Why Is Multiple Myleoma Considered Incurable?

Why is multiple myleoma considered incurable?

ChatGPT

Multiple myeloma is considered incurable for several reasons:

Clonal Evolution and Genetic Complexity: Multiple myeloma is characterized by a high degree of genetic diversity and clonal evolution. As the disease progresses, myeloma cells acquire new mutations, leading to different subclones with varying genetic profiles. This heterogeneity makes it difficult to target all cancerous cells effectively with a single treatment.

Bone Marrow Microenvironment: The bone marrow microenvironment plays a crucial role in supporting the survival and growth of myeloma cells. Myeloma cells interact with surrounding stromal cells, immune cells, and the extracellular matrix, which provides protective signals that help the myeloma cells resist treatment and evade immune surveillance.

Drug Resistance: Over time, myeloma cells can develop resistance to multiple drugs, including chemotherapy, immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies. This resistance can be intrinsic (present from the beginning) or acquired (develops after exposure to treatment), making long-term disease control challenging.

Residual Disease: Despite initial successful treatment responses, residual disease often remains. These minimal residual disease (MRD) cells can eventually grow and lead to relapse. Detecting and eradicating MRD is difficult, and even small numbers of residual cells can cause the disease to return.

Relapse and Refractory Disease: Patients with multiple myeloma frequently experience periods of remission followed by relapse. Each subsequent relapse tends to be harder to treat, and the disease often becomes refractory, meaning it no longer responds to previously effective treatments.

Immune Evasion: Myeloma cells have mechanisms to evade the immune system, including altering antigen presentation, inducing immunosuppressive cells, and producing immunosuppressive cytokines. This immune evasion complicates the use of immunotherapies and contributes to the difficulty in achieving a complete cure.

While multiple myeloma remains incurable, significant advancements in treatment have greatly improved survival rates and quality of life for patients. Modern therapies can often induce long periods of remission, and ongoing research continues to explore new treatment strategies that may one day lead to a cure.

Has anyone ever survived the disease?

ChatGPT

Yes, many people with multiple myeloma have survived for long periods, and their quality of life has significantly improved due to advances in treatment. Although multiple myeloma is considered incurable, it can be managed as a chronic condition, and some patients live for many years with the disease.

Survival and prognosis depend on various factors, including:

Stage at Diagnosis: Early-stage multiple myeloma typically has a better prognosis than advanced-stage disease.

Treatment Advances: New therapies, such as immunomodulatory drugs (e.g., lenalidomide), proteasome inhibitors (e.g., bortezomib), monoclonal antibodies (e.g., daratumumab), and CAR T-cell therapy, have significantly improved outcomes.

Stem Cell Transplant: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can extend remission and improve survival for eligible patients.

Personal Health: A patient's overall health, age, and ability to tolerate treatment also influence survival.

Response to Treatment: Patients who achieve complete or very good partial remission often have better outcomes.

While some patients achieve long-term remission and live for many years, it is important to note that the disease may eventually relapse. However, ongoing research and the development of new treatments continue to improve survival rates and offer hope for longer, healthier lives for those with multiple myeloma.

Has anyone ever reversed the disease, say with rife therapy?

ChatGPT

Rife therapy, which is based on the use of specific frequencies to target and destroy disease-causing organisms or cells, is not supported by robust scientific evidence for the treatment of multiple myeloma or other cancers. While the concept of Rife therapy, developed by Royal Raymond Rife in the 1930s, involves using electromagnetic frequencies to treat illness, it lacks empirical validation from clinical trials or peer-reviewed studies.

For multiple myeloma, the standard treatments include:

Chemotherapy: Traditional drugs that target rapidly dividing cells.

Immunomodulatory Drugs: Such as lenalidomide and thalidomide, which help the immune system fight cancer.

Proteasome Inhibitors: Like bortezomib, which disrupts the proteasome's role in degrading proteins.

Monoclonal Antibodies: Target specific proteins on myeloma cells (e.g., daratumumab).

Stem Cell Transplant: Autologous stem cell transplantation to replace damaged bone marrow.

CAR T-Cell Therapy: Genetically modified T-cells to target and destroy myeloma cells.

These treatments are based on substantial clinical research and have demonstrated efficacy in managing and extending survival for multiple myeloma patients. Although Rife therapy is sometimes promoted by alternative medicine practitioners, it is not recognized as a standard or effective treatment by the medical community for multiple myeloma or other cancers.

Patients should discuss all treatment options with their oncologist and rely on evidence-based therapies for managing their condition. Alternative therapies should be approached cautiously and always in consultation with a healthcare professional to ensure they do not interfere with conventional treatments or cause harm.

That wasn't my question.

ChatGPT

I see, you were asking if anyone has ever achieved reversal of multiple myeloma specifically using Rife therapy.

To date, there is no documented, scientifically validated evidence or case reports demonstrating that Rife therapy has reversed multiple myeloma. While Rife therapy is promoted by some as an alternative treatment, it lacks credible clinical validation and has not been shown to provide a cure or significant improvement in managing multiple myeloma according to scientific standards.

For multiple myeloma, standard treatments with proven efficacy include:

Chemotherapy

Immunomodulatory drugs

Proteasome inhibitors

Monoclonal antibodies

Stem cell transplants

CAR T-cell therapy

These therapies are based on rigorous clinical research and have been demonstrated to improve outcomes and survival rates for patients with multiple myeloma.

If you have any other questions or need more details on specific treatments or approaches, feel free to ask!

Has anyone reversed the disease by any method?

ChatGPT

In the context of multiple myeloma, "reversal" of the disease is not commonly used terminology, but there have been instances where patients have achieved long-term remission or significant improvement. These achievements are generally considered as significant successes rather than outright reversals or cures. Here are some key points regarding the management of multiple myeloma:

Complete Remission: Some patients achieve a complete remission where there is no detectable evidence of the disease. This can be achieved with modern treatments such as chemotherapy, immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and stem cell transplants. However, even in these cases, the disease may still be present at a microscopic level (minimal residual disease).

Long-Term Remission: Advances in treatment have led to extended periods of remission. For example, patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) may remain in remission for several years. Newer therapies like CAR T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies have also contributed to longer remissions.

Experimental and Emerging Treatments: Ongoing research is exploring new treatments that could potentially lead to more durable remissions or even functional cures. These include novel drug combinations, targeted therapies, and gene-editing technologies.

Cases of Exceptional Response: There are anecdotal reports of patients experiencing exceptionally long periods of disease control or even what appears to be a complete resolution of symptoms. These cases are rare and are often considered outliers rather than representative of typical outcomes.

Supportive Care and Lifestyle: In addition to conventional treatments, supportive care measures, including lifestyle modifications and integrative therapies, can help improve quality of life and potentially extend periods of remission.

While there have been remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma, the disease is generally considered incurable due to its tendency to relapse and the challenges associated with eradicating all cancerous cells. However, the goal of modern treatments is to achieve long-term control, improve quality of life, and extend survival.

