Author: Igor Chudov

By now, almost everyone has heard of “New Zealand Whistleblower Data.” Many people are discussing it, and I want to weigh in with my skeptical opinion. While I oppose Covid vaccines, I owe my subscribers a duty to report truthfully. My post should not be interpreted as “pro-vaccine advocacy.”

This post is too long for email due to an excessive number of images. Please click on the title to read the story online!

Be aware that the “leaked NZ data” is problematic; even the story accompanying it is less than entirely believable.

I spent an entire day analyzing it.

I downloaded it as a CSV file, uploaded it to my MySQL database server, and analyzed it. As I will show,

• The “whistleblower data” is missing huge chunks of information that should logically be present.

• Liz Gunn of NZ is misinterpreting it by trying to pass normal nursing home deaths as evidence of “super deadly batches” and “mass vaccine casualties”

• The data has problems that are incompatible with the story of its origin. It cannot be a full snapshot from a working payment database. Therefore, the story of its origin is suspect.

• The actual vaccine casualties may reside in the missing pieces of data that the “database” does not provide.

You may have heard that a brave whistleblower, a database administrator in New Zealand, saved secret Covid vaccine death data and passed it to Liz Gunn.

The data he extracted includes 4 million records containing:

• Individual person ID

• Vaccine type

• Batch Number

• Vaccine dose number

• Vaccination date

• Date of birth

• Age

• Date of death, if applicable

I spent a day yesterday researching this data. In my post below, I will refer to the above video and question the “official” story.

I downloaded the data as a ZIP file. Inside was a large CSV file named “nz-record-level-data-4M-records.csv” with 4,193,438 records. I imported the data to a MySQL database. I chose the combination of individual ID and dose number to be the primary key. Due to 47 records with duplicate primary keys, only 4,193,391 rows were populated.

An example of one of such 47 duplications is shown here: person 152,535 was recorded, in contradiction, as having received their first dose twice, on the same day, 12-07-2021; one AstraZeneca and one Pfizer:

The total number of DISTINCT INDIVIDUALS in the “leaked” database is only 2,215,729, even though 4.3 million New Zealanders received COVID vaccines.

So, half of vaccinated New Zealanders are missing.

A lot of doses are also missing, with some people having only dose 5, or doses 3 and 5, etc.:

461,900 people have only doses 4 and 5 recorded:

Only 966,989 records of Dose 1 exist, even though the database contains information on 2.2 million people and 4.3 New Zealanders were vaccinated.

Over half of the people in the database (1,248,740) are missing records of Dose 1

Out of 2,215,729 individuals in the database, a little under half (1,024,375) are missing the record of Dose 1 and 2

The batch_id is supposed to refer to a particular batch of a particular vaccine, like Pfizer or Novavax. Instead, there are numerous “batches” that contain multiple vaccine types.

The Liz Gunn video poignantly discusses “deadly sites” and “deadly batches.”

This video by Kim Dotcom reports that 21.38% of people receiving “Batch 1” died:

However, the numbers do not match the leaked database, which has 2,979 people who received Batch 1, and 375 of them died. That’s 12.59%, not 21%.

What kinds of people who received Batch 1 died?

People who received Batch 1 were quite old. The average age of all Batch 1 recipients is 67 years old. The average age of all DEAD Batch 1 recipients is 86 years old. Batch 1 was given 2.5 years ago, so recipients had plenty of time to die naturally.

Another fragment of the video discusses “deadly sites.” According to Liz Gunn, some sites were mass murder vaccine sites. For example, Liz and the whistleblower refer to one vaccination site, Te Hopai Hospital, where 32% of vaccinated individuals died after vaccination.

But Te Hopai Home and Hospital is a NURSING HOME for old and dying people unable to care for themselves:

Is the death rate of 32% in a nursing home where residents had 2.5 years of post-vaccine exposure excessive? I am not a nursing home expert, and I am not sure – but discussing a 32% death rate without mentioning that this is a nursing home is disingenuous.

