Telepathy - truth or science fiction?

[Mike Islander]

You get a weird feeling awhile ago? Yeah, that was me man.

Oh man, I DID get a weird feeling!

 

[EastHumboldt]

Oh man, I DID get a weird feeling!
View attachment 860874

Every time I go on the Slide… it’s just one big weird feeling from start to finish.

 

[intunegp]

As someone who only visits Rokslide while working Monday-Friday, I LITERALLY KNEW all weekend long that I would come back to this thread being at least a couple pages longer than when I last checked Friday. I've also taken multiple online tests that say I have a strong likelihood of autism.

Who do I contact about making my story into a podcast?

 

[DapperDan]

Can you quote peer reviewed clinical trials instead of screen shots of social media?

Clinical trials always report AEs, even in placebo groups. You very much expect AEs in a vaccine trial.

Here is a peer review

Scientists Shocked: World’s FIRST Peer-Reviewed Paper Confirms Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Contaminated with DNA and SV40

We finally have the proof—peer-reviewed and published.

www.vigilantfox.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atmat]

Here is a peer review

Scientists Shocked: World’s FIRST Peer-Reviewed Paper Confirms Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Contaminated with DNA and SV40

We finally have the proof—peer-reviewed and published.

www.vigilantfox.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To clarify: that’s an article that talks about a supposed peer reviewed paper but doesn’t include any links to it that I could find throughout the article.

 

[BBob]

Here is a peer review

Scientists Shocked: World’s FIRST Peer-Reviewed Paper Confirms Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Contaminated with DNA and SV40

We finally have the proof—peer-reviewed and published.

www.vigilantfox.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's no study/paper or link to the study/paper in either of those articles that I see. Where's the actual peer reviewed study/paper they speak of so one can look at it? Feels a little hokey that they go on about this study but don't actually link the study?????

 

[Mike Islander]

There's no study/paper or link to the study/paper in either of those articles that I see. Where's the actual peer reviewed study/paper they speak of so one can look at it? Feels a little hokey that they go on about this study but don't actually link the study?????

See below. However, there is no demonstration that the trace fragments have any affect on humans. In other words, no study has shown a different outcome for vaccines with trace amounts versus those with zero amounts. It's a starting point, not a conclusion. As with so many hypotheses or even observation, all of the work is still ahead of those who say "This is dangerous" or "This is harmful". If you can't show it, you don't know it.

1. McKernan et al. (2023)​

Published in: Food and Chemical Toxicology
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2023.113851
Findings:

• Detected DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.
• Identified plasmid DNA fragments, including the SV40 promoter/enhancer.
• Raised concerns about regulatory oversight and the potential for DNA integration — though the paper notes more research is needed to determine biological relevance.

---

2. Buckhaults et al. (2024)​

Published in: Frontiers in Immunology
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1259879
Findings:

• Independently confirmed the presence of residual plasmid DNA, including bacterial backbone and regulatory elements.
• Included discussion of mechanisms by which plasmid DNA might theoretically integrate into the host genome — but emphasized that actual risk is not yet proven.
• Advocated for better purification processes and transparency.

 

[fwafwow]

There's no study/paper or link to the study/paper in either of those articles that I see. Where's the actual peer reviewed study/paper they speak of so one can look at it? Feels a little hokey that they go on about this study but don't actually link the study?????

Super hokey - but it seems to be par for the course in many respects with news reports. There are many times when I read "DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules" or "HHS cuts all funding on x" and neither the decision, nor the 1-page HHS memo (or something similar) are linked - anywhere in the article. Matt Taibbi has started something he calls "Timelines" to include primary sources - https://www.racket.news/p/note-on-timelines

As for any article that talks about medicine or studies thereof, they usually go well beyond not linking it, but end up improperly summarizing the study to inevitably mix correlation and causation, leading to the "red wine prevents heart attacks" BS. I finally got to the point that I try my best to never read those articles, or if I see the headline, to assume it's wrong.

 

[atmat]

See below. However, there is no demonstration that the trace fragments have any affect on humans. In other words, no study has shown a different outcome for vaccines with trace amounts versus those with zero amounts. It's a starting point, not a conclusion. As with so many hypotheses or even observation, all of the work is still ahead of those who say "This is dangerous" or "This is harmful". If you can't show it, you don't know it.

