Rethinking Bipolar

The World is More ‘Bipolarized’ Than Ever – Deception Messes with Moods

Finding out I have been deceived has, in the past, been a massive trigger for changes in my mood. I became aware of some deception when I saw this graph concerning where the lipids in the Pfizer nanoparticles start to travel to after injection. I want the world to know that my moodiness is driven by real world events.

My anxiety worsened when I found the graph seemed to have been deliberately falsified!

In reality the ovaries do not accumulate more of the toxins from the jab than the liver.

I felt I could not settle until I understood some real facts about the animal studies on the mRNA jabs?

I went back to the original report^#1, or at least the one online that looks official, with; the company name, authors’ names, references and so on.

I transferred the results to a spreadsheet to sort highest to lowest…

Autopsy Results from Laboratory Rats from Pfizer Study, Japan, Release 1^st June 2021

	Hours after ‘jab’	0.25	1	2	4	8	24	48
1	Liver	0.74	4.63	11.00	16.50	26.50	19.20	24.30
2	Spleen	0.33	2.47	7.73	10.30	22.10	20.10	23.40
3	Adrenal glands	0.27	1.48	2.72	2.89	6.80	13.80	18.20
4	Ovaries (females)	0.10	1.34	1.64	2.34	3.09	5.24	12.30
5	Bone marrow (femur)	0.48	0.96	1.24	1.24	1.84	2.49	3.77
6	Small intestine	0.03	0.22	0.48	0.88	1.28	1.30	1.47
7	Lymph node	0.05	0.15	0.53	0.49	0.69	0.99	1.37
8	Large intestine	0.01	0.05	0.09	0.29	0.65	1.10	1.34
9	Lung	0.49	1.21	1.83	1.50	1.15	1.04	1.09
10	Lymph (mandibular)	0.06	0.19	0.29	0.41	0.53	0.55	0.73
11	Pituitary gland	0.34	0.65	0.87	0.85	0.41	0.48	0.69
12	Bone (femur)	0.09	0.20	0.27	0.28	0.34	0.34	0.69
13	Pancreas	0.08	0.21	0.41	0.38	0.29	0.36	0.60
14	Heart	0.28	1.03	1.40	0.99	0.79	0.45	0.55
15	Kidneys	0.39	1.16	2.05	0.92	0.59	0.43	0.43
16	Bladder	0.04	0.13	0.15	0.17	0.15	0.25	0.37
17	Salivary glands	0.08	0.19	0.26	0.22	0.14	0.17	0.26
18	Skin	0.01	0.21	0.16	0.15	0.12	0.16	0.25
19	Stomach	0.02	0.07	0.12	0.14	0.27	0.15	0.22
20	Muscle	0.02	0.06	0.08	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.19
21	Adipose tissue	0.06	0.10	0.13	0.13	0.09	0.08	0.18
22	Prostate (males)	0.06	0.09	0.13	0.16	0.15	0.18	0.17
23	Eyes	0.01	0.04	0.05	0.07	0.06	0.09	0.11
24	Spinal cord	0.04	0.10	0.17	0.25	0.11	0.09	0.11
25	Brain	0.05	0.10	0.14	0.12	0.07	0.07	0.07

I can see why those who made the video based on a graph, like the one above, were alarmed. I used the data to create a very precise and I believe clearer graph:

If we simply compare ovaries with prostate (see table) the accumulation of what is essentially a toxin is 72.4 times higher in the ovaries. There are no results reported for rat testicles, although this cannot have been because these were too small or awkward to dissect as the researchers went to the trouble of extracting the miniscule pituitary gland (number 11 in the table) from every rat’s brain.

I do not know why it accumulates in the ovaries. It is however a good reason for me to be working with parents who believe it is safer to wait. ‘SAFER TO WAIT’ has become one of many memes being used in attempts to protect adolescents from potential harm. Perhaps, young people need to made aware of massive pharmaceutical mistakes in the past, such as thalidomide^#2

It is about 60 years since the thalidomide disaster. With thalidomide, one country did stand up to ‘big pharma’. That was the USA whose regulators demanded to see withheld data on the laboratory animal birth defects. Only when the company revealed that they knew thalidomide would almost certainly cause children to be born with missing limbs did the rest of the world wake up to big pharma choosing profits ahead of safety.  Perhaps, this time, it is up to the UK with its new independence from Europe to stand up and say ‘No’ to poorly tested chemicals/technology being used on our children. Drug companies must not, again, be allowed to profit by withholding information about harms they know about.