I do a lot of things. One of them is administering the database for Algebra.Com, a website with millions of monthly visitors and over a million of answered math questions.

So, I understand database administration. The story of a bona fide “leak” does not make sense to me. The data does not have the integrity that a full leaked data set would have.

This is supposed to be a payments database containing information for payments to vaccinators.

How can a payment database have such holes and missing data?

Was data selectively removed from the database before the leak?

How can batch IDs refer to multiple vaccines?

Did both the “whistleblower” and Liz Gunn honestly forget to check that these “deadly vaccine mass murder sites” are nursing homes?

Do the missing records of first vaccinations (doses 1-2) hide real vaccine deaths, making Liz Gunn go on about “deadly nursing homes” instead of looking at deaths actually caused by the COVID vaccine?

Was the “leak” a psyop and an intentional attempt to sow confusion, as it occurred with the old, pro-WEF, and vaccine-crazy NZ government still in place during the last days of it? This question is speculative, but something I would like to clarify.

There are many questions to which I do not have an answer.

I am thankful to arkmedic and Nick Hudson for alerting me to the questionable nature of the “leak”.

I want to invite my readers to discuss this “leak.” I expect vigorous disagreements and hope my mistakes, if any, will be highlighted and corrected.

What do you think?

Share

Great news! The state of Texas sued Pfizer for false advertising and selling a fraudulent product.

Pfizer is also accused of a conspiracy to silence its critics, in a well-reasoned accusation.

I predicted this about a year ago:

I predict that Pfizer will lose this particular lawsuit. Pfizer lied publicly, and the facts are available for all to see. (we, Covid-antivaxxers, saw them first, of course)

Over a year ago, I expressed hope that, someday, Google and Facebook will face “covid vaccine lawsuits” for conspiring to hide the dangers of Covid vaccines from the public.

Such lawsuits may be a few years away, but I am hopeful. Read the above on how people may receive up to $15,000 per person from the above-mentioned Internet giants, who profited mightily on the pandemic but committed evil acts by misleading the public.

Do you think that Pfizer will lose in court?

Share

Dear Readers: I am sorry for sprinkling humor and sarcasm throughout my Substack posts. My apologies!

Had I known that social scientists Jordan McSwiney and Kurt Sengul found the use of humor and ridicule to be an insidious attack on our democracy, I would certainly avoid even a trace of sarcasm or humor in my articles!

According to the authors, the evil far-right forces invented a novel, innovative, and subversive discursive technique called humor.

It is broadly accepted that contemporary far-right actors, be they parties, movements, or activists, are savvy media performers (Wodak 2021) who employ a range of innovative communication strategies to exploit the highly mediatized and hybridized political landscape. A particular focus in recent times has been the effective use of humor and irony as part of the far-right’s social media strategy (Greene 2019).

Humor is used insidiously:

Humor and laughter have powerful social functions. Through sharing a joke, humor can positively impact social cohesion, by generating feelings of enjoyment through shared laughter. [very dangerous for democracy – I.C.] It engenders group cohesion and solidarity in a manner that is fun and playful. As a form of affective rhetoric, humor can persuade or align, facilitating social cooperation by uniting interlocutors.

We are beginning to see how dangerous humor is because laughter can keep social groups together, which is totally unacceptable. The authors go on, being utterly serious and bordering on the pompous:

But humor can also be used to divide and marginalize, constructing and maintaining social distance and inequalities. In the form of ridicule, humor serves to “target, discipline, marginalize, and alienate groups and individuals who are othered”. Humor can therefore be both pro- and anti-social: one can “laugh with others and at others”. In doing so, humor may simultaneously foster greater social affiliation with the in-group and greater social distance against out-groups, and so plays an active role in boundary maintenance. Through negative portrayals of the Other, casting them as buffoonish, dangerous, inferior, and the like, exclusionary humor reproduces and normalizes social hierarchies. Such joking works to support exclusionary notions and structures regardless of the intention of the joke teller. In a settler-colonial society such as Australia, where historic and ongoing inequalities stem from systematic racial and gender hierarchies, exclusionary humor along such lines naturalizes these unequal social relations.