1. McKernan et al. (2023)​

Published in: Food and Chemical Toxicology
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2023.113851
Findings:

• Detected DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.
• Identified plasmid DNA fragments, including the SV40 promoter/enhancer.
• Raised concerns about regulatory oversight and the potential for DNA integration — though the paper notes more research is needed to determine biological relevance.

---

2. Buckhaults et al. (2024)​

Published in: Frontiers in Immunology
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1259879
Findings:

• Independently confirmed the presence of residual plasmid DNA, including bacterial backbone and regulatory elements.
• Included discussion of mechanisms by which plasmid DNA might theoretically integrate into the host genome — but emphasized that actual risk is not yet proven.
• Advocated for better purification processes and transparency.

For what it’s worth, both of those journals are reputable with good IFs.

I haven’t read the actual studies linked because I’m at work, but thanks for the summary @Mike Islander.

@DapperDan — would love to have you read those studies and hear your thoughts.

 

[BBob]

As for any article that talks about medicine or studies thereof, they usually go well beyond not linking it, but end up improperly summarizing the study to inevitably mix correlation and causation, leading to the "red wine prevents heart attacks" BS. I finally got to the point that I try my best to never read those articles, or if I see the headline, to assume it's wrong.

Agree to all of that. It's the same crap we saw all through covid. Not many can actually read a study/paper properly but think they can. I'm better at it now but nothing like researcher friends that do it for a living. They can cut through the bs and get to the gist of it pretty quick. Most of the time I sent them something to look over and have them explain it to me there were lots of reasons it wasn't what some uniformed person wanted it to be or was proclaiming it to be.

 

[fwafwow]

Agree to all of that. It's the same crap we saw all through covid. Not many can actually read a study/paper properly but think they can. I'm better at it now but nothing like researcher friends that do it for a living. They can cut through the bs and get to the gist of it pretty quick. Most of the time I sent them something to look over and have them explain it to me there were lots of reasons it wasn't what some uniformed person wanted it to be or was proclaiming it to be.

You have prompted me to dig up the studies. But I'm reading the article first - but could not get past the subtitle: "We finally have the proof--peer-reviewed and published." The use of the word "proof" - regardless of the topic - takes me back to my current rule of thumb -

​

 

[atmat]

You have prompted me to dig up the studies. But I'm reading the article first - but could not get past the subtitle: "We finally have the proof--peer-reviewed and published." The use of the word "proof" - regardless of the topic - takes me back to my current rule of thumb -

​

The article is totally hokey. Half of the links take you to YouTube videos (not joking)

 

[BBob]

"We finally have the proof--peer-reviewed and published."

 

[DapperDan]

There's no study/paper or link to the study/paper in either of those articles that I see. Where's the actual peer reviewed study/paper they speak of so one can look at it? Feels a little hokey that they go on about this study but don't actually link the study?????

Here is Dr. Kevin McKernan talking about it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1873517666214039746

Here is a post by Dr. Mary Bowden. She has a heck of a story and worth reading about considering what’s she’s gone through.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1868326469232963641

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DapperDan]

For what it’s worth, both of those journals are reputable with good IFs.

I haven’t read the actual studies linked because I’m at work, but thanks for the summary @Mike Islander.

@DapperDan — would love to have you read those studies and hear your thoughts.

I will try to find the time. It’s tough right now with a newborn. Let me scan through it. I’m mostly interested in the Kevin McKernan piece.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DapperDan]

Dr Jack Kruse is a neurosurgeon and has been on several podcasts in the last 6 months. Defiantly worth listening to. His Danny jones podcast is great. Anywho, this is him talking about sv40.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1893052305383063987

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atmat]

@DapperDan — I mean this respectfully. All the time you spend posting social media references could be spent reading actual peer-reviewed scientific data on the topics you’re bringing up.

 

[DapperDan]

@DapperDan — I mean this respectfully. All the time you spend posting social media references could be spent reading actual peer-reviewed scientific data on the topics you’re bringing up.