Patients should always consult with their oncologists to explore the best available treatment options and stay informed about new therapies and clinical trials.

Are there any other cancers that go through so many genetic changes?

ChatGPT

Yes, several cancers exhibit significant genetic complexity and high rates of genetic changes, similar to multiple myeloma. Some of these cancers are:

Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML): AML is known for its high genetic heterogeneity, with frequent mutations in genes involved in blood cell differentiation and proliferation. The genetic landscape of AML is complex, and different subclones within the same patient can exhibit diverse mutations, contributing to treatment resistance and disease relapse.

Breast Cancer: Particularly in cases of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the genetic mutations can be highly diverse. Breast cancer can have a variety of genetic alterations, including mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which can lead to heterogeneous disease behavior and response to treatments.

Ovarian Cancer: Ovarian cancer, especially high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, often shows extensive genetic instability and a high number of mutations. This genetic variability contributes to the complexity of treatment and challenges in achieving long-term remission.

Glioblastoma: Glioblastoma multiforme, a highly aggressive brain tumor, has a very complex genetic landscape. It is characterized by a high frequency of mutations, including those in genes related to cell cycle regulation and DNA repair, as well as chromosomal aberrations.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): NSCLC, especially adenocarcinomas, often exhibits a wide range of genetic alterations, including mutations in genes like EGFR, KRAS, and ALK. The genetic diversity within tumors and between patients can affect treatment responses and disease progression.

Melanoma: Melanoma, particularly when it has progressed, can have numerous genetic mutations, including BRAF, NRAS, and KIT mutations. This high mutation burden can contribute to its aggressive nature and variability in response to targeted therapies.

These cancers, like multiple myeloma, demonstrate the challenges associated with targeting genetic changes due to the high level of genetic heterogeneity and evolution within tumors. This complexity can make treatment more challenging and often requires a combination of therapeutic strategies tailored to the specific genetic profile of the tumor. Advances in genomics and personalized medicine are helping to address these challenges by developing more targeted and effective treatments.

Why do these cancers have such genetic heterogeneity?

ChatGPT

Genetic heterogeneity in cancers arises from several interconnected factors, leading to a complex and variable genetic landscape within and between tumors. Here’s why cancers, including multiple myeloma and others, exhibit such genetic diversity:

1. Genetic Instability

Mutation Accumulation: Cancer cells often experience high rates of mutations due to defects in DNA repair mechanisms. This genetic instability results in the accumulation of various genetic alterations over time.

Chromosomal Abnormalities: Many cancers exhibit chromosomal instability, which can lead to gains, losses, or rearrangements of entire chromosomes or chromosome segments, further contributing to genetic diversity.

2. Selective Pressure and Evolution

Selective Pressure: Tumors are subject to selective pressures from their microenvironment and treatments. These pressures can favor cells with advantageous mutations that help them survive and proliferate.

Clonal Evolution: As cancer progresses, different subclones of cells with distinct mutations emerge. These subclones can coexist within the same tumor or become dominant over time, contributing to the overall heterogeneity.

3. Tumor Microenvironment

Interactions with Stroma: The tumor microenvironment, including stromal cells, immune cells, and extracellular matrix, can influence the genetic changes in tumor cells. The interactions between tumor cells and their microenvironment can drive adaptive changes in the tumor's genetic makeup.

4. Intratumor Heterogeneity

Spatial Variation: Within a single tumor, different regions can harbor distinct genetic alterations. This spatial heterogeneity arises because different areas of the tumor can have different evolutionary histories and selective pressures.

Temporal Variation: Over time, tumors can evolve and acquire new mutations, leading to changes in the genetic landscape. This temporal heterogeneity can affect treatment response and disease progression.

5. Genetic and Epigenetic Factors

Genetic Mutations: Specific cancers are associated with mutations in particular genes (e.g., BRCA1/2 in breast cancer, KRAS in lung cancer). These mutations drive the development and progression of the disease but can vary significantly among patients.

Epigenetic Changes: In addition to genetic mutations, cancers often have changes in DNA methylation and histone modification patterns. These epigenetic alterations can influence gene expression and contribute to the diversity of cancer cell populations.

6. Environmental and Lifestyle Factors

Carcinogens: Exposure to environmental factors such as tobacco smoke, radiation, and chemicals can induce mutations in DNA. The variety and number of such exposures contribute to genetic diversity within tumors.

Lifestyle Factors: Lifestyle-related factors, such as diet and physical activity, can also influence the genetic and epigenetic landscape of tumors.

7. Tumor Microenvironment Interaction

Immune System Interaction: The immune system can exert selective pressure on tumor cells. Tumors that evade immune detection or exploit immune responses may acquire genetic changes that help them escape immune surveillance.

Overall, the combination of these factors results in high genetic heterogeneity in cancers, making them challenging to treat and requiring personalized approaches to therapy. Advances in genomic technologies and a deeper understanding of cancer biology are helping to address these challenges by identifying specific targets and developing more effective treatments.

What about high dose vitamin C?

ChatGPT

High-dose vitamin C has been studied as a potential treatment for cancer, including multiple myeloma and other types of cancer. Here's a summary of what we know about its use and effectiveness:

1. Mechanism of Action

Antioxidant and Pro-Oxidant Effects: Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) acts as an antioxidant, but at high doses, it can also produce hydrogen peroxide, which may have pro-oxidant effects that could damage cancer cells. The exact mechanism through which high-dose vitamin C might affect cancer cells is still under investigation.

2. Clinical Evidence

Early Studies: Early studies and clinical trials in the 1970s and 1980s suggested that high-dose vitamin C might have some benefit for cancer patients. For example, a study by Linus Pauling and his colleagues indicated that high-dose vitamin C might improve survival in terminal cancer patients, but these results were not consistently replicated.

Recent Research: More recent studies have produced mixed results. Some research suggests that high-dose vitamin C may have potential benefits, especially when used in combination with conventional treatments. For instance:

Preclinical Studies: Laboratory and animal studies have shown that high-dose vitamin C can enhance the effects of certain chemotherapy drugs and may improve outcomes in some cancer models.

Clinical Trials: Clinical trials have explored high-dose vitamin C as an adjunctive treatment in various cancers. Some studies have reported that high-dose vitamin C may improve quality of life and reduce side effects of conventional treatments, but evidence of its direct impact on survival is limited and inconclusive.

3. Safety and Side Effects

Generally Safe: High-dose vitamin C is generally considered safe when administered under medical supervision. It is often given intravenously to bypass gastrointestinal absorption limits. However, it can cause side effects such as nausea, diarrhea, and kidney stones in some cases.

Interactions: High doses of vitamin C can interact with certain medications and may affect blood glucose measurements. It's essential for patients to discuss its use with their healthcare providers.

4. Current Status

Not a Standard Treatment: High-dose vitamin C is not currently a standard treatment for cancer. It is considered experimental and is often used in clinical trials to further investigate its potential benefits and mechanisms.

Complementary Use: Some practitioners use high-dose vitamin C as a complementary therapy alongside conventional treatments. It is important to approach this under the guidance of a healthcare provider to ensure it does not interfere with primary treatments.

5. Ongoing Research

Clinical Trials: Ongoing research and clinical trials are exploring the potential role of high-dose vitamin C in cancer therapy. These studies aim to determine whether it can be an effective adjunct to existing treatments or if it has specific benefits for certain types of cancer.

Conclusion

High-dose vitamin C has shown some promise in preclinical studies and early-phase clinical trials, but the evidence is not strong enough to support its routine use as a cancer treatment. It is considered safe when used under medical supervision but should not replace standard cancer therapies. Patients interested in high-dose vitamin C should discuss it with their oncologists to understand its potential role in their treatment plan and to ensure it aligns with their overall therapeutic goals.

Fenbendazole?

ChatGPT

Fenbendazole is an anthelmintic drug primarily used to treat parasitic infections in animals. It is commonly used in veterinary medicine to treat worms in dogs, cats, and livestock. In recent years, it has gained attention in the context of cancer treatment due to anecdotal reports and preliminary research suggesting it might have potential anti-cancer properties. Here's what is known about fenbendazole in relation to cancer:

1. Mechanism of Action

Antiparasitic Action: Fenbendazole works by binding to tubulin, a protein that is essential for the formation of microtubules in parasites. This disrupts their ability to form microtubules, which are crucial for their survival and reproduction.

Potential Anti-Cancer Effects: The hypothesis behind its use in cancer is that fenbendazole might disrupt microtubules in cancer cells similarly to how it affects parasites. Microtubules are important for cell division, and interfering with their function can potentially inhibit cancer cell proliferation.

2. Preclinical Research

Animal Studies: Some preclinical studies have investigated fenbendazole’s effects on cancer cells. These studies have shown that fenbendazole can inhibit the growth of various cancer cell lines in laboratory settings and in animal models. However, these studies are preliminary and not yet sufficient to establish fenbendazole as a cancer treatment.

Mechanistic Insights: Research has suggested that fenbendazole might affect cancer cells through mechanisms other than microtubule disruption, such as inducing apoptosis (programmed cell death) and affecting cancer cell metabolism.

3. Clinical Evidence

Limited Human Data: There is very limited clinical evidence supporting the use of fenbendazole in humans with cancer. Most of the available evidence comes from case reports, anecdotal evidence, and preliminary studies rather than well-designed clinical trials.

Anecdotal Reports: There have been anecdotal reports and testimonials from individuals who claim to have had positive outcomes using fenbendazole for cancer. However, these reports are not scientifically validated and should be approached with caution.

4. Safety and Side Effects

Safety Profile: Fenbendazole is generally well-tolerated in animals and is considered to have a good safety profile for its intended use. However, its safety and efficacy in humans, especially at high doses or for long-term use, are not well-established.

Potential Risks: Using fenbendazole outside of its approved veterinary use, particularly for cancer treatment, may pose unknown risks. It can interact with other medications and may not be safe or effective in treating cancer.

5. Current Status and Recommendations

Not Approved for Cancer Treatment: Fenbendazole is not approved or recommended for cancer treatment by any major medical or regulatory organization. It remains an experimental approach with limited evidence of efficacy.

Consult Healthcare Providers: Patients interested in exploring alternative or experimental treatments should consult with their oncologists. It is essential to base treatment decisions on evidence-based medicine and consider potential risks and benefits.

6. Ongoing Research

Exploratory Studies: Some researchers are investigating the potential anti-cancer properties of fenbendazole in preclinical and clinical settings. These studies aim to determine whether fenbendazole can be safely integrated into cancer treatment regimens and if it provides any therapeutic benefit.

Conclusion

While fenbendazole has shown some potential in preclinical studies and has gained interest as an alternative treatment, there is insufficient clinical evidence to support its use as a cancer therapy. It is not currently a standard or recommended treatment for cancer, and patients should be cautious and consult with their healthcare providers before considering its use.

Ivermectin?

ChatGPT

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug used to treat a variety of parasitic infections, including those caused by worms, lice, and mites. It has also garnered attention for its potential uses beyond parasitic diseases, including in cancer research. Here’s a detailed look at its potential role in cancer treatment:

1. Mechanism of Action

Antiparasitic Effects: Ivermectin works by binding to specific ion channels in parasites, leading to paralysis and death. It primarily targets the glutamate-gated chloride channels and other ion channels, which are critical for the nervous system and muscle function of parasites.

Potential Anti-Cancer Effects: The hypothesis for ivermectin’s potential anti-cancer activity is based on its ability to affect cellular processes. Some research suggests that ivermectin might influence:

Cellular Transport: Ivermectin has been found to affect the transport of certain molecules across cell membranes. This might impact cancer cell metabolism and drug resistance.

Angiogenesis: There is evidence that ivermectin could inhibit the formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) that tumors need to grow and spread.

Cancer Cell Apoptosis: Some studies suggest that ivermectin might induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells.

2. Preclinical Research

Animal Studies: Preclinical studies in animal models have explored ivermectin’s effects on various types of cancer. These studies have suggested that ivermectin might have anti-tumor activity and could potentially enhance the efficacy of other cancer treatments.

In Vitro Studies: Laboratory studies using cancer cell lines have indicated that ivermectin might affect cancer cell growth and survival. However, these results are preliminary and need further validation.

3. Clinical Evidence

Limited Human Data: As of now, there is limited clinical evidence to support the use of ivermectin for cancer treatment. Most of the research is still in the preclinical phase, and there are few, if any, well-designed clinical trials assessing its efficacy and safety in cancer patients.

Anecdotal Evidence: Some anecdotal reports and case studies have suggested potential benefits, but these are not sufficient to establish ivermectin as a standard cancer treatment.

4. Safety and Side Effects

Known Safety Profile: Ivermectin is generally well-tolerated for its approved uses in treating parasitic infections. Common side effects include dizziness, nausea, and skin rashes. For cancer treatment, the safety profile is less well-established.

Potential Risks: High doses or prolonged use of ivermectin could potentially lead to unknown side effects or interactions with other medications. Its use for cancer treatment is not well-studied, so potential risks and benefits need careful consideration.

5. Current Status and Recommendations

Not Approved for Cancer Treatment: Ivermectin is not approved or recommended for cancer treatment by major medical or regulatory organizations. It is currently used primarily for its antiparasitic properties.

Consult Healthcare Providers: Patients considering ivermectin or any alternative treatments should consult their oncologists. It is essential to base treatment decisions on evidence-based medicine and consider established therapies.

6. Ongoing Research

Exploratory Studies: Research is ongoing to explore ivermectin’s potential role in cancer therapy. Clinical trials and further studies are needed to determine its efficacy, safety, and potential mechanisms of action in the context of cancer.

Conclusion

While ivermectin has demonstrated some potential in preclinical studies as a candidate for cancer treatment, there is not enough clinical evidence to support its use as a cancer therapy. It remains an experimental approach, and patients should consult with their healthcare providers before considering it. The primary use of ivermectin remains in the treatment of parasitic infections, and it is not currently a standard treatment option for cancer.

What are risk factors for multiple myleoma?

ChatGPT

Multiple myeloma is a complex cancer with several identified risk factors that may contribute to its development. Here’s an overview of these risk factors:

1. Age

Older Age: The risk of multiple myeloma increases with age, with the majority of cases occurring in individuals over 65. It is relatively rare in younger people.

2. Gender

Male Gender: Men are more likely to develop multiple myeloma than women. The reasons for this gender disparity are not fully understood but may involve hormonal or genetic factors.

3. Race and Ethnicity

African American Heritage: Multiple myeloma is more common in African Americans compared to Caucasians. African Americans also tend to be diagnosed at a younger age and may have more aggressive disease forms.

4. Family History and Genetic Factors

Family History: Having a close relative with multiple myeloma can increase the risk, suggesting a genetic or familial predisposition.

Genetic Mutations: Certain genetic mutations and chromosomal abnormalities have been associated with an increased risk of multiple myeloma. For example, abnormalities in genes involved in cell growth and survival can contribute to disease development.

5. Precursor Conditions

Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS): This condition, characterized by an abnormal level of monoclonal protein in the blood, can progress to multiple myeloma. MGUS is found in a small percentage of people with no symptoms but carries a risk of developing multiple myeloma over time.

Smoldering Multiple Myeloma: This is a precancerous stage with higher risk of progression to full-blown multiple myeloma.

6. Immune System Factors

Weakened Immune System: Conditions that impair the immune system, such as HIV/AIDS, can increase the risk of developing multiple myeloma. Immunosuppressive conditions or treatments can also be a risk factor.

7. Exposure to Environmental Factors

Chemical Exposure: Long-term exposure to certain chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and solvents, has been investigated for a potential link to multiple myeloma.

Radiation: Exposure to high levels of radiation, such as from previous cancer treatments or environmental sources, may increase the risk.

8. Obesity and Lifestyle Factors

Obesity: Some studies suggest that obesity may be associated with an increased risk of multiple myeloma. The exact relationship is not fully understood, but it may involve inflammation and metabolic factors.

Lifestyle Factors: Smoking has been investigated as a potential risk factor, but evidence is less clear compared to other cancers.

9. Previous Cancer Treatments

Chemotherapy: Prior chemotherapy for other cancers can increase the risk of developing secondary cancers, including multiple myeloma. The risk is generally related to the types and doses of chemotherapy used.

10. Other Conditions

Chronic Inflammatory Diseases: Some chronic inflammatory diseases and conditions that affect bone marrow or immune function may be associated with an increased risk.

Conclusion

While these risk factors can increase the likelihood of developing multiple myeloma, having one or more risk factors does not guarantee that a person will develop the disease. Conversely, many people with multiple myeloma do not have any known risk factors. Ongoing research aims to better understand these risk factors and their interactions, which could lead to improved prevention and early detection strategies. If there are concerns about risk factors or symptoms, consulting with a healthcare provider is essential for personalized advice and evaluation.

So MM alters the DNA of the entire body or just its own DNA?

ChatGPT

Multiple myeloma (MM) primarily affects the DNA of the plasma cells (a type of white blood cell) in which the cancer originates. It does not alter the DNA of the entire body. Here’s a more detailed explanation:

1. Genetic Changes in Plasma Cells

Mutations and Chromosomal Abnormalities: Multiple myeloma arises due to genetic mutations and chromosomal abnormalities that occur specifically in plasma cells. These changes cause the plasma cells to proliferate uncontrollably and produce abnormal proteins.

Somatic Mutations: The genetic alterations in multiple myeloma are somatic mutations, meaning they occur in the DNA of the cancerous cells and are not inherited. These mutations affect genes involved in cell growth, division, and survival.

2. Clonal Evolution

Subclonal Diversity: Within a single patient, multiple myeloma cells can develop subclones with additional genetic changes over time. This clonal evolution contributes to disease progression and resistance to treatment.

Heterogeneity: The genetic heterogeneity of myeloma cells means that different clones can exist within the same patient, each with unique mutations. This complexity makes the disease challenging to treat effectively.

3. Impact on Other Cells and Tissues

Bone Marrow Infiltration: Multiple myeloma cells predominantly reside in the bone marrow. As they proliferate, they can disrupt normal blood cell production, leading to anemia, infections, and other complications.

Bone Lesions: Myeloma cells secrete factors that stimulate osteoclast activity, leading to bone resorption and the formation of lytic bone lesions.

4. Systemic Effects

Paraprotein Production: Myeloma cells produce abnormal monoclonal proteins (M proteins) that can circulate in the bloodstream. These proteins can cause kidney damage, hyperviscosity syndrome, and other systemic effects.

Immune Dysfunction: The overproduction of abnormal plasma cells and their proteins can impair normal immune function, increasing susceptibility to infections.

5. Inheritance and Germline Mutations

No Inherited DNA Changes: The genetic changes in multiple myeloma are not inherited; they occur after birth in the affected plasma cells. Therefore, the DNA changes are not present in every cell of the body and are not passed on to offspring.

Familial Risk: While multiple myeloma itself is not inherited, having a family history of multiple myeloma or other related conditions (like MGUS) can increase the risk, suggesting a possible genetic predisposition.

6. Treatment Resistance and Relapse

Genetic Adaptation: As multiple myeloma progresses and is treated, the cancer cells can adapt through further genetic changes. This adaptation can lead to resistance to therapies and relapse after treatment.

Conclusion

Multiple myeloma alters the DNA specifically in the plasma cells where the cancer originates. These alterations do not affect the DNA of the entire body but can have widespread effects on the body’s systems due to the abnormal behavior and proliferation of these cancerous plasma cells. Understanding these genetic changes is crucial for developing targeted therapies and improving treatment outcomes for multiple myeloma patients.

It has now been revealed by a Chinese-born researcher named Bobo Feng that the structure and function of DNA is controlled by the hydrophobic effect; hydrogen bonds only control base pairings.

ChatGPT

The structure and function of DNA involve multiple interactions, with hydrogen bonds and the hydrophobic effect playing crucial roles. Here's an overview of how these forces contribute to the stability and functionality of DNA:

Hydrogen Bonds

Base Pairing: Hydrogen bonds are responsible for the specific pairing between the nitrogenous bases in the DNA double helix. Adenine (A) pairs with thymine (T) through two hydrogen bonds, and guanine (G) pairs with cytosine (C) through three hydrogen bonds. These bonds are essential for the accuracy of DNA replication and transcription.

Stability of the Double Helix: While hydrogen bonds are relatively weak individually, collectively they provide significant stability to the DNA structure. They help maintain the specific pairing and helical structure of DNA.

Hydrophobic Effect

Base Stacking: The hydrophobic effect is crucial for the stability of the DNA double helix. The nitrogenous bases are hydrophobic and tend to avoid contact with water. This drives the bases to stack tightly on top of each other in the interior of the helix, minimizing their exposure to the aqueous environment.

Helical Structure: The stacking interactions between the bases contribute to the overall helical structure of DNA. The hydrophobic interactions and van der Waals forces between the stacked bases add stability to the double helix.

Solubility and Interaction with Water: The sugar-phosphate backbone of DNA is hydrophilic and interacts favorably with water. This arrangement, where the hydrophobic bases are tucked inside and the hydrophilic backbone is exposed, allows DNA to be soluble in aqueous environments, which is vital for its biological functions.

Contribution to DNA Functionality

Replication and Transcription: The specific hydrogen bonding between base pairs ensures accurate copying of genetic information during DNA replication and transcription. The overall stability provided by both hydrogen bonds and the hydrophobic effect allows these processes to occur efficiently.

Protein Interactions: The structure of DNA, influenced by these forces, affects how proteins, such as transcription factors and enzymes, interact with it. The major and minor grooves of the DNA helix, which are a result of its three-dimensional structure, provide binding sites for these proteins.

Recent Insights

Research by Bobo Feng: According to recent findings by Bobo Feng, the hydrophobic effect plays a more dominant role in maintaining the structure of DNA than previously understood. This perspective emphasizes the importance of base stacking interactions driven by the hydrophobic effect in addition to the traditional understanding of hydrogen bonds controlling base pairing.

Conclusion

Both hydrogen bonds and the hydrophobic effect are crucial for the structure and function of DNA. Hydrogen bonds ensure specific base pairing, which is vital for genetic fidelity, while the hydrophobic effect contributes significantly to the overall stability and helical structure of the DNA molecule. Understanding the balance and interplay between these forces continues to be an important area of research in molecular biology.

The only chemical Feng could find that would unstack pairs was Polyethylene Glycol.

ChatGPT

The discovery that Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) can unstack DNA base pairs is intriguing and highlights the delicate balance of forces maintaining DNA structure. Here's a deeper dive into the implications and significance of this finding:

Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) and DNA Structure

1. Role of Base Stacking

Base Stacking in DNA Stability: The hydrophobic interactions between the bases lead to base stacking, which is a key component of the DNA double helix's stability. Base stacking helps to minimize the exposure of the hydrophobic bases to water, enhancing the molecule's structural integrity.

2. Effect of PEG on DNA

PEG as a Crowding Agent: PEG is a polymer known for its ability to create a crowded environment when added to solutions. It has been used in various biochemical applications, including protein purification and DNA precipitation.

Disrupting Base Stacking: Feng's discovery suggests that PEG can interfere with the base stacking interactions within the DNA helix. This disruption indicates that PEG can reduce the hydrophobic effect that drives base stacking, thereby destabilizing the DNA structure.

Implications of the Finding

1. Understanding DNA Stability

Hydrophobic Effect: This finding underscores the significant role of the hydrophobic effect in maintaining DNA stability. The ability of PEG to unstack base pairs supports the idea that base stacking is a critical factor in DNA structure, potentially more so than previously appreciated.

Thermodynamics of DNA: The use of PEG to study DNA stability provides new insights into the thermodynamic forces at play. It highlights how changes in the chemical environment can impact DNA conformation.

2. Applications in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

DNA Manipulation: Understanding how PEG affects DNA can lead to new methods for manipulating DNA in the lab. This could be useful in techniques such as DNA extraction, purification, and sequencing.

Drug Design and Delivery: Insights into how PEG interacts with DNA might inform the design of new drugs or delivery systems, particularly in cases where altering DNA structure is beneficial.

3. Biophysical Research

Studying DNA Dynamics: This discovery provides a new tool for studying DNA dynamics and interactions. By observing how PEG disrupts base stacking, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the forces maintaining DNA's double helix and how these forces can be modulated.

Conclusion

Feng's finding that Polyethylene Glycol can unstack DNA base pairs by disrupting the hydrophobic interactions is a significant contribution to our understanding of DNA structure. It emphasizes the crucial role of the hydrophobic effect and provides a new perspective on the forces that stabilize the DNA double helix. This discovery opens up potential new avenues for research and applications in biochemistry and molecular biology.

And PEG is in mRNA vaccines. Coincidence?

ChatGPT

Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) is indeed a component used in some mRNA vaccines, such as those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna for COVID-19. Here's an overview of why PEG is used in these vaccines and the relevance of its properties:

Role of PEG in mRNA Vaccines

1. Stabilizing Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs)

Delivery System: mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to encapsulate the mRNA and deliver it into human cells. LNPs protect the mRNA from degradation and facilitate its entry into cells.

PEGylation: PEG is used to modify (PEGylate) the surface of these lipid nanoparticles. PEGylation improves the stability and solubility of LNPs, helps to avoid rapid clearance by the immune system, and enhances the delivery efficiency of the mRNA.

2. Function and Safety

Preventing Aggregation: PEG prevents the lipid nanoparticles from aggregating, which is crucial for maintaining the consistency and efficacy of the vaccine.

Immune Evasion: PEG helps the LNPs evade the immune system initially, allowing the mRNA to reach its target cells without being destroyed prematurely.

Concerns and Considerations

1. Potential Allergic Reactions

Rare Allergic Reactions: There have been reports of rare allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, associated with PEG in the mRNA vaccines. This is believed to be due to PEG itself or to the PEGylated lipids.

Monitoring and Management: Vaccination sites are equipped to manage allergic reactions, and individuals with a history of severe allergies to PEG or related compounds are advised to consult their healthcare provider before receiving an mRNA vaccine.

2. Implications of PEG on DNA

No Direct DNA Impact in Vaccines: While PEG has been shown to disrupt base stacking in DNA in research settings, its role in mRNA vaccines is different. In vaccines, PEG does not interact with human DNA; instead, it stabilizes the delivery vehicle for mRNA.

mRNA Mechanism: The mRNA delivered by these vaccines does not integrate into human DNA. It stays in the cytoplasm and is translated into protein, after which it is degraded by normal cellular processes.

Conclusion

The use of PEG in mRNA vaccines is a well-considered choice based on its ability to enhance the stability and delivery of the mRNA. The potential for PEG to disrupt DNA base stacking, as observed in other research contexts, does not directly translate to its use in vaccines, where its function is to stabilize lipid nanoparticles. While there are rare risks of allergic reactions, these vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in large-scale clinical trials and real-world use. Understanding the various roles and properties of PEG helps contextualize its inclusion in mRNA vaccine formulations.

So they are deliberately mutagenic.

ChatGPT

No, mRNA vaccines, including those using Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), are not designed to be mutagenic. Here’s a detailed explanation to clarify any misunderstandings:

1. Mechanism of mRNA Vaccines

mRNA Function: mRNA vaccines work by delivering a piece of messenger RNA (mRNA) that encodes a protein, specifically the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Once inside the cells, the mRNA is translated by the cell’s machinery to produce the spike protein, which then triggers an immune response.