Humor, it turns out, makes materials more accessible to neutral audiences:

Here, humor helps the far right to soften their ideological content, deactivating social boundaries and making their materials more palpable to non-far-right audiences

The McSwiney et al. article turns its attention to a series of cartoons named Please Explain by an Australian politician, Pauline Hanson.

According to the article’s authors, these cartoons illustrate why “far-right humor” is such a social danger.

According to the party, the aim of the series was to “deliver a humorous yet sobering glimpse into the Australian political arena”. Pitched as a “satirical, animated series that was partly educational, and a whole lot of fun”, Please Explain was designed to appeal to younger and politically disengaged voters, and draws on South Park, which it mimics in style and tone.

The authors accuse these cartoons of promoting bigotry and xenophobia in their pseudoscientific, gobbledygook language.

Our findings suggest that the Please Explain online animated series serves as a humorous way to disseminate highly ideological and exclusionary far-right populist content. Through our thematic analysis and multimodal discourse analysis, we found that exclusionary and supremacist discourses manifested multimodally throughout the series, making effective use of the online animation genre.

I have viewed exactly one such video and shared it with my readers when I discussed The Voice, a conspiratorial attempt to push through a vague constitutional amendment to the Constitution of Australia. The proposal would create an unaccountable and unelected constitutional body that would be manipulated through shadowy “democracy committees.”

In no small part, The Voice was defeated because of this funny YouTube video, which I highly recommend watching and which I referred to in my post above:

Please watch the above cartoon. You will see that it ridicules the liars who deceived the Australian public about the referendum proposal – it does not in any way laugh, exclude, or make fun of Native Australians.

To the crazed political hacks McSwiney and Sengul, anything that lampoons their pet projects is far-right, exclusionary content that seeks to marginalize vulnerable groups.

The Voice referendum failed resoundingly: over 60% of Australians voted against it.

To McSwiney and Sengul, this failure represents the victory of the “exclusionary far-right” (to which 60.1% of Australians apparently belong).

Their article boringly drones on and on about “exclusionary utterances and visuals.“ You would hope that a discussion of humor would include at least one funny sentence from the authors, but you’d be disappointed: McSwiney and Sengul are deadly serious and supremely boring throughout.

The authors conclude:

… humor helps the far right to extend the boundaries of the sayable (Wodak 2021), working to normalize discourses generally frowned upon in Australian political discourse. Further, the strategic use of humor also helps the far right to present racism, misogyny, and anti-LGBTIQA+ politics as “a joke,” and topics appropriate to joke about. This, we suggest, makes humor a powerful tool in the communicative arsenal of the contemporary far right and the advancement of their supremacist political project.

Lastly, these political hacks, to whom everything oppositional is extreme right-wing, exclusionary and supremacist, declare “no competing interests.” Take a look at Jordan McSwiney’s profile:

Does that look like a profile of someone with “no competing interests”?

I propose this inclusive and democratic poll:

Is humor a danger to our democracy? If not, what is? Please share your thoughts in the comments section!

Share

Dear Readers: I am sorry for sprinkling humor and sarcasm throughout my Substack posts. My apologies!

Had I known that social scientists Jordan McSwiney and Kurt Sengul found the use of humor and ridicule to be an insidious attack on our democracy, I would certainly avoid even a trace of sarcasm or humor in my articles!

According to the authors, the evil far-right forces invented a novel, innovative, and subversive discursive technique called humor.

It is broadly accepted that contemporary far-right actors, be they parties, movements, or activists, are savvy media performers (Wodak 2021) who employ a range of innovative communication strategies to exploit the highly mediatized and hybridized political landscape. A particular focus in recent times has been the effective use of humor and irony as part of the far-right’s social media strategy (Greene 2019).

