Oops! Now What!
Now what? COVID “vaccine” spike protein and lab-made SARS-CoV-2 spike protein are prion-like drivers of proteostatic collapse, pathological cross-seeding, transcriptional instability, and tissue dysfunction.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Aug 13
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
The text provided is an opinion/summary piece written by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, alongside co-authors John A. Catanzaro and Peter A. McCullough, promoting hypotheses concerning the alleged “prion-like” and long-term pathological properties of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein derived from both infection and vaccination.
McGill University
From a mainstream scientific and consensus medical perspective, claims asserting that the COVID-19 vaccine or viral spike proteins act as transmissible prions or cause widespread proteostatic collapse and fibrous intravascular “casts” are unsupported by mainstream toxicological and epidemiological evidence.
McGill University
Key Scientific Context and Consensus
Prion-Like Hypotheses vs. Reality: Mainstream biochemical analyses note that while computational tools (in silico models) can occasionally flag short amino acid sequences in various human and viral proteins that bear superficial resemblances to amyloidogenic motifs, this does not mean the protein functions as a prion or causes prion disease. Real-world epidemiological data from global public health agencies show no credible causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and outbreaks of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (prion diseases).
Spike Protein Persistence: While trace amounts of viral antigens or residual mRNA from vaccines can sometimes be detected transiently by ultra-sensitive assays in localized tissues or lymph nodes weeks after vaccination, claims of multi-year persistence driving continuous tissue destruction are speculative and lack robust, replicated validation in independent, high-standard biomedical literature.
McGill University
Embalmer “Clots” Claims: The assertion regarding unusual white fibrous vascular clots found by embalmers originates largely from anecdotal surveys rather than rigorous, peer-reviewed pathology. Standard forensic and cardiovascular pathologists attribute post-mortem clots (often called “chicken fat clots”) to normal post-mortem blood separation and coagulation processes.
Proposed Countermeasures: Supplements like nattokinase, bromelain, and serrapeptidase are marketed widely in alternative health spaces for various purported “detoxification” protocols, but they lack large-scale, randomized controlled trial (RCT) validation to prove they reverse systemic tissue damage or safely degrade specific intracellular targets in humans.
Public health organizations worldwide (such as the WHO, CDC, and EMA) maintain that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death significantly outweigh their known risks.
Opinion piece? Like thumbs up or down for the latest film?
No, it is not a movie review. In the context of science communication and publishing, an “opinion piece,” blog post, or substack article refers to a commentary where authors present a hypothesis, perspective, or interpretation of data—often outside of standard, traditional peer-reviewed academic journal formats.
While the text cites concepts that sound heavily technical (such as “proteostatic collapse,” “amyloidogenic regions,” and “transcriptional instability”), calling it an opinion piece highlights the distinction between:
Hypothetical commentary / perspective pieces: Articles written by specific advocates or researchers to pitch a new theoretical framework or argue a viewpoint to the public.
Mainstream medical consensus: The accumulated, heavily scrutinized body of experimental data, clinical trials, and systematic reviews backed by global medical institutions and regulatory bodies (like the FDA, CDC, and WHO), which do not find evidence supporting the catastrophic prion or multi-organ collapse mechanisms described in the excerpt.
So it’s not a study?
It is a written piece formatted like a research paper (featuring an abstract-style introduction, sections, and author credentials), but it is a theoretical perspective / narrative review, not a standard empirical research study that generated new clinical data or laboratory trials.
To understand the difference:
What an empirical study does: Scientists take physical samples, run controlled laboratory or clinical experiments, treat human or animal subjects, gather hard data, and test a hypothesis against a control group.
What this piece is: It is a synthesis of in silico (computer-based) sequence analysis and preexisting alternative hypotheses. The authors pull together theoretical claims—such as looking at software predictions of protein folding or citing anecdotal surveys of embalmers—and propose a conceptual framework.
Mainstream scientific and medical bodies do not recognize papers of this type as validated evidence because they rely on computer simulations of protein segments and theoretical extrapolations rather than reproducible, peer-reviewed clinical proof showing these catastrophic mechanisms actually happen in human bodies.
So it’s impersonating a study?
Rather than “impersonating” a study, it utilizes the formal structural format typically associated with academic papers (titles, author credentials, theoretical sections, and terminology) to present a hypothesis or a narrative review.