The animal studies were not available at the time the government said they wanted to go ahead with mass vaccination. The recent released of information on animals injected with mRNA coated in DSPC have alarmed scientists around the globe, who are increasingly calling out to governments to stop the jabbing of teenagers. The study described here and another one I have examined both go with concerns that the world could be heading for something even worse than thalidomide.

I have hundreds more questions I want to ask of the researchers. I am frustrated and fearful, yet I am not prepared to be like the German laboratory workers who were too afraid to tell the authorities that thalidomide would cause birth defects.

Few medical doctors will have had time to go back to the original data as I have and then consider the implications. I believe the people who administer the ‘jabs’ have been told the ‘lipid’ from the nanoparticles will stay in the injection site. There was never a good reason to believe it would and the above table and graphs show that it certainly does not.

According to ‘fact-checkers’ young women and adolescent girls need not be concerned about mRNA getting into their ovaries because the rats received a dose equivalent to 60,000 times currently being injected into 12 year old girls in USA and Israel.

Yes high doses were administered to the rats to ensure some would get through to tiny organs like the ovaries and even the miniscule rat pituitary gland, to allow measurement.

Considering body weights, I have calculated the amount of the active ingredients injected into the rats would have been about 670 times higher (ug/g), not the ‘fact-checkers’ 60,000. Whichever number is closer to the truth, I suggest that it is not the amount detected but more the upward trend that needs to be understood. The highest mean result, for the ovaries of the rats that were ‘sacrificed’, was 12.3ug/g at 48 hours. This is not a lot of lipid (although this particular lipid is man-made DSPC and certainly not natural) but it does seem to be continuing to accumulate and so extra data points (96 hours maybe and maybe again after 8 days, 16 days, 32 days… maybe) could, help greatly with understanding risks. By 48 hours there had been 7 rounds of rat ‘sacrifices’ so most likely they ran out of rats! (Yes, animal studies are… grim!)

From my own days in pharmaceutical research (not with injections and not with animals ) I know that unexpected results lead to repeating work in greater detail to allow greater understanding and this is one reason why almost every pharmaceutical takes a very long time to bring to market. I have heard this is typically 8 years for a vaccine.

I have not seen the full report. What has been released through a Freedom of Information request has sections missing and some parts seem to be blanked-out/redacted. For me, what is shared raises far more questions than it answers.

To get some idea of how much of the chemicals from the jabs are being excreted, I have examined the lipid ‘percentage of total’ figures provided alongside the ug/g injected.

I thought these would be derived from the same quantity being injected into each mouse. So far as I can tell that did not happen, yet without more information I can only estimate the total amount injected which I have done by taking the amount measured at the injection site after 1 hour (392ug/g) and this being said to be 52.6%.

392*100/52.6 = 749

I currently believe the graph here is a good overview of where the lipids from the injection are going.

I have put, “It does not seem to be excreted quickly” in a caption because there seems almost no change in the total amounts measured all the way from 8 hours to 48 hours.

I believe I have said all that I have felt compelled to say. I would welcome the chance to ask questions of the researchers, such as:

1. How were the rats behaving after the injections?
   • Compared with normal?
   • Exactly when did they sleep during those 48 hours (if at all)?
   • Exactly when did they eat (if at all) and how much and of what type of food?
2. What happened to the injected chemicals that did not appear in the measurements?
   • Were other organs tested, and if not, why not?
   • How much went into the blood cells?
   • How were the percentages in the report calculated?
3. When can you share information related to reproduction?
   • Why does the toxin accumulate in the ovaries?
   • When will there be information on actual births from rats injected with these substances prior to / during pregnancy?
   • How much harm is likely when the toxins are exuded in breast milk?

I have a lot more questions to ask, as the report answers so very little.

——–