1. Stephanie Last Stephanie Last United States says:

    I thought Id read in another article that it was possible to discern between the spike protein from the viruses and the spike protein from the mRNA shot by staining it?  I still feel like the people performing the studies are biased and they don't bother with some of the tests they could be performing.  I've read studies that are also peer reviewed and published that contradict the studies published here.  That is why some of us remain sceptical towards the mRNA shots.  Because some studies that are published suggest otherwise and it's really deceiving to omit legitimate information because it goes against what some officials think or believe.  There were too many doctors and scientists discredited for providing factual information to trust any of these other ones.  I'm shocked that this is happening in medical and health areas and no one is allowed to say otherwise.

    • Dan Whipple Dan Whipple United States says:

      This is correct, but to the best of my knowledge the tissue samples required cannot be extracted from a living patient, requiring an autopsy. There may be exceptions based on risk to the patient for certain organs, but all the reports I've heard have been post mortem. To your point though, the autopsies to perform this type of test are not being conducted at the scale required to determine one way or the other as to what is causing the damage. This needs to change. There is obviously a clear signal surrounding the spike protein.

      The test is called immunohistochemical staining.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment