Unfortunately, this wasn't demonstrated with the mRNA vaccines that were using these synthetic pseudo-urines.
This was only discussed in a paper that came out in 2022, which showed how different mRNA vaccines might be influencing interferon and how that, in itself, might be influencing cancer growth. This is the paper that we focused on big time in this review.
Basically, what the authors of that paper did was use mRNA vaccines that were either totally 100% natural or 100% synthetic pseudo-urines. They injected mice with these vaccines; they were not for the spike protein but for something else on the surface of cancer cells that they were also injecting these mice with. So, these were vaccines against a specific type of cancer, but the same mRNA technology was used. They used 100% natural mRNA vaccines or 100% synthetic pseudo-urine vaccines.
What they noticed was that there was a drop in interferon production, kind of like what you would expect from these vaccines because that's what allows them to last longer. But when they co-injected the mice with those specific cancer cells, the mice that were immunized or injected with the mRNAs that had 100% synthetic pseudo-urines had cancer cells that were capable of growing. Not only was there a drop in interferon production, indicating suppression of the innate immune system, but that seemed to correlate with the growth of those cancer cells that these mice were co-injected with.
The mice injected with 100% natural mRNA didn't seem to have the same level of cancer progression, so that's a big deal, obviously. But they did a lot more. The next thing they looked at was the programmed death-1 (PD-1) molecule. This molecule sounds ominous and foreboding because it is. It's a molecule that can come up on the surface of T-cells and acts like a switch that eventually allows this molecular environment to switch off that T-cell from being able to perform protective functions against something like fighting cancer.
So, having this PD-1 molecule on the surface of T-cells is not a good sign; indeed, it is foreboding and ominous. What the authors noticed in the publications was that mice injected with 100% synthetic pseudo-urines had higher levels of these types of T-cells with the PD-1 molecule, which signifies exhaustion of these T-cells, compared to vaccines that were 100% natural. Again, this correlated with cancer growth.
Speaking of PD-1, that's also the molecule that is exactly targeted by immune checkpoint inhibitors, the new anti-cancer medication made out of IgG4. It targets that very molecule to block it so that you could no longer use that switch, allowing the T-cells to last longer in order to protect you from cancer. Hence, this is an anti-cancer medication, and indeed it worked fabulously in some cases. However, because we use IgG4 antibodies, we discovered that IgG4 in a bad cancer microenvironment can induce turbo cancers. I made a video on that, so check it out.
This is now a video series that I'm producing on the topic. Specifically, it's the stock of the IgG4 antibody that is the problem here and how it can promote turbo cancer development. So, you can see all these connections in my studies, right? That's the medication that targets PD-1, but if you have too many T-cells with it on them, then other immune cells or cancer cells could actually trigger that and take out those T-cells. We don't want that in our cancer environment.
The last thing I'll mention from that paper is about macrophages. Macrophages are very cool immune molecules. If you think of their role, their primary role is to take care of you, making sure that your body is doing well by ensuring that it's protected and can swallow problems such as pathogens. They can literally just swallow them whole and then break them down. But they can also be involved in making sure that everything is working properly and is fixed properly, and so on.
Macrophages are very good, but we can subdivide them into two groups. Depending on which group they belong to, one group can be more beneficial for cancer fighting, while the other can be detrimental. We call them M1 macrophages and M2 macrophages. M1 macrophages are the good guys for cancer fighting; those are the ones you want in a cancer environment to destroy cancer. Why? Because they release a bunch of chemicals, and some of these are reactive oxygen or nitrogen species. Those are toxic chemicals; they're super destructive.
So, you want them when you fight cancer; you don't want them anywhere else to attack your own body. But for sure, when you're fighting pathogens or cancer, you want them. They also release a bunch of cytokines that specifically change the microenvironment to induce the fight against cancer. Some of that involves, in the end, bringing T-cells—those killer T-cells—to the environment, literally sending a signal: "Come here, come here," and helping them get activated into that role to do this.
This is a really important function. Now, there are M2 macrophages, and those are the bad guys when it comes to cancer. What they do is they are called anti-inflammatory; they release different types of anti-inflammatory cytokines that reduce inflammation in the environment. In this context, think of inflammation as a marker that there is a battle going on and your immune system is destroying something.
Inflammation, in the context of something that is attacking being destroyed, is good. But if it's the immune system attacking you, inflammation is not good. So, depending on the context, inflammation can be good or very bad. You don't want to have inflammation in your body when you're not under attack because it runs the risk that your own body could be under attack or could be attacked, right?
So, M2 macrophages induce that anti-inflammatory environment, and that anti-inflammatory environment includes interleukin-10. This is something that can also be used to reduce the number of killer T-cells. Remember, I brought up in my video series dedicated to IgG4 that we are seeing IgG4 produced against the spike protein in the vast majority of mRNA vaccinated individuals.
One of the papers—so far, only one—suggested a mechanism behind that, and it is interleukin-10 itself that is promoting this class switch observed in mRNA vaccinated individuals to start producing these IgG4 antibodies. M2 macrophages also promote angiogenesis, which basically means the development of new blood vessels and blood networks. Of course, you can imagine that for cancers, that's absolutely desirable. That's exactly what cancers would want because if they want to continue growing in size, they need oxygen and blood supply—absolutely needed, right?
So, you can see how again this might be so beneficial to cancer cells to have M2 macrophages in their microenvironment, not M1. Now, let's circle back to turbo cancers. In the video series that I discussed, I talked about how the IgG4 stock helps the cancer microenvironment by inducing a state towards M2-like macrophages in the cancer microenvironment.
You can see how there's now a dynamic interplay potentially going on here because of these synthetic pseudo-urines. You now have an induction towards M2 macrophages, induction towards IgG4 production, while you suppress innate immunity that might be reducing access of killer T-cells to that cancer environment. So, that's basically how all of this is linked together.
The suppression of innate immunity, which was attempted in order to make sure that the vaccine lasts a very long time so that we can produce a great antibody response, might cause other problems as well. We also talked about two more issues that I'm quickly going to summarize for you. One of them was the fact that these pseudo-urines have been reported to potentially cause frame shifting.
What is frame shifting? Basically, remember that mRNA is a blueprint to produce a specific protein of interest. You can think of a protein as a robot, but in order to do this, you need machinery to jump on the mRNA and start decoding the genetic code, which tells how the protein is built little by little. These synthetic pseudo-urines can make that robotic machinery that is responding to the genetic code accidentally slip and jump ahead, causing it to no longer read the correct genetic code. As a consequence, it can start creating rubbish products—something that we don't really even know what it might be, but it wouldn't be the spike protein.
In that publication, antibodies against such abnormal products have been discovered. These would be called neoantigens—new abnormal products that we don't know what they are doing or what they would look like. It's now known that certain cancers can also cause frame shifting and utilize frame shifting to produce these abnormal neoantigens. They do this to technically confuse the immune system response.
One possibility of how they might be protecting themselves is believed to be that cancer cells might be presenting specific antigens too much in order to induce that IgG4 class switch, which will then come in handy to start cloaking the cancer environment from being recognized by the immune system. Therefore, frame shifting could be one of those ways that will allow for the production of a lot of antigens in order to provoke our immune system to start switching towards IgG4.
But you know, all of this raises the question: Are M2 macrophages always bad, and are IgG4 antibodies always bad? Well, no. You can imagine that it might be in circumstances where the same thing that can help cancer grow in one context could be extremely helpful in something like tissue regeneration. Both of these mechanisms that might help cancer might also be extremely useful in helping repair our body.
So, it's not that it's all bad; there is a purpose for why it exists. It's that cancer cells have found a way to misuse or abuse some of the complex systems available to us in our body to survive and grow, becoming basically an entity that wants to survive on its own and use our own resources to live.
That gives you another option. The last thing we mentioned is IgG4 antibodies. We mentioned that we're going to have another review that talks specifically about how IgG4 antibodies could be involved in cancer development and how the synthetic pseudo-urines could be involved in the production of IgG4.