Humor is used insidiously:

Humor and laughter have powerful social functions. Through sharing a joke, humor can positively impact social cohesion, by generating feelings of enjoyment through shared laughter. [very dangerous for democracy – I.C.] It engenders group cohesion and solidarity in a manner that is fun and playful. As a form of affective rhetoric, humor can persuade or align, facilitating social cooperation by uniting interlocutors.

We are beginning to see how dangerous humor is because laughter can keep social groups together, which is totally unacceptable. The authors go on, being utterly serious and bordering on the pompous:

But humor can also be used to divide and marginalize, constructing and maintaining social distance and inequalities. In the form of ridicule, humor serves to “target, discipline, marginalize, and alienate groups and individuals who are othered”. Humor can therefore be both pro- and anti-social: one can “laugh with others and at others”. In doing so, humor may simultaneously foster greater social affiliation with the in-group and greater social distance against out-groups, and so plays an active role in boundary maintenance. Through negative portrayals of the Other, casting them as buffoonish, dangerous, inferior, and the like, exclusionary humor reproduces and normalizes social hierarchies. Such joking works to support exclusionary notions and structures regardless of the intention of the joke teller. In a settler-colonial society such as Australia, where historic and ongoing inequalities stem from systematic racial and gender hierarchies, exclusionary humor along such lines naturalizes these unequal social relations.

Humor, it turns out, makes materials more accessible to neutral audiences:

Here, humor helps the far right to soften their ideological content, deactivating social boundaries and making their materials more palpable to non-far-right audiences

The McSwiney et al. article turns its attention to a series of cartoons named Please Explain by an Australian politician, Pauline Hanson.

According to the article’s authors, these cartoons illustrate why “far-right humor” is such a social danger.

According to the party, the aim of the series was to “deliver a humorous yet sobering glimpse into the Australian political arena”. Pitched as a “satirical, animated series that was partly educational, and a whole lot of fun”, Please Explain was designed to appeal to younger and politically disengaged voters, and draws on South Park, which it mimics in style and tone.

The authors accuse these cartoons of promoting bigotry and xenophobia in their pseudoscientific, gobbledygook language.

Our findings suggest that the Please Explain online animated series serves as a humorous way to disseminate highly ideological and exclusionary far-right populist content. Through our thematic analysis and multimodal discourse analysis, we found that exclusionary and supremacist discourses manifested multimodally throughout the series, making effective use of the online animation genre.

I have viewed exactly one such video and shared it with my readers when I discussed The Voice, a conspiratorial attempt to push through a vague constitutional amendment to the Constitution of Australia. The proposal would create an unaccountable and unelected constitutional body that would be manipulated through shadowy “democracy committees.”

In no small part, The Voice was defeated because of this funny YouTube video, which I highly recommend watching and which I refer to in my post above:

Please watch the above cartoon. You will see that it ridicules the liars who deceived the Australian public about the referendum proposal – it does not in any way laugh, exclude, or make fun of Native Australians.

To the crazed political hacks McSwiney and Sengul, anything that lampoons their pet projects is far-right, exclusionary content that seeks to marginalize vulnerable groups.

The Voice referendum failed resoundingly: over 60% of Australians voted against it.

To McSwiney and Sengul, this failure represents the victory of the “exclusionary far-right” (to which 60.1% of Australians apparently belong).

Their article boringly drones on and on about “exclusionary utterances and visuals.“ You would hope that a discussion of humor would include at least one funny sentence from the authors, but you’d be disappointed: McSwiney and Sengul are deadly serious and supremely boring throughout.

The authors conclude:

… humor helps the far right to extend the boundaries of the sayable (Wodak 2021), working to normalize discourses generally frowned upon in Australian political discourse. Further, the strategic use of humor also helps the far right to present racism, misogyny, and anti-LGBTIQA+ politics as “a joke,” and topics appropriate to joke about. This, we suggest, makes humor a powerful tool in the communicative arsenal of the contemporary far right and the advancement of their supremacist political project.

Finally, these political hacks, to whom everything oppositional is extreme right-wing, exclusionary and supremacist, declare “no competing interests.” Take a look at Jordan McSwiney’s profile:

Does that look like a profile of someone with “no competing interests”?

I propose this inclusive and democratic poll:

Is humor a danger to our democracy? If not, what is? Please share your thoughts in the comments section!

Share

Dear Readers: I am sorry for sprinkling humor and sarcasm throughout my Substack posts. My apologies!

Had I known that Australian social scientists Jordan McSwiney and Kurt Sengul found the use of humor and ridicule to be an insidious attack on our democracy, I would certainly avoid even a trace of sarcasm or humor in my articles!

According to the authors, the evil far-right forces invented a novel, innovative, and subversive discursive technique called humor.

It is broadly accepted that contemporary far-right actors, be they parties, movements, or activists, are savvy media performers (Wodak 2021) who employ a range of innovative communication strategies to exploit the highly mediatized and hybridized political landscape. A particular focus in recent times has been the effective use of humor and irony as part of the far-right’s social media strategy (Greene 2019).

Humor is used insidiously:

Humor and laughter have powerful social functions. Through sharing a joke, humor can positively impact social cohesion, by generating feelings of enjoyment through shared laughter. [very dangerous for democracy – I.C.] It engenders group cohesion and solidarity in a manner that is fun and playful. As a form of affective rhetoric, humor can persuade or align, facilitating social cooperation by uniting interlocutors.

We are beginning to see how dangerous humor is because laughter can keep social groups together, which is totally unacceptable. The authors go on, being utterly serious and bordering on the pompous:

But humor can also be used to divide and marginalize, constructing and maintaining social distance and inequalities. In the form of ridicule, humor serves to “target, discipline, marginalize, and alienate groups and individuals who are othered”. Humor can therefore be both pro- and anti-social: one can “laugh with others and at others”. In doing so, humor may simultaneously foster greater social affiliation with the in-group and greater social distance against out-groups, and so plays an active role in boundary maintenance. Through negative portrayals of the Other, casting them as buffoonish, dangerous, inferior, and the like, exclusionary humor reproduces and normalizes social hierarchies. Such joking works to support exclusionary notions and structures regardless of the intention of the joke teller. In a settler-colonial society such as Australia, where historic and ongoing inequalities stem from systematic racial and gender hierarchies, exclusionary humor along such lines naturalizes these unequal social relations.

Humor, it turns out, makes materials more accessible to neutral audiences:

Here, humor helps the far right to soften their ideological content, deactivating social boundaries and making their materials more palpable to non-far-right audiences

The McSwiney et al. article turns its attention to a series of cartoons named Please Explain by an Australian politician, Pauline Hanson.

According to the article’s authors, these cartoons illustrate why “far-right humor” is such a social danger.

According to the party, the aim of the series was to “deliver a humorous yet sobering glimpse into the Australian political arena”. Pitched as a “satirical, animated series that was partly educational, and a whole lot of fun”, Please Explain was designed to appeal to younger and politically disengaged voters, and draws on South Park, which it mimics in style and tone.

The authors accuse these cartoons of promoting bigotry and xenophobia in their pseudoscientific, gobbledygook language.

Our findings suggest that the Please Explain online animated series serves as a humorous way to disseminate highly ideological and exclusionary far-right populist content. Through our thematic analysis and multimodal discourse analysis, we found that exclusionary and supremacist discourses manifested multimodally throughout the series, making effective use of the online animation genre.

I have viewed exactly one such video and shared it with my readers when I discussed The Voice, a conspiratorial attempt to push through a vague constitutional amendment to the Constitution of Australia. The proposal would create an unaccountable and unelected constitutional body that would be manipulated through shadowy “democracy committees.”

In no small part, The Voice was defeated because of this funny YouTube video, which I highly recommend watching and which I referred to in my post above:

Please watch the above cartoon. You will see that it ridicules the liars who deceived the Australian public about the referendum proposal – it does not in any way laugh, exclude, or make fun of Native Australians.

To the crazed political hacks McSwiney and Sengul, anything that lampoons their pet projects is far-right, exclusionary content that seeks to marginalize vulnerable groups.

The Voice referendum failed resoundingly: over 60% of Australians voted against it.

To McSwiney and Sengul, this failure represents the victory of the “exclusionary far-right” (to which 60.1% of Australians apparently belong).

Their article boringly drones on and on about “exclusionary utterances and visuals.“ You would hope that a discussion of humor would include at least one funny sentence from the authors, but you’d be disappointed: McSwiney and Sengul are deadly serious and supremely boring throughout.

The authors conclude:

… humor helps the far right to extend the boundaries of the sayable (Wodak 2021), working to normalize discourses generally frowned upon in Australian political discourse. Further, the strategic use of humor also helps the far right to present racism, misogyny, and anti-LGBTIQA+ politics as “a joke,” and topics appropriate to joke about. This, we suggest, makes humor a powerful tool in the communicative arsenal of the contemporary far right and the advancement of their supremacist political project.

Lastly, these political hacks, to whom everything oppositional is extreme right-wing, exclusionary and supremacist, declare “no competing interests.” Take a look at Jordan McSwiney’s profile:

Does that look like a profile of someone with “no competing interests”?

I propose this inclusive and democratic poll:

Is humor a danger to our democracy? If not, what is? Please share your thoughts in the comments section!

Share

SUMMARY: mRNA COVID vaccines, previously not used outside of small laboratory animal studies, were given to billions of people after perfunctory and rushed clinical trials. As scientists learned in 2022, mRNA vaccines cause a ‘class switch’ to IgG4 antibodies. Another study found that this specific antibody subclass is associated with more aggressive cancer growth and causes hyperprogressive cancer disease in mice and humans.

A while ago, this blog explored a unique, rare class of antibodies called IgG4, caused by repeat injections of mRNA COVID vaccines.

These IgG4 antibodies are usually created in response to persistent irritants such as worms. Unfortunately, repeat injections of mRNA Covid vaccine are perceived by our immune systems as a “persistent irritant” and cause the IgG4 antibody switch.

The “persistent irritation” effect possibly occurs not only because of repeat injections but also due to mRNA gene expression never stopping in half of the vaccinated people.

Are these IgG4 antibodies harmless? Do they have any effects outside of our immune reactions to COVID-19? Is there something to worry about?

Unfortunately, a 2020 study published in the British Medical Journal’s Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer suggests that having more IgG4 antibodies — of ANY kind – enhances cancer progression. The study by Wang et al. was done two years before the discovery of mRNA vaccine-related class switch to IgG4 antibodies.

The study authors found cancer-enhancing effects of any IgG4 antibodies in people and laboratory mice.

RESULTS: In a cohort of patients with esophageal cancer we found that IgG4-containing B lymphocytes and IgG4 concentration were significantly increased in cancer tissue and IgG4 concentrations increased in serum of patients with cancer. Both were positively related to increased cancer malignancy and poor prognoses, that is, more IgG4 appeared to associate with more aggressive cancer growth. We further found that IgG4, regardless of its antigen specificity, inhibited the classic immune reactions of antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis and complement-dependent cytotoxicity against cancer cells in vitro, and these effects were obtained through its Fc fragment reacting to the Fc fragments of cancer-specific IgG1 that has been bound to cancer antigens. … We found that local application of IgG4 significantly accelerated growth of inoculated breast and colorectal cancers and carcinogen-induced skin papilloma. We also tested the antibody drug for cancer immunotherapy nivolumab, which was IgG4 in nature with a stabilizing S228P mutation, and found that it significantly promoted cancer growth in mice. This may provide an explanation to the newly appeared hyperprogressive disease sometimes associated with cancer immunotherapy.