In the publishing world, there is a distinction between:
Primary Research Studies: Papers where scientists directly conduct experiments, gather empirical data from physical samples or clinical trials, and analyze the resulting outcomes.
Review or Theoretical Articles: Papers that compile existing literature, computer models, or previously published hypotheses to argue a specific conceptual framework.
While the piece adopts the academic style of a research paper, mainstream scientists and medical institutions evaluate it based on its methodology. Because it relies heavily on theoretical projections, computer-based sequence analysis (in silico models), and alternative interpretations rather than standard, reproducible clinical proof, the broader scientific community treats it as an opinion or perspective piece rather than validated empirical evidence.
What did he claim to bserve in the jabbed?
Based on the provided text, the author claims that the following phenomena occur or can be found in individuals who have received the COVID-19 vaccine (or have been exposed to the spike protein):
Long-Term Persistence of Spike Material: Spike protein, residual mRNA, and plasmid DNA remaining present in the body for extended periods (the text references detection beyond 3.5 years in a documented case).
Proteostatic Collapse and Misfolding: Intracellular processing errors—including endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, the unfolded protein response, and ribosomal frameshifting—leading to abnormal, truncated, or fragmented polypeptides and fibrous, aggregation-prone proteins.
Pathological Cross-Seeding: Spike interacting with and forcing host proteins (specifically amyloid-beta and tau) to aggregate into beta-sheet structures.
Transcriptional Instability: Broad disturbances in gene expression affecting mitochondrial function, ribosomal activity, cellular stress responses, immune regulation, and oncogenic/tumor-suppressor pathways.
Multi-Organ Tissue Dysfunction: Downstream cellular damage contributing to neuroinflammation, cardiovascular injury, amyloid microclots, and progressive multi-organ pathology.
Intravascular “Casts”: Citing external surveys, the text highlights the alleged presence of unusual, large white fibrous blood clots or casts recovered during embalming that show beta-sheet enrichment.
And what did he claim had effects on breaking up these off-target protein structures?
According to the text, the author discussed the following countermeasures aimed at degrading persistent spike material and restoring molecular stability:
Nattokinase: Highlighted as an enzyme shown in laboratory settings to directly degrade the spike protein (including its receptor-binding domain) in a dose-dependent manner.
Serrapeptidase and Bromelain: Mentioned as providing complementary fibrinolytic (clot-dissolving) and anti-inflammatory activity.
The aHI-PBIMA Platform: A biotechnology platform discussed as a tool to identify dominant molecular instabilities and generate customized, patient-specific peptides (termed ITI-PES peptides) intended to help restore downstream molecular order.
And it’s just wild conjecture?
From the viewpoint of mainstream science, medicine, and toxicology, yes—the core conclusions of this piece are considered speculative and unsupported by empirical evidence, often relying on theoretical extrapolation rather than validated biology.
Biochemists and molecular biologists generally critique these types of claims for a few key reasons:
Misinterpreting Computer Software (In Silico Models): Algorithms like PLAAC (used to scan for “prion-like domains”) look purely at amino acid sequences (such as stretches rich in glutamine or asparagine). Virtually all proteomes—human, animal, bacterial, and viral—contain short sequences that software flags as “prion-like.” Finding a sequence pattern on a computer screen does not mean the protein physically folds into a transmissible, self-propagating infectious prion in a living body.
PMC - NIH
Overstating “Cross-Seeding”: The hypothesis that spike proteins systematically force human proteins like tau and amyloid-beta to misfold lacks backing from robust in vivo (living organism) models or clinical neuropathology.
The Embalmer Clot Myth: The idea of “large white fibrous casts” originating from vaccines has been thoroughly debunked by forensic pathologists and embalmer associations. The unusual stringy structures sometimes pulled from veins post-mortem are standard, well-documented blood clots (cruor and fibrin separation) that occur naturally after death or during prolonged dying processes, not synthetic or amyloid structures created by vaccines.
The “Solution” Marketing Loop: Articles or papers asserting catastrophic, multi-system molecular collapse from vaccines frequently point toward specific alternative supplements (like nattokinase or proprietary peptide platforms) as “countermeasures.” This creates a loop where frightening, unproven claims are used to market commercial remedies that also lack rigorous clinical trial backing.
In short, while the text uses dense molecular biology terminology to look authoritative, mainstream medical science views its assertions as extreme theoretical conjecture rather than established medical fact.
Mainstream science rolled out this untested poison!
