Pfizer and the Bio-distribution Data: A Potentially Misleading Story?
In what follows, I will pose a few concerning questions. However, it should be understood that I am not arguing one case or the other, rather, I am simply presenting a small amount of data. Moreover, I am not a medical expert.
Recently, I encountered some data regarding the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine that alarmed me. This data was presented on the DarkHorse podcast episode titled “How to save the world, in three easy steps” — it has since been removed from YouTube. In this episode, host Dr. Bret Weinstein engaged in discussion of vaccine safety, repurposed drugs, big tech censorship and big pharma anomalies with his guests Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, and Steve Kirsch, an entrepreneur and CEO of M10 Networks.
In the podcast episode, the three men display and discuss a graph which shows the bio-distribution of lipid nanoparticles from the Pfizer vaccine. That is, the graph gives the concentration of lipid nanoparticles, in a number of organs, as the time since vaccine injection increases from 0.25 to 48 hours. Importantly, the study was conducted in rats. This graph — which I have replicated below and shall refer to as the “ovary graph” — and another like it, can be found in Steve Kirsch’s article, Should you get vaccinated? When I originally saw this graph, I was shocked — in some sense I still am. What it shows is that there is a huge(?) spike — no pun intended — in the concentration of lipid nanoparticles in the ovaries of these rats from roughly 8 to 48 hours after vaccine injection. Similarly, there is a smaller, yet nonetheless significant(?) spike in bone marrow. This seems alarming given that we now know that the Spike protein is toxic in and of itself. However, there may be another reason that it appears alarming.
Before we get there, let me mention that the data in question was apparently collected from a Japanese regulatory arm via a freedom of information act request filed by Dr. Byram Bridle and colleagues. The document the researchers received is a pharmacokinetics study conducted by Pfizer — an English translation can be found here.
If we return to Steve Kirsch’s article, Should you get vaccinated?, and cast a critical eye, we may notice something that seems somewhat inexplicable — at least it seemed that way to me. At the point where Steve introduces the graph, the one that was displayed on the DarkHorse podcast — the ovary graph above — he notes, “There are areas of the body that are not included here like the injection site (165), liver (24), spleen (23), and adrenals (18). These were not included so you can see more detail.” Fine, I don’t have a problem with this, in fact it makes sense so long as graphs that contain these missing sites are also included. Indeed, just below this first graph is another which contains the liver, spleen and adrenals — I have recreated and thus confirmed it’s correctness below.
However, what is missing is a graph which also contains a curve for the injection site. This bothers me. I — and I assume many others; indeed, I assume Steve Kirsch himself — do not know what concentration of lipid nanoparticles might be considered worrying. Therefore, it would only seem reasonable to me to make a comparison between the concentration levels in the various organs above to that of the injection site, while maintaining uncertainty about the level of risk we may be observing. When I realised that this data was missing it immediately made me question my initial reaction to the graph discussed on DarkHorse. Again, while maintaining uncertainty, I had to plot the full data set myself — see below.
Before taking a look at that data, let me make a few things clear. This is not meant to be a direct criticism of Steve Kirsch himself— though it does make me question his skills as an analyst and even an honest person, and I certainly wouldn’t take anything he says as gospel. As he points out in his article, he did not commission the graphs, and I cannot find original copies. Furthermore, it is clear upon reading his article — I have not read it all, it’s a substantial document — that he is not a scientist, nor does he appear to think like a scientist, his language is just not careful enough. That bothers me, but I’ll leave it at that.
The graph — which I’ll call the “injection graph” — above, contains the concentration data for all of the organs in the study, including, crucially, the injection site. Considering this graph, my initial, shocked reaction, seems overinflated. It seems that the ovary graph was misleading. However, be very careful here. As I mentioned, I have no idea which concentration levels may be considered dangerous — if dangerous at all! Thus, a problem remains: which of these graphs is potentially misleading? The injection graph makes — to the human eye — the spike in nanoparticle concentration in the ovaries appear negligible. Is that reasonable? Is that misleading? I do not know. Of course you’d expect this, you’d expect the concentration of lipid nanoparticles at the injection site to be significantly larger than at any other place in the body. On the other hand, the ovary graph, with the injection site omitted, makes — to the human eye — the spike in nanoparticle concentration in the ovaries appear worryingly large. Is that reasonable? Is that misleading? I do not know. Perhaps neither is misleading and both are informative in different ways. I do not know, do you?
I’d like to find answers to these questions, though I expect the answers to be far less simple than yes-or-no binaries. In fact, I suspect that no one has a clear answer to this yet. The presence of lipid nanoparticles — from what I understand — is a hazardous proxy for organ/tissue damage at best. It is free-floating Spike protein that potentially causes damage, not lipid nanoparticles — that we know of — not Spike that is attached to the cell membranes. Nevertheless, a visualisation of the full data set is now available to you. I would ask you to be sceptical of your own assessment of this data if you, like me, are not an expert in this field. If some useful discussion comes of this, that is the best I could hope for.