The scientists provide an excellent explanation of the IgG4 antibody subclass:

IgG4 is a unique antibody that has the lowest concentration among IgG subtypes in healthy individuals, and its function has not been well understood. IgG4 was regarded as a ‘blocking antibody’ because of its reduced ability to trigger effector immune reactions. Therefore whatever molecules IgG4 reacts to, the subsequent immune reaction was subdued.

The study details Wang et al.’s multidimensional investigation of IgG4 in a wide array of patients with cancer and tissues with both in vitro and in vivo experiments. Again, this research was done in 2020, well before the effects of Covid vaccines on IgG4 could be seen.

After collecting blood and tissue samples from 82 patients, scientists found that greater levels of IgG4 were associated with higher grade (cancer grade is the tumor’s degree of malignancy) and poor prognosis.

Do IgG4 antibodies cause worse cancer outcomes, or do worse cancers create more IgG4? What is the horse, and what is the cart here?

The rest of the scientific study tries to answer this question, and scientists conclude that IgG4 drives malignancy and aggressiveness of the real-life cancers they observed.

They found that even non-cancer-specific IgG4 inhibited immune reactions to cancer cells. Since human experiments of this kind would be unethical, authors instead experimented with mouse models:

I illustrated the image scientists provided and circled larger tumors – and tumor size increases – they found to happen after IgG4 injections:

The authors describe hyperprogressive disease that occurs due to certain monoclonal IgG4-based antibody nivolumab, despite previous hopes of their potential usefulness.

Recent awareness of hyperprogressive disease (HPD) associated with anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody treatment for cancer has caught widespread attention,^61–65 but no consensual explanation for this phenomenon has arrived. HPD appeared to be a common complication for immunotherapy with nivolumab in many cancer types, including head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,⁶¹ non-small cell lung cancer,⁶² gastric cancer⁶⁶ and so on. Our findings suggest that these IgG4 antibody drugs might have undesired side effects of inhibiting local immune responses and indirectly promote cancer growth. When the specific target molecule is present in cancer, these IgG4 antibody drugs might be effective. However, when the targets are absent or scanty, the IgG4’s immune inhibitory effect might prevail and accelerate cancer growth. This possible detrimental effect of IgG4 might contribute to HPD in patients treated with PD-1 targeting drugs with IgG4 structure.

What is ‘hyperprogressive disease’? It is the same thing as “turbo-cancer,” of course, but it is a more fitting scientific term.

The authors conclude:

Conclusion There appears to be a previously unrecognized immune evasion mechanism with IgG4 playing an essential role in cancer microenvironment with implications in cancer diagnosis and immunotherapy.

Unfortunately, relatively few recent cancer statistics are officially available. An Internet researcher named the Ethical Skeptic found some recent alarming numbers. I do not want to highlight any of his specific findings because I have not yet been able to verify them personally, but my readers may take a critical look of their own.

However, what is available is about a 7% increase in cancer deaths reported in Australia, a highly vaccinated country. Since cancers typically take years to develop and grow, such an increase is concerning, given that only two years passed since Australians received their ‘safe and effective’ vaccines.

This blog never takes cheap shots at vaccinated people and does not make unfounded, dire predictions not supported by evidence. I would rather forgo additional clicks and subscribers than misinform my readers. Let me summarize my reasons for hope that these biological findings will hopefully leave some people unscathed:

• We are only beginning to understand the effects of IgG4 antibodies on cancer

• Only about half of vaccinated people produce IgG4 antibodies in quantity

• Even though experiments showed increases in IgG4 over time, these antibodies may wane over the long run

• No evidence to date suggests that IgG4 antibodies cause cancer – the evidence only points to them enhancing and speeding up existing cancers.

What the evidence shows is that some cancers, possibly treatable before mRNA injections, may become aggressive and difficult to treat, a condition that the BMJ study authors call ‘hyperprogressive disease.’

I hope and pray that the number of people affected by ‘hyperprogressive disease’ will be low – and I hope that my readers will agree with this statement.

(also, please upgrade your subscription to paid if you like my content – you can cancel at any time)

Share