Why read peer reviewed data when I’m reading info from the drs themselves? The social media references are clips from podcasts that I’ve listened to. I drive a lot. When I’m not driving from job site to job site I’m very busy. I have a stack of books I’ve bought to read but haven’t been able to get into them.



Here is an interesting book called Dr. Mary’s Monkey. One that I need to buy. If you click the link you can read summary of the book. I’ll copy and paste a little from it here.

https://www.blinkist.com/en/books/dr-marys-monkey-en

“In Dr. Mary's Monkey by Edward T. Haslam, we are taken on a journey to uncover a conspiracy that connects the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the spread of cancer-causing viruses, and the development of biological weapons. The book begins with the mysterious death of Dr. Mary Sherman, a prominent cancer researcher, in New Orleans in 1964. Her body is found burned and mutilated in her apartment, and the police quickly rule her death as a result of an accidental fire.

However, as Haslam delves deeper into Dr. Sherman's life and work, he uncovers a series of shocking revelations. She was involved in a secret government-funded project at the Ochsner Foundation, where she was researching the effects of radiation on cancer cells. Haslam learns that Dr. Sherman was not only involved in cancer research but also in a secret program to develop a biological weapon using a cancer-causing virus.

From Cancer Research to Biological Warfare

Haslam's investigation leads him to the figure of David Ferrie, a pilot and CIA operative who was connected to Dr. Sherman. Ferrie was also linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the man accused of assassinating Kennedy. Haslam theorizes that Dr. Sherman, Ferrie, and Oswald were all part of a covert operation to develop a biological weapon to assassinate Fidel Castro. This weapon, according to Haslam, was to be a cancer-causing virus that could be delivered through a contaminated polio vaccine.”

Sounds crazy, right? But I just so happen to have a book by Judyth Vary Baker. She worked in this program in the early 60’s with Mary Sherman, Alton Ochner, David Ferrie, AND…. Lee Harvey Oswald. (She was also just recently on a podcast talking about it)

Here are a few pages from Judyth Vary Baker’s book.

First page mentions sv40 and the year 1961. Second page mentions sv40 and contaminated polio vaccines. And page 3 mentions Dr Jack Kruse who did his residency with Alton Ochner’s son and verified the existence of a linear particle accelerator in Ochner’s hospital.

What you see here is gain of function research done in the early 60’s.

So, my question is this. If you knew it caused cancer in the 50’s, you were using it to grow cancer and kill mice in a week during the early 60’s, then why in the hell did you put part of it in a vaccine that you mandated on the world in 2020????

I’m pretty sure I don’t need a peer reviewed journal to connect these dots either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fwafwow]

Ugh - that article was pretty painful to read. Maybe I'm an idiot, but it took me a while to find a single study (if there are others, please post them up - I got tired of looking).

Here's one - https://publichealthpolicyjournal.c...including-an-sv40-promoter-enhancer-sequence/

The article is totally hokey. Half of the links take you to YouTube videos (not joking)

Phew! So it wasn’t just me. I went through it, or was trying to make sense of it. Then I got to the study (via a link buried in the text below one of those YT videos). Glad it wasn’t just me.

Then I concede that the study seemed a bit technically dense (for me) and had to take a break.

Maybe the study is really interesting and was done well - it’s too early for me to tell. But the messaging (and messengers) aren’t doing it any favors

 

[DapperDan]

Ugh - that article was pretty painful to read. Maybe I'm an idiot, but it took me a while to find a single study (if there are others, please post them up - I got tired of looking).

Here's one - https://publichealthpolicyjournal.c...including-an-sv40-promoter-enhancer-sequence/



Phew! So it wasn’t just me. I went through it, or was trying to make sense of it. Then I got to the study (via a link buried in the text below one of those YT videos). Glad it wasn’t just me.

Then I concede that the study seemed a bit technically dense (for me) and had to take a break.

Maybe the study is really interesting and was done well - it’s too early for me to tell. But the messaging (and messengers) aren’t doing it any favors

You could click the link with Kevin McKernan and listen to him talk about finding sv40 in the Covid jab instead of digging through a dense article. I mean, he is the guy. He found it. Genomics is his expertise. And it was by pure luck that he found it. It’s quite an interesting story to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk