Lastly, I always thought his public response to his then (now ex) wife’s cancer diagnosis was unintentionally funny; on hearing the news, he said “Great, here’s another reason she won’t fuck me.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49585944)

Lmfao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586336)

a close family friend got the death jab booster & had a stroke the next day and lived grimly on for 2 more years, 95% disabled, before dying.

a woman i know developed permanent tinnitus from it. a guy i know got Guillain-Barré syndrome.

and i really don't know that many people.

they released this as slow acting poison (for most) to give them plausible deniability, i guess, with the media and scientific establishment running cover. slow acting population reduction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49585979)

a very good friend got Guillain-Barré syndrom too. Our lib neighbors still talk about getting boosted - unreal

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586010)

Mechanism 1: Cellular Transformation due to Spike Protein Biology

The transformation of a normal cell into a cancer cell involves disruption of multiple safeguards controlling cell growth, survival, and DNA repair. The COVID mRNA vaccines work by instructing the body’s cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein for prolonged periods of time (anywhere from days to weeks, to months and even years). This foreign spike protein then elicits an immune response.

Laboratory studies have reported that the spike protein, whether it is produced by infection or by vaccination, has biological activities. It interacts with cellular pathways that regulate the cell cycle, tumor suppressor functions, and DNA damage repair pathways and machinery. Therefore, in theory, such interactions of spike protein with these pathways could contribute to cellular transformation— although the same could be said for infection with COVID-19 itself. The difference however, lies in the duration of spike protein produced after vaccination compared to natural infection. This also raises an important question about whether multiple COVID infections is biologically equivalent to the artificial spike protein produced by the vaccine.

Since the spike protein that is produced by the mRNA can persist for as little as a few days, to weeks, months and even years1 after vaccination, it is important to acknowledge whether cancer incidence correlates with spike protein expression (or persistence) in the body but also whether it is present in tumors. A recent case study showed evidence that spike protein can be found expressed in metastatic breast cancer2 . Thus, in thinking about the relationship between COVID vaccination and cancer, chronic exposure to an agent with biological activity that disrupts cell cycle and DNA damage response pathways is very important to consider. Outright dismissing this possibility seems negligent. Currently data is insufficient to make any firm conclusions about any of this in a conclusive manner and in the absence of such data means this mechanism cannot be dismissed outright.

Mechanism 2: Genomic integration and dysregulated gene expression due to residual DNA contaminants

It is now acknowledged by the manufactures, the FDA, as well as others including a lab from the NIH3 that residual DNA impurities are present in mRNA vaccines.

While many have argued that the quantities present in the vaccine preparations are too small to pose harm, the facts remain: (1) these fragments exist, (2) they are delivered in a lipid nanoparticle that efficiently allows the DNA to enter cells and the nucleus, and (3) the size of these fragments can readily integrate into the genome —especially when cells are dividing and undergoing natural DNA repair. Since no studies have been conducted demonstrating that the quantity of these impurities are insufficient to transfect cells, and that they do not integrate, it is complete speculation at this time that this cannot and does not happen. Said differently, no studies have yet shown that these impurities are too minimal to enter cells or integrate into DNA.

For Pfizer’s vaccine, a subset of the impurities contain DNA sequences that are viral regulatory elements, which by definition influence gene expression. In addition, new findings suggest that the Pfizer’s vaccine also contains DNA that is methylated, which can stimulate a pathway in cells called cGAS-STING. Therefore, at least in case of the Pfizer vaccine, these DNA impurities cannot only integrate, but they can potentially have far more reaching effects.

DNA integration events in the wrong genomic context could, in principle, dysregulate gene expression and contribute to cellular transformation, especially if combined with prolonged cGAS-STING pathway activation and SV40 promoter gene regulation.

The bedrock of molecular biology is the ability to use lipid nanoparticles to introduce DNA into cells. An undisputed byproduct of this is that some fraction of the DNA will integrate. And when it integrates, it has the ability to alter gene expression and disrupt gene function. To assume this cannot happen with the DNA impurities in the mRNA vaccines is misleading. We simply do not know the fate of the DNA impurities in the mRNA vaccine products when they come into contact with cells (either in vitro or in vivo). There is no data to assert that this cannot and that it does not happen after vaccination.

Nearly all molecular biologists would agree that delivering DNA in lipid nanoparticles to cells is DNA transfection- pure and simple. Hence this mechanism (and the effects of SV40 promoter sequence integration as well as transfected methylated DNA) make it possible in theory for the DNA contaminates to initiate or drive cellular transformation in the right context. The open question is how often it occurs and does it occur. To date, the answer to this is unknown, and as mentioned above, no one is studying whether this occurs and at what frequency. Therefore we cannot draw any conclusions (either in support or against) these mechanisms at this time.

Mechanism 3: Immune Dysregulation: The Most Plausible Link

The most plausible mechanism linking vaccination to cancer, especially with respect to the temporal associations, involves the immune system. Several peer-reviewed studies have documented immune alterations following repeated mRNA vaccination, including increased inflammatory cytokines, T-cell exhaustion, elevated IgG4 antibody production, and transient immune suppression4.

As described in prior Substacks, the immune system serves as a critical gatekeeper against cancer, identifying and eliminating transformed cells before they can progress. It can also act as a potent carcinogen and cancer driver through in the form of inflammation, especially when chronic. Hence, if the immune system is temporarily impaired or dysregulated, or excessively reactive, the combination of failed immunosurveillance and chronic inflammation, could not only allow preexisting abnormal cells to expand, but in fact promote them towards full neoplastic transformation. This could lead to promoted and even accelerated tumorigenesis, easily observed within the temporal windows that have been described.

