TSOT018: Logic Strings on When "Preventative Treatments" COULD Be Their Own Problem
Aug 22, 2021, 02:27 PM
Once again, billed as a Quick Rant of Truth in the audio, I'm going to say this is long enough to be a full episode.
As to the question implied by the title, part of the answer is "When you decide it is too much of an emergency to actually vet and study your 'preventative treatment.'"
First, I pose the question early, based on what I know of the mere differences in basic CONCEPT of how the new versions of "preventative treatment" work, versus the old.
(yes, being vague in terms in this description on purpose)
- What are the limits on overproduction, since the body is being told to produce it, but not being told (nