Thanks for sharing this thread.

$300 USD from an ophthalmologist in the US. $15 USD from a pharmacist in Bangkok.

Start here. Probably no violent takeover, there, but a nice museum nonetheless.

8/ What would actually prove shedding? Suppose we wanted to investigate the authors’ hypothesis rigorously. What evidence would we need? First, demonstrate that vaccinated individuals release identifiable vaccine-derived material into respiratory secretions, saliva, sweat, or another plausible exposure medium. Second, measure how much is released, how long it persists, and whether the material remains biologically functional. Third, demonstrate that another person can acquire that material under realistic exposure conditions. Finally, establish whether the transferred material produces measurable biological or clinical consequences. Each step requires appropriate controls, validated methods, and independent replication. Until those steps are demonstrated, the proposed human-to-human shedding mechanism remains a hypothesis. And even detecting transfer would not automatically establish harm.

5/ Extracellular vesicles The authors place considerable emphasis on extracellular vesicles: microscopic membrane-bound particles that cells release and that can transport proteins, RNA, and other molecular cargo. This is legitimate biology. Extracellular vesicles participate in communication between cells, and researchers are investigating their potential roles in disease, diagnostics, and drug delivery. But here is the missing step. Showing that a cell can package molecular material into a vesicle does not establish that vaccinated people release biologically significant quantities of that material into their breath, saliva, or sweat. Nor does it demonstrate that another person can absorb sufficient material to produce a biological effect. A possible transport mechanism is not evidence that the proposed transmission event actually occurs.

3/ Detection is not biological activity One of the most important distinctions in molecular biology is the difference between detecting a molecule and demonstrating that it remains functional. Sensitive analytical methods can identify tiny quantities of RNA, including fragments that are no longer capable of producing proteins. A 2023 study detected trace vaccine mRNA in breast milk following some vaccination exposures. But the detected material was substantially fragmented, and investigators could not demonstrate spike protein production in their tested recipient-cell system. That distinction matters enormously. The presence of a molecular fragment tells us something about distribution and clearance. It does not automatically tell us whether the fragment can enter another person’s cells, produce proteins, alter physiology, or cause disease.

A new paper by John Catanzaro, Nicolas Hulscher, and Peter McCullough proposes that mRNA COVID vaccines may produce persistent biological effects and potentially transfer vaccine-derived material between people. The accompanying article goes further, calling for an immediate halt to mRNA technology. Those are extraordinary claims. But the paper also cites several genuine scientific observations that deserve to be understood rather than dismissed. So what does the evidence actually establish? And where does a plausible biological mechanism become an unsupported conclusion? Let’s examine the science.

10/ Can Elon Musk rebuild his reputation? WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR ELON MUSK TO REBUILD HIS REPUTATION? Perhaps the most interesting question is whether he even wants to. Musk has already demonstrated that he can build extraordinarily successful businesses while generating intense public controversy. And recent improvements in Tesla’s brand perception suggest reputational damage need not be permanent. But restoring a company’s reputation is different from restoring trust in the person behind it. For those who have become disillusioned with Musk, another technological breakthrough or a few months of less inflammatory rhetoric may not be enough. Rebuilding trust might require something more sustained: acknowledging consequential mistakes, engaging critics without personal hostility, demonstrating greater responsibility in the exercise of his considerable influence, and allowing actions over time to speak more convincingly than declarations. None of that would require him to abandon his political beliefs. Nor would it guarantee that everyone would like him. It would mean demonstrating that disagreement need not become contempt, and that extraordinary influence can coexist with accountability. There is no reliable formula for rehabilitating a public reputation. Some people may never change their minds. Others might, given sufficient evidence. Which leaves one final question: Does Elon Musk want to regain the trust of people he has alienated—or has polarization become an acceptable price of the influence he now exercises?