As I already told you, one possibility is that they could promote those macrophages to start creating a microenvironment that can induce the development of the IgG class switch. That's one option. Maybe frame shifting could be another one by producing too much specific antigen. But remember, I also mentioned that when these synthetic pseudo-urines were introduced in these mRNAs, one of the presumed benefits was that the genetic material could last much longer and be used for producing spike protein.
The longer you can produce more spike protein, the better your antibody response will be. Obviously, it means producing more spike protein. Perhaps we're producing too much, and then it's leading to the presentation of the spike protein way too much to the immune system, which in its own right is now also triggering the switch towards IgG4.
We'll talk about that in future videos. I've already started discussing it when I talked about turbo cancer, so check those out as well.
Basically, this is it. That's the major components of the review of how synthetic pseudo-urines could be a problem when it comes to developing cancer. Now, what is the solution? Well, we already mentioned that one of the authors of that paper used 100% synthetic pseudo-urine mRNAs versus some that were completely natural.
What we're calling for is to stop using, at the moment, mRNA vaccines that have 100% pseudo-urines. We promote the concept of the precautionary principle. Until we know better, we should no longer be using them while we rapidly figure out what should be the appropriate content of pseudo-uridine that might not be triggering this. That very well might be the case, or we might be able to get away with completely normal mRNA, and none of this will be triggered because enough antigen could be presented to elicit the same immunological response we want, but without all of the potential negative side effects that we're witnessing because of the incorporation of these pseudo-uridines.
That should be investigated. For frame shifting, frame shifting was caused by the pseudo-urines, allowing it to jump the machinery that's supposed to use the mRNA genetic blueprint by jumping forward, but it's in specific places. By removing it from that place and just simply using uridine, that could fix the frame shifting problem as well.
Clearly, there are easy solutions available, and we're saying we need to start looking at this because potentially this is an easy fix moving forward. We can test this; we can figure that out. Another thing we're mentioning is that we should start looking at how much antigen—meaning, say, spike protein—is produced or any antigen we use post-vaccination. How much is enough to properly induce the immune system without inducing any of the problems we're proposing might be happening by having 100% synthetic pseudo-urines in mRNAs?
Perhaps we only need a much lower quantity—perhaps not much lower, but clearly not 100%. We need to figure that out, and then we need to determine what is the right content, or perhaps none at all, to produce enough spike protein to induce the immune system reaction we want. We want those antibodies but not trigger other problems by creating microenvironments that could be promoting cancer growth.
So, that's basically the take-home message of this review. Again, we're not here to point fingers. We already know that more and more science is emerging regarding potential issues with mRNA vaccines. We're much more interested in figuring out what the solution is to ensure that we no longer see such problems in the future, if it's even a problem. We need to confirm this; this is all preliminary hypotheses about how potentially the makeup of mRNA vaccines could be problematic in a cancer environment.
That's what that paper was about. I didn't get through everything either, so basically, that's it. Check it out, please. However, I have to warn you, if you do check out the paper, there are some graphic images inside of post-dissection to show specific types of cancer growth. So, I need to warn you that this might not be for everyone. If you choose to download this paper and read it, definitely check it out.
Let me know what you think. Please leave us a comment, please subscribe to the channel if you haven't already, and please share this video. This is how we grow. Clearly, this is a great privilege to be able to produce certain theoretical thinking, scientific reviews, and create videos on it as well. Part of that is obviously thanks to your support.
Why? Because this group of very intelligent people came across me because of the videos, and I've actually made videos on their prior literature. This is how I got invited to participate in this collective pool of wisdom development. I have to tell you, these are smart guys; I learn a lot, and I'm very happy to have such intellectually positive influences at the moment.
So, thank you for your support. Last thing: please check out the Patreon account, where we post additional content that does not make it to YouTube. Finally, never forget to get out into nature and enjoy Mother Nature as much as possible. Something tells me that is good for your M1 macrophages and your T-cells. This is a good way to stimulate your immune system to the best shape possible.
I'll see you next time. Bye! [Music]