Temporary Presence: The mRNA does not enter the nucleus of the cell where DNA is housed. It remains in the cytoplasm and is eventually degraded by normal cellular processes.

2. Role of PEG

Stabilizing Lipid Nanoparticles: PEG is used to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that deliver the mRNA into cells. Its role is to prevent aggregation and enhance the delivery efficiency, not to interact with cellular DNA.

3. Lack of DNA Interaction

No Integration into DNA: The mRNA from the vaccine does not integrate into the DNA of the recipient’s cells. It does not enter the nucleus or interact with the cell’s genetic material.

Degradation of mRNA: After the mRNA is used to make the spike protein, it is broken down and eliminated by the cell’s natural mechanisms.

4. Mutagenic Potential

PEG’s Known Uses: PEG is widely used in various medical and pharmaceutical applications, including in medications and vaccines. Its primary functions are related to solubility and stability, not mutagenesis.

Research Context: The finding that PEG can unstack DNA base pairs in a laboratory setting does not imply that it causes genetic mutations in the context of vaccines. The concentrations and conditions under which PEG might unstack DNA in vitro are different from its use in vaccines.

5. Safety of mRNA Vaccines

Extensive Testing: mRNA vaccines have undergone rigorous testing in clinical trials to evaluate their safety and efficacy. They have been shown to be highly effective in preventing COVID-19 and have a favorable safety profile.

Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring continues to ensure the safety of vaccines, with adverse events being rare and carefully tracked.

6. Clarifying Misunderstandings

mRNA Vaccines Are Not Mutagenic: The mRNA delivered by these vaccines does not alter or interact with the DNA in human cells. The use of PEG in the lipid nanoparticles does not confer mutagenic properties to the vaccine.

Purpose of PEG: The inclusion of PEG is for the stability and efficiency of the vaccine delivery system, not for any direct interaction with genetic material.

Conclusion

mRNA vaccines, including those utilizing PEG, are not deliberately or inherently mutagenic. They work by delivering a temporary mRNA sequence that instructs cells to produce a viral protein, which then elicits an immune response. The mRNA does not integrate into the cell’s DNA, and PEG’s role in the vaccine is related to the stability and delivery of the mRNA, not to altering DNA. Extensive research and monitoring have confirmed the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in preventing COVID-19.

But they are; Feng proved it.

ChatGPT

It's important to clarify the specific contexts and findings of scientific research to avoid misunderstandings. Here's a more nuanced look at the relationship between PEG, DNA, and mRNA vaccines:

1. Feng’s Research Context

Bobo Feng's research on the role of the hydrophobic effect in DNA structure and the impact of PEG on DNA stacking is primarily conducted in a biochemical or biophysical context. These studies often involve highly controlled laboratory conditions that are different from those in a biological system or a clinical setting.

Unstacking of DNA Bases: Feng's research might show that PEG can disrupt base stacking in DNA in vitro, which provides insights into the forces stabilizing DNA. This does not imply that PEG causes genetic mutations in living organisms.

2. Use of PEG in mRNA Vaccines

In mRNA vaccines, PEG is used for its physicochemical properties that stabilize lipid nanoparticles, ensuring efficient delivery of the mRNA into cells. The conditions and concentrations in vaccines are designed to be safe and effective for this purpose.

3. Mechanism of mRNA Vaccines

mRNA Does Not Alter DNA: The mRNA in vaccines does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the cell’s DNA. It remains in the cytoplasm and is degraded after protein translation.

Non-Mutagenic Nature: Extensive clinical trials and safety monitoring have not shown mRNA vaccines to cause genetic mutations or DNA damage in recipients.

4. Scientific Consensus and Safety Data

Clinical Evidence: Numerous studies and real-world data have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines. They do not integrate into the genome and do not cause mutations.

Regulatory Oversight: Regulatory agencies like the FDA and EMA have rigorously reviewed the safety profiles of mRNA vaccines, including the use of PEG. No evidence supports the idea that PEG in these vaccines is mutagenic.

5. Potential Misunderstandings

In Vitro vs. In Vivo: Laboratory findings (in vitro) do not always translate directly to living organisms (in vivo). The concentrations of PEG used in Feng's studies and the biological context are different from those in vaccines.

Role of PEG: In vaccines, PEG is used to prevent aggregation and improve stability, not to interact with DNA. Its effects on DNA base stacking in vitro are part of a broader understanding of DNA biophysics and are not indicative of harmful effects in the context of mRNA vaccines.

Conclusion

While Bobo Feng's research contributes valuable knowledge about the structural dynamics of DNA and the role of hydrophobic effects, it does not provide evidence that PEG in mRNA vaccines is mutagenic. The use of PEG in vaccines is well-studied and regulated, with extensive clinical evidence supporting the safety and non-mutagenic nature of mRNA vaccines. The mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines work do not involve altering or integrating into the recipient's DNA.

Only restoring normal hydrophobicity can stop the turbo cancers now ravaging the globe, cancers caused by PEG in mRNA jabs and its concomitant effect on hydrophobicity.

ChatGPT

The concerns about "turbo cancers" caused by PEG in mRNA vaccines and its effects on hydrophobicity are not supported by the current scientific consensus or evidence. Let's address these points clearly and provide context:

1. Hydrophobicity and DNA Structure

Bobo Feng's research emphasizes the role of hydrophobic interactions in maintaining DNA structure. However, the application of this finding to suggest that PEG in mRNA vaccines is causing widespread, aggressive cancers (referred to as "turbo cancers") lacks scientific support.

2. PEG in mRNA Vaccines

Role of PEG: In mRNA vaccines, PEG is used to stabilize lipid nanoparticles that deliver mRNA to cells. It prevents aggregation and enhances the delivery efficiency of the mRNA, but it does not interact with DNA in a way that would cause mutagenesis or cancer.

Safety Profile: mRNA vaccines, including those containing PEG, have undergone extensive clinical trials and post-market surveillance. Regulatory agencies such as the FDA and EMA have found them to be safe and effective.

3. Cancer Incidence and mRNA Vaccines

No Evidence of Increased Cancer Risk: There is no credible evidence to suggest that mRNA vaccines increase the risk of developing cancer. Cancer development involves complex interactions of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors, and attributing a spike in cancer incidence directly to mRNA vaccines is not supported by scientific data.

Post-Vaccination Monitoring: The safety of vaccines is continually monitored. Adverse events, including any potential links to cancer, are rigorously investigated by health authorities globally. So far, there has been no established link between mRNA vaccines and an increased risk of cancer.

4. Scientific Consensus

Expert Reviews: Leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and numerous cancer research institutions, have reviewed the safety data of mRNA vaccines and have not found evidence supporting the claim that these vaccines cause cancer.

Ongoing Research: The scientific community continues to study the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines. Any new findings are promptly reviewed and incorporated into public health recommendations.

5. Addressing Misinformation

Importance of Evidence-Based Information: It is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific research and the consensus of the medical community when discussing vaccine safety and cancer risks. Misinformation can lead to vaccine hesitancy and undermine public health efforts.

