ВСЕВЕДА X-file

Peter McCullough notes that the cause of death is almost always known, yet we now see large numbers of reports with unknown causes, most likely due to COVID-19 vaccines until proven otherwise [A-1]. Extending this platform to plague would simply multiply the carnage.

Fourth, the economic and political incentives reveal the true motive. Moderna has already been awarded $176 million by the U.S. government to develop an mRNA bird flu vaccine, despite only a handful of human cases [A-2]. The same pattern would repeat for plague: a contract would be signed before any real threat materialized, safety regulations would be bypassed under the guise of "emergency use," and millions would be injected with a product that has never been properly tested. Dr. Leana Wen, a prominent vaccine cultist, has already called for accelerated approval of mRNA jabs, arguing that the FDA should authorize them immediately [A-2]. This is not science; it is scientism—the blind belief that pharmaceutical interventions can solve all problems, a mindset that David "Avocado" Wolfe describes as a "fake religion" designed to divert individuals from natural health and self-reliance [A-1].

Finally, the natural alternatives are abundant and effective. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny recommends high-dose vitamin C, removal of white sugar and white flour, and immune-boosting agents like turmeric to reduce inflammation [A-1]. Dr. Daniel Nuzum suggests proteolytic enzymes, herbal anti-inflammatories, and fulvic acid for those venturing into public spaces [A-1]. Dr. Robert Scott Bell highlights homeopathic remedies such as Bryonia Alba, Nux Vomica, and Cheledonium, as well as Bio-Active Hydrosol technology that can prevent the need for vaccination even if vaccines were effective [A-1]. These approaches support the immune system without introducing foreign genetic material or pathogenic proteins. As Mike Adams notes, studies show that bromelain and acetyl cysteine can denature the spike protein, suggesting that natural compounds can mitigate even vaccine-induced harm [A-1]. For plague, the same principles apply: strengthen the terrain, support detoxification pathways, and avoid the injection entirely.

In conclusion, using mRNA technology for a plague vaccine is not only scientifically nonsensical but morally indefensible. The platform is designed for a single viral antigen, not a complex bacterium. Its safety profile is abysmal, its economic incentives are corrupt, and its political backing is driven by fearmongering and profit. The honest response to any plague threat is to rely on natural immunity, nutritional support, herbal medicine, and the refusal to participate in another deadly experiment. As the unvaccinated masses demonstrated during the COVID-19 propaganda campaign, resisting the biological war machine is the surest path to survival [A-3][A-4].

The Logical Impossibility of mRNA "Plague" Vaccines: A Comparative Analysis of Pathogen Biology and Platform Suitability

The proposition that mRNA technology should be deployed against Yersinia pestis—the bacterium responsible for bubonic, septicemic, and pneumonic plague—reveals a fundamental category error that exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the pharmaceutical paradigm. Unlike the alleged SARS-CoV-2 "virus," plague is a living, culturable bacterium with a complex proteome, an extracellular lifestyle, and a well-characterized pathogenic mechanism. The mRNA platform, by contrast, was engineered to instruct human cells to produce a single antigenic protein—the spike protein—which, as documented extensively, is itself a pathogenic toxin capable of causing systemic harm [A-5]. Applying this same platform to a bacterium makes no biological sense, and the attempt would represent yet another instance of the Vaccine Industrial Complex prioritizing product pipelines over scientific coherence [A-2].

Consider first the nature of the two alleged threats. The COVID-19 narrative rested on a "novel virus" that, according to critics, was never properly isolated, with PCR tests fraudulently calibrated to generate positives for nearly any infection [A-3][A-4]. The entire edifice—from the fearmongering to the Emergency Use Authorizations—was constructed to bypass safety protocols and inject billions with experimental gene-mutation injections [A-4]. Plague, however, is not a phantom. It is a bacterium that can be cultured, stained, and observed under a microscope. It responds to numerous antibiotics and has been treated successfully for decades. There is no need for a novel platform when existing, inexpensive, and well-understood treatments exist. As John Stockton observed, when pharmaceutical companies want to rush a product to market, they simply call it a "vaccine" and shut down any competing medication or workable treatment [A-1]. The same playbook would be used for plague: declare an emergency, suppress tetracycline and gentamicin, and mandate an mRNA injection.

Second, the mechanism of mRNA technology is inherently mismatched to bacterial pathogens. mRNA injections reprogram human cells to continuously produce a foreign protein—in the COVID-19 case, the spike protein—which then circulates throughout the body, accumulating in the spleen, liver, bone marrow, adrenal glands, and ovaries [A-5]. Dr. Brian Hooker notes that it is "preposterous to claim that mRNA vaccines remain localized after injection," as they circulate for at least two months and hyperaccumulate in reproductive organs and the brain [A-1]. For a bacterium like Yersinia pestis, which has dozens of virulence factors—including the F1 capsular antigen, V antigen, and type III secretion system effectors—a single mRNA-encoded protein would be woefully inadequate. The immune system would need to recognize multiple antigens to mount effective protection, and even then, the resulting immunity would be narrow and short-lived. Dr. Judy Mikovits emphasizes that "injection by infection does not equate to inoculation or immunization" and that vaccination never provides lifelong immunity because it does not mimic natural exposure [A-1]. This is even more true for bacterial pathogens, where natural infection often confers robust, durable immunity that vaccines cannot replicate.