Timing and Cancer Development

Most solid tumors require years to develop. Therefore, any cancer that appears within 6–12 months of vaccination, (except for certain lymphomas, which can progress from initial malignant transformation within weeks to a few months), is unlikely to result from initiating events caused by the mRNA vaccine through mechanisms 1 or 2.

However, even if the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is not the initiating factor, there remain plausible scenarios in which pre-existing pre-malignant or occult cancer cells, (already genetically unstable and poised for full neoplastic transformation), could be accelerated by unintended effects of the spike protein or by rare DNA-integration events. Moreover, any dormant or microscopic cancer held in check by immune surveillance could, in principle, be unleashed or promoted through immune dysregulation (mechanism 3).

Assessing and quantifying these potential mechanisms must become a research priority if we are to make sense of the growing number of reports linking cancer onset to COVID-19 vaccination and to determine whether these associations reflect true causal relationships.

Long-term, population-level studies will be essential to reveal whether certain cancer types,particularly rare or aggressive subtypes, occur more frequently in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals. For this reason, it is imperative for public health that the scientific community and regulatory agencies commit to rigorous, unbiased investigation of these questions.

While each of these mechanisms warrants study, the effects on the immune system deserve the most urgent attention. Understanding whether, and under what circumstances, vaccine-induced immune alterations have lasting biological consequences is critical not only for vaccine safety, but also for advancing our broader understanding of tumor immunology and for developing interventions that could prevent a potential surge in cancers.

https://charlottekupewasserphd.substack.com/p/the-third-rail-covid-19-vaccines

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586357)

ive said this before but ill repeat it now that you're trying to turn over a new leaf on not being so negative: if you truly believe the vax is a heart attack jab then you should be *very* sympathetic to the people who fucking died being tricked or coerced into taking it. especially someone like adams who it makes no sense to think he "caved" and thus must have been tricked into drinking poison.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586007)

ok, let's say for the sake of argument that you are a super genius and have it all figured out. that doesn't change the fact that the average person is 100 IQ, and thus most do not possess the capacity to figure things out in the way you have.

so why would you not feel sympathy towards people that were tricked into harming themselves? of course you don't "have" to feel sympathy for anyone, im asking why you don't.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586045)

scott adams is (was) a self-employed millionaire who was free from a lot of that leverage, yet he still caved

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586073)

edit: thought this was consuela but since he evaded the Q this still is unanswered

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586081)

If you think it's fair to condemn him for being fallible, as all humans are, that's your prerogative. I think that's unreasonable and heartless. Especially when they've already paid the ultimate price for it. You yourself claim to revise your theories when they've been incorrect, and I doubt even you would claim that everything you've published will be proven to be 100% correct.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586170)

He had zero real "insights" on anything and would always make sure that his "predictions" weren't actually falsifiable so he could lie and say that he actually got it right. The minute that some social issue came along for which the correct answer wasn't blindingly obvious (covid), he got it completely wrong and then in his typical fashion acted outrageously over the top arrogant about it despite being completely fucking wrong

The guy sucked and his gold digger "wife" or "gf" or whatever cucking him after he constantly bragged about her was hilarious and awesome. I'm not gonna spit on his grave because he was still a fellow Internet Nazi but I'm definitely not sad to see him go and honestly I assumed he was lying about his illness for money and attention too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586014)

I think he did have some nonzero amount of positive influence on turning things around against niggers by doing that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586040)

This led him to a large amount of wealth and recognition, beyond what a person like him would ordinarily have ever had access to. But being a typical boomer, he assumed this meant he was elite in other regards, such as being a political commentator. He had a few strong insights and funny comments, but overall he became mostly just another voice in the crowd.

He absolutely had enough wealth from Dilbert to never come close to worrying about money again, so I don't buy the notion that he was "grifting". I think the most plausible explanation for his internet activities is that he was fundamentally lonely and wanted to connect with people, and his Youtube channel and so forth were an attempt to do exactly that.

He took the jab because he's a boomer who deep down trusted the system more than he was suspicious of it. His suspicion of the establishment was exaggerated for performative reasons. During his life he gained enormously from the American establishment. His comics satirized the corporate world but didn't challenge or threaten it, nor did he ever mean to. He wanted to sit tangential to the corporate world and profit from critiquing it, not actually topple it, and his readers were probably the very corporate people he was satirizing, who would be the ones to laugh at the ridiculousness of the system. Fundamentally Adams has the same attitude towards the American political system and society as a whole, wanting to critique it but fundamentally trusting in it deep down, and seeing suspicion of the system as an attention-worthy deviation from the norm, rather than being the default to begin with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586061)

Worth highlighting this section alone. Many, many, many such cases. People want to get brownie points (and money) for critique, but are afraid of what's actually necessary for change. Thus becoming part of the very system they claim to oppose.

Many such cases.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586086)

I'm sure you'll disagree because you are blackpill king, but I think Fuentes genuinely is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586137)

One does not get highlighted by the system, period, without being controlled. No exceptions

Benjamin is not “of note” to you because he was cancelled for going off script

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586143)

Andrew Anglin would be a much better answer than fucking Owen Benjamin, come on man. Though it looks like Anglin's website is now down permanently.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586176)

It’s better to focus on what we can control and impact in our own lives

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586242)

the absurdity is how unnecessary it was given he already had it made. he thrust himself into the spotlight and spent his twilight years shouting inoffensive political takes into the void alongside other bandwagon grifters like "the quartering" who do it out of necessity

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586153)

And it’s almost as stupid as Candace’s CK theories

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586335)

https://x.com/i/status/2011096617105948850

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821487&forum_id=2).#49586486)