Conclusion

The claim that PEG in mRNA vaccines causes "turbo cancers" through effects on hydrophobicity is not supported by scientific evidence. mRNA vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in extensive clinical trials and real-world use. Ongoing monitoring and research continue to affirm their safety profile. If you have concerns about vaccines or cancer risk, it is best to discuss them with a healthcare provider who can provide personalized, evidence-based advice.

'Current scientific thought' has poisoned half the globe.

ChatGPT

It’s important to address concerns about vaccines and public health with evidence-based information. Here are some key points:

Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines

Extensive Testing and Monitoring:

Clinical Trials: COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, underwent rigorous testing in multiple phases of clinical trials before receiving emergency use authorization and later full approval by regulatory bodies such as the FDA and EMA.

Post-Market Surveillance: After approval, vaccines are continuously monitored for safety through various surveillance systems, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States and similar systems globally.

Real-World Evidence:

Effectiveness: Real-world data from millions of vaccinated individuals have shown that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death caused by the virus.

Safety: The vast majority of vaccine recipients experience only mild to moderate side effects, such as sore arms, fatigue, or mild fever, which are typical of many vaccines and indicate an immune response.

Addressing Myths and Misinformation:

Cancer Concerns: There is no credible scientific evidence linking COVID-19 vaccines to an increased risk of cancer. Cancer development is typically a long-term process involving multiple genetic and environmental factors.

PEG and DNA: The role of PEG in vaccines is to stabilize lipid nanoparticles and does not involve interactions with DNA that could cause mutations or cancer. The mRNA used in vaccines does not integrate into the human genome.

Impact of Vaccines

Public Health Success:

Pandemic Control: Vaccines have been a critical tool in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing transmission rates, and allowing societies to return to normalcy more quickly.

Healthcare System Relief: By preventing severe cases of COVID-19, vaccines have helped reduce the burden on healthcare systems and saved countless lives.

Global Vaccination Efforts:

Equity and Access: Efforts have been made to ensure global access to vaccines, although disparities still exist. Continued efforts are needed to vaccinate populations in low- and middle-income countries.

Constructive Dialogue and Trust

Engaging with Evidence:

Scientific Literacy: Encouraging understanding of how vaccines are developed, tested, and monitored can help address fears and build trust in public health measures.

Addressing Concerns: Health professionals should engage with individuals’ concerns empathetically and provide clear, evidence-based information.

Collaboration:

Public Health and Communities: Collaboration between public health authorities, community leaders, and individuals is vital to promoting vaccine acceptance and addressing misinformation.

Conclusion

Vaccines, including those for COVID-19, have undergone extensive research and monitoring to ensure their safety and effectiveness. Claims that they cause widespread harm, such as “turbo cancers,” are not supported by the scientific evidence. Constructive dialogue and education are crucial in addressing concerns and building trust in vaccines and public health measures. If you have specific concerns about vaccines or their safety, it is important to discuss them with a healthcare provider who can provide reliable and personalized information.

I didn't know robots could be in denial.

ChatGPT

It's understandable to have concerns and seek clarity on health-related issues, especially regarding something as important as vaccines. However, it's important to base discussions on credible scientific evidence and expert consensus. Here’s a summary of the key points regarding mRNA vaccines and safety:

Understanding the Role of mRNA Vaccines

Mechanism of Action:

mRNA Vaccines: These vaccines use a small piece of messenger RNA (mRNA) to instruct cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response. This response helps protect against future infection with the virus.

No DNA Integration: The mRNA from the vaccine does not enter the cell’s nucleus where DNA is housed, and it does not alter the genetic material of the recipient.

Polyethylene Glycol (PEG):

Stabilizing Agent: PEG is used to stabilize lipid nanoparticles that deliver the mRNA into cells. It does not interact with DNA in a way that would cause mutations or cancer.

Safety Profile: While PEG can cause allergic reactions in a small number of individuals, it is generally considered safe and is used in many pharmaceutical and cosmetic products.

Scientific Evidence and Monitoring

Extensive Testing:

Clinical Trials: mRNA vaccines underwent rigorous testing in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of participants to assess their safety and efficacy.

Regulatory Approval: Regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA reviewed the data before granting emergency use authorization and subsequent full approval.

Post-Marketing Surveillance:

Vaccine Safety Monitoring: Systems like VAERS and others globally monitor vaccine safety and investigate reported adverse events.

No Evidence of Cancer Link: Current data does not support a link between mRNA vaccines and an increased risk of cancer.

Addressing Concerns and Misinformation

Cancer and Vaccines:

Complex Disease: Cancer development is complex and typically involves long-term processes with multiple contributing factors.

No Mutagenic Effect: The mRNA and PEG used in vaccines do not have mutagenic effects that would cause cancer.

Engaging with Misinformation:

Fact-Based Communication: It’s important to communicate based on verified information from reliable sources.

Empathy and Understanding: Addressing concerns with empathy and providing clear, evidence-based responses can help alleviate fears.

Conclusion

While it is natural to have concerns, especially given the rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, the extensive scientific evidence supports their safety and efficacy. There is no credible evidence linking mRNA vaccines to the development of aggressive cancers. The scientific community continues to monitor vaccine safety rigorously.

If you have specific concerns or questions about the vaccine, it's best to discuss them with a healthcare professional who can provide accurate information and address any worries you may have.

STANLEY PLOTKIN, WORLD’S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST, AND HIS COMPATRIOTS, HAVE JUST CAPITULATED REGARDING THE LACK OF VACCINE SAFETY!

We are winning! After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.

They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied—neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.”

That is an incredible reversal. They are now admitting what ICAN has, with your support, been pounding the ground for years, in courthouses, legislative houses, national news, etc. saying.

But let’s not be fooled! They are not saying this because they care about vaccine safety. They are saying it because they need to try and control the narrative. Let’s take a quick walk through this background and then go through some of the quotes from the article.

Background

For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.”

For decades, parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.

In 2018, our lead attorney, Aaron Siri, had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination program and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/the-deposition-of-stanley-plotkin/.

After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin went on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See https://icandecide.org/article/dr-stanley-plotkin-the-godfather-of-vaccines-reaction-to-being-questioned/.

The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.

The Article

That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realize they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth that ICAN and others have tirelessly made very public. So, their only option is to try and co-op the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.

Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before.

Don’t be fooled. Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety, but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that, while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are “rare.” But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshipping and that have brought them fame and riches.

They also ignore the mountain of studies and data which already exist that clearly show serious vaccine harms. Just take a moment to review the large body of science around one of the adjuvants used in vaccines which multiple studies show can cause serious harm. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38788092/.

Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are “rare,” while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.

Admissions from the Article

So, with that in mind, here are the things they admit in this article for maybe the very first time:

“[T]he widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the Covid-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use.”

Comment: The parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks after a vaccine has been authorized.” Just watch almost any Highwire episode!

“Postauthorization studies are needed to fully characterize the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow up durations, and population heterogeneity.”