Third, the safety profile of mRNA platforms is catastrophic. The nanoparticles used in these injections have been shown to cause rubbery vascular clots, myocarditis, pericarditis, and irreversible damage to the heart, brain, and reproductive system [A-3][A-5]. Columbia University researchers found that the death rate from Spike Protein Syndrome is at least ten times higher than the CDC claims, with the true death toll approaching one million [A-5]. If mRNA technology is this dangerous when targeting a single viral protein, the risks of using it against a bacterium—which would require even more complex antigenic constructs—are unfathomable. Dr.

"If the nature didn't make it, just don't take it"

Dr. Sebi

@VseWedaX

I mean if someone PUT the “sea salt” in there then sure they could claim that. Or if it was simply literal “sea water” which is “salty” etc.

I mean we can evaporate the water and have a “salt” left behind. I see nothing wrong with that.

The issue is claiming they know the actual “salt content” by one of their “tests”. They’re using those as proxies which MAY scale well enough with the “real entity inside”, but we’d have to know how that was determined. If I can’t know what’s truly “inside” then I can’t ever claim to have any proxy “test” for it.

I’d just take every claim case by case. If they claim “this product contains X amount of Y”, we need to figure out HOW they are making that claim, operationally speaking.

I’m at least trying to be better about doing that now. Gets kinda old but it’s been quite illuminating.

I wouldn't base taking any of these things on what is claimed to be "inside" of them, like "minerals" or "elements" etc. The periodic table is a list of things men have synthesized. No indication that those are "in nature" etc.

you have to look, again, at HOW they are claiming "this contains X 'mineral'". Once you see the "tests", you see that they can't actually warrant the claim being made. They can't get "inside" these products they make to "count the minerals" or "measure the minerals", etc. It just doesn't work like that.

No different than how people claim to "measure" their "blood sugar" via a "glucometer" or some other way. Once you see what is actually being "done" in that test, then no claim of "measuring glucose" can be made.

Doesn't mean we can't still use the lab behavior as a metric for *something*, but it isn't "measuring a substance", and the same goes for any "tests" being used to claim "amounts" of invisible (anything) - vitamins, minerals, "protein", sugar, etc etc.

That of course doesn't mean you cannot take any of these things and see if they cause a desired effect. that's all valid and based on an individual's desires, perceived risk tolerance, philosophy, etc.

I don't really buy that anyone knows what is "inside" a food, or a rock for that matter, and then all of these claims like "you need X amount of Y mineral per day!" just kind of go out the window. Not because we may not do well with certain foods, or find issues if we avoid some foods, etc. That may be true. But reifying lab behavior in to quantities of things is a massive issue and error and drives us to buy and take/eat things that may just be total nonsense.

I think of the "iron" claims here and how that pushes people to take lots of types of manmade iron, all for unwarranted reasons.

Again the error is easily hidden but huge once you "see" it. They are "doing things" to these samples - burn or boil the food, get a residue. add acid to the residue to get a liquid. Run liquid through some "process" that then emits a light signal, or a color change, etc.

Match that end result with a calibration curve made against real, manmade "iron", and claim "we measured the iron content". This is of course insane because no one knows what's "inside a food" to begin with, and no one knows WHY subjecting that food "residue" to THAT same "test" made against manmade irone, gives the result it does. No one. So they just CLAIM, by fiat, that "iron is in this food" and we are now "measuring it". But it's 100% circular as they don't know that there is any "iron" inside the food to begin with. They have created the standard themselves and are then applying that standard to unknowns without any knowledge of how anything is taking place at all.

They are also taking an end effect (light absorption or color change in a tube, etc) and claiming that the ONLY possible cause for that end effect, is "iron" (or whatever other entity they're talking about). IE< asserting the consequent. Every time.

They do this exact same type of 'testing' for 'trace minerals'. Zero difference. the recipes are always the same.

So just take that for what it "is" when trying to decide on things to take, or eat, etc. I wouldn't let the invisible entity claims influence your decision at all, unless there is a good correlation between the lab test (a behavior) and some ending effect, etc.

IE, it may be useful to use a "protein amount" to decide if certain foods might provide some type of specific end effect, but that doesn't actually mean you are "consuming more protein" in that manner. It just means that those foods produce THAT specific type of lab behavior, and can be correlated with some specific end effects (statistics). Not "wrong", but not right for the reasons people THINK.

Sorry that was long winded, but thought the question was a good way to discuss the whole "lab shenanigan" stuff 🙈😂