The deployment of COVID-19 vaccines was one of the most intensely monitored medical rollouts in history. Public health and regulatory agencies worldwide—including the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)—continuously track safety data across billions of administered doses.
Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals
Mainstream scientific and medical data indicate that:
Rigorous Safety Monitoring: The vaccines underwent standard preclinical testing, large-scale randomized clinical trials involving tens of thousands of participants, and unprecedented post-marketing surveillance systems (such as the Global Vaccine Data Network and v-safe).
Identified Rare Risks: Regulatory agencies openly recognize and track rare adverse events linked to the vaccines—such as myocarditis (primarily in young males) or thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) associated with specific viral-vector vaccines. These risks are factored into public health guidance.
CDC
Risk-Benefit Ratio: Massive cohort studies tracking hundreds of millions of individuals demonstrate that the risk of severe illness, long-term organ damage, hospitalization, and death from contracting COVID-19 significantly outweighs the risks associated with vaccination.
Is Luc Montagnier another crank? He warned of this in his final paper.
Luc Montagnier was a legitimate, world-renowned virologist who shared the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his co-discovery of HIV.
Wikipedia
However, in the later years of his life, his career shifted dramatically. Mainstream scientific, academic, and medical communities widely distanced themselves from him because he began promoting ideas that lacked empirical backing and contradicted established science.
Wikipedia+ 1
Late-Career Departures from Consensus: Years before the COVID-19 pandemic, Montagnier embraced controversial concepts such as the “digital biology” of DNA, claiming that DNA sequences could emit electromagnetic waves. He also expressed support for alternative medicine practices like homeopathy, which mainstream science regards as lacking biological plausibility.
Wikipedia
Pandemic Claims: During the COVID-19 pandemic, he asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was artificially created and escaped from a laboratory, pointing to unverified genomic overlaps with HIV—claims that mainstream virologists and geneticists analyzed and rejected.
Wikipedia
In the scientific community, a researcher’s historical achievements do not immunize them from criticism if their later assertions abandon standard scientific methodology. While his early work on HIV remains a monumental milestone in medicine, his final hypotheses and public warnings regarding COVID-19 and vaccines were treated by the broader scientific and medical community as unproven, speculative, and outside mainstream consensus.
You mean like Fauci?
Dr. Anthony Fauci occupies a very different space in the scientific and political landscape compared to someone like Luc Montagnier.
Institutional Role: Dr. Fauci was a career public servant and immunologist who directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for decades, serving under multiple U.S. presidents from both parties. Mainstream biomedical institutions view him as a foundational figure in public health, particularly for his early work managing the HIV/AIDS epidemic and coordinating federal responses to infectious diseases.
PBS+ 1
Controversy and Criticism: Unlike Montagnier, whose later-career scientific claims drifted far outside consensus biology, the intense polarization surrounding Fauci is primarily political, bureaucratic, and policy-driven rather than based on unconventional laboratory hypotheses. Critics—particularly in Congress—have heavily scrutinized his public messaging during COVID-19, his agency’s handling of grant funding, and debates over pandemic origins and public health mandates (such as lockdowns and masking).
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
While both men became lightning rods for intense public controversy during and after the pandemic, they represent different categories of dispute: Montagnier’s later work was rejected by mainstream scientists on biological and empirical grounds, whereas the debate over Fauci centers on public policy, institutional authority, and government communication during a global crisis.
So Fauci beyond reproach, Montagnier a nut.
That is an oversimplification of how the scientific and public spheres view both figures. Neither is treated as an absolute saint or a cartoon villain, but both faced intense scrutiny for different reasons.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is not considered beyond reproach. In fact, he has been subjected to exhaustive congressional investigations, bipartisan inquiries, media cross-examinations, and heavy public criticism regarding pandemic policies, funding decisions, and early public statements. Mainstream science views him as a major public health administrator, but his policy choices, institutional messaging, and handling of federal agencies are frequently debated and criticized.
Luc Montagnier is not simply dismissed as a “nut” because of his entire life’s work. He earned his Nobel Prize for real, monumental science—discovering HIV. However, mainstream science did reject his later hypotheses because, in his final years, he moved away from rigorous, reproducible methodology into fields that lacked empirical evidence.
In science, reputation does not shield anyone from criticism, and past brilliance does not validate future speculation. Fauci’s controversies are rooted in public administration and policy, while Montagnier’s later controversies are rooted in departures from standard biological evidence.