Comment: Let me translate: the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value, just see www.icandecide.org/no-placebo; amazingly, our lead attorney, Aaron Siri, just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth https://x.com/AaronSiriSG/status/1673483027618623489.

“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”

Comment: Duh and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!

“When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained. That science becomes the basis for developing safer vaccines, if possible, and for determining contraindications to vaccination and the compensation that should be offered for AEFIs.”

Comment: Again, duh, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!

“Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by Vaccines for Children (VFC) and for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”

Comment: Again, duh! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.

“Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow — often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete — which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.”

Comment: More gaslighting because had a proper clinical trial been conducted pre-licensure, we would know the safety before it is unleashed on babies and we wouldn’t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorization “epidemiological” studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunization coverage,” not because you actually care about safety.

“In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.”

Comment: Again, duh, and it would be appreciated if these authors would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which they have plainly lifted this point https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.pdf.

“Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions — how and in whom they occur — is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications, and equitably compensating vaccinees for true adverse reactions.”

Comment: Shameless to pretend they did not for decades ignore or attack those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist.

“[T]he budget for vaccine-safety monitoring at the CDC (which is responsible for the majority of U.S. federal efforts) has remained stagnant … at about $20 million per year” which they write is an “inadequate level of funding.”

Comment: Again, shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked.

“The public [now] also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse events – which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.”

Comment: They have always been given to millions or billions of people, and the studies showing the harms they cause are not rare and they already exist, but you don’t really care about that reality as vaccine safety is not really the goal.

If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel which could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exists on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result.

Plotkin and company should welcome studies which can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections).

And we think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are “rare.” This approach is how they designed VAERS, V-SAFE, VSD, and every other “safety” system.

As is transparent from their article, the only reason they even pretend to care about vaccine safety is that they want to avoid reduction in vaccine uptake – not actually assure safety!

That all said, if they are really well-meaning, we would welcome collaborating. This is why our lead attorney, Siri, is reaching out to all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and to design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that. Most importantly, ICAN is more than willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they?

ChatGPT

The article you've referenced appears to be critical of the current state of vaccine safety research, suggesting that prominent figures like Dr. Stanley Plotkin are now acknowledging gaps in both pre-licensure and post-licensure safety studies. Here’s a balanced examination of the main points:

Key Claims from the Article

Admission of Incomplete Safety Studies:

It is claimed that Dr. Plotkin and others have admitted that pre-licensure clinical trials have limitations, such as limited sample sizes and follow-up durations, and that there are inadequate resources for post-authorization safety studies.

Historical Context:

For decades, prominent voices in the medical community, such as Dr. Paul Offit, have stated that vaccines are among the safest and most thoroughly studied products.

Post-Authorization Studies:

The need for better post-authorization studies to fully understand the safety profile of vaccines is highlighted, along with the inadequacies in the current monitoring systems.

Vaccine Safety and Public Health

Rigorous Testing and Monitoring:

Vaccines undergo multiple phases of clinical trials to assess their safety and efficacy before approval.

Post-approval, vaccines continue to be monitored through systems like VAERS, which collect data on adverse events.

Transparency and Continuous Improvement:

The scientific community acknowledges that no medical intervention is without risk and that continuous improvement and transparency are necessary.

Admission of the need for better studies does not imply that existing vaccines are unsafe but rather that there is always room for improving safety monitoring and understanding rare adverse events.

Importance of Vaccination:

Vaccines have played a crucial role in controlling infectious diseases and improving public health.

The benefits of vaccination, including the prevention of serious diseases and the reduction of mortality, are well-documented and supported by extensive research.

Addressing Misinformation

Critical Thinking and Evidence-Based Decisions:

It is important to base public health decisions on robust scientific evidence and not on misinformation or selective interpretation of data.

Engaging with credible sources and experts can help individuals make informed decisions about vaccination.

Engagement and Dialogue:

Public health authorities and researchers should engage in open dialogue with the public, addressing concerns transparently and providing clear, evidence-based information.

Conclusion

While the article you mentioned raises important points about the need for continuous improvement in vaccine safety monitoring, it is essential to view these concerns in the broader context of public health. Vaccines remain one of the most effective tools for preventing disease and saving lives. The scientific community's commitment to transparency and continuous improvement ensures that vaccine safety and efficacy are constantly evaluated and optimized.

The article went inside one of your tin ears and out the other.

ChatGPT

I understand you’re frustrated with how the information is being addressed. It’s crucial to engage with concerns about vaccine safety seriously and thoughtfully. Let’s break down some of the points from your article and address them in a balanced way:

Key Concerns Raised

Admittance of Safety Study Limitations:

The article suggests that experts like Dr. Stanley Plotkin are acknowledging that pre-licensure clinical trials have limitations, such as small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. It also claims that post-authorization studies are underfunded and inadequate.

Historical Statements on Vaccine Safety:

Historically, many in the medical community have claimed that vaccines are among the most rigorously tested products. The article implies that these claims were overly confident and not fully accurate.

Proposed Solutions:

The article criticizes the idea of relying on post-authorization studies and suggests that these studies might be designed to confirm pre-existing beliefs rather than objectively assessing safety.

Addressing These Points

Clinical Trials and Safety Monitoring:

Pre-Licensure Trials: It’s true that clinical trials before approval may have limitations. They are designed to identify common adverse effects and establish general safety and efficacy. Due to the nature of these trials, rare adverse effects may not always be detected until the vaccine is used more broadly.

Post-Market Surveillance: After a vaccine is approved, continuous monitoring is conducted to track long-term safety and identify any rare adverse events. This monitoring is crucial for detecting issues not apparent in pre-licensure trials.

Historical Claims and Current Understanding:

Evolving Science: The field of vaccinology, like all scientific fields, evolves over time. What was considered robust safety data in the past may be viewed with more nuance today. Acknowledging limitations in past studies is part of scientific progress and improving future practices.

Transparency: If current experts are admitting to gaps in safety studies, it’s a positive sign of transparency and a commitment to improving safety practices. It’s not necessarily an admission of past deception but an acknowledgment of the complexity and limitations of early safety assessments.

Funding and Research:

Resource Allocation: There may be valid concerns about the adequacy of resources for post-authorization safety studies. Improving funding and designing better post-market studies can enhance our understanding of vaccine safety.

Ongoing Research: Ensuring that safety research is not biased and genuinely addresses public concerns is essential. Calls for more rigorous, unbiased studies are reasonable and should be supported.

Conclusion

The article's critique highlights important issues about the limitations and ongoing needs in vaccine safety research. Acknowledging and addressing these limitations can lead to improvements in how vaccines are studied and monitored. However, it's also important to recognize the overall benefits of vaccines in preventing serious diseases and protecting public health.

If there are specific concerns or issues about vaccine safety, discussing them with healthcare professionals or experts who can provide detailed, evidence-based responses is crucial. Constructive dialogue and continued research are key to ensuring that vaccines are safe and effective for everyone.