[CLIP] Bombshell Study on Vaccine ‘Ribosomal Frameshifting’: Dr. Paul Marik | ATL:NOW

So I think this is a stunning paper that is very, very important. And so the findings were important, but what's equally important is that it was published in Nature, which is a highly respected medical journal with a long list of reputable investigators. So what the ribosome does is it's a little structure which reads the messenger RNA, and then it makes the protein. So the messenger RNA carries the code to make the protein. And they're very specific sequence of nucleotides that the ribosome reads to determine the order of amino acids, and then the amino acids make up the protein. So normally, messenger RNA has uridine. That's the way the body was made. But in order for this technology to work, they had to substitute the uridine for a pseudo-uridine. And what the study shows is that when you put a pseudo-uridine where a uridine should be, the ribosome jumps or misreads the messenger RNA. And as a consequence of this, it results in a bogus protein being made. So instead of making spike protein, it makes a nonsense protein that is possibly toxic. And so that's astonishing. Something that just comes to my mind, I think one of the recommendations in the paper is that we just not use the pseudo-uridine and just use uridine, you just use normal mRNA. The problem is if you used a normal messenger RNA, it would be broken down by the host very quickly and it wouldn't work and you wouldn't make the spike protein. So to overcome the problem, they came up with this idea of using pseudo-uridine. In fact, the Nobel Prize was awarded to two physicians for this discovery. So in a way, they've kind of shot themselves in the foot because the technology on which the platform is based has now been shown to be functionally defective because it doesn't do what it's meant to do. And it applies to the entire messenger RNA platform because this whole technology is based on the pseudo-uridine. So it means that whatever vaccine or whatever protein that they want to make is going to be defective based on this problem. So if I read this right, and please correct me, like 25% or 30% of the time, which is frankly a lot, you get this error, this junk protein, I think as you described it, that's created instead of the spike protein. And so what are the implications of that? I think the paper also says that some of those proteins have an immunological response that create an immunological response. Yeah, so like much to do with this vaccine, we don't really know, but obviously it's making a protein which shouldn't be there. It's a foreign protein to the host. The spike protein is a foreign protein. The host sees it as foreign and is going to mount an immune response. So the likelihood is that the host is going to see this protein as defective and is going to mount an immune response. But it may have other more sinister toxic effects that we don't know about. And this can have adverse consequences on the patient. And you mentioned something about amyloid proteins when we were talking offline. So we know that the vaccine, the spike protein itself has a sequence of amyloid protein in the spike protein. And we know that there have been increased deposition of amyloid in patients who have received the vaccines. And amyloid is the protein which collects in patients in the brain of patients with dementia and Alzheimer's disease. So the fact that you have these foreign proteins in the cell, you know, the nanoparticles cross the blood-brain barrier quite easily. So these proteins may form in the brain and may have serious consequences. The way the paper is written, they say, well, this is, of course, a great technology and so on and so forth. However, there's this kind of problem that we found. And the problem, as you describe, it seems to be foundational. Exactly. I mean, this is the premise on which it's based has failed. And it's causing an end result which was unexpected and should not happen. So this technology has essentially failed. Do you think the reviewers of this paper understood the implications? Oh, absolutely. I'm sure there's no one reading this paper who couldn't understand what a fundamental disaster this actually is, because it challenges the whole premise of the mRNA platform. Don't forget to subscribe to our Alerts newsletter, and you'll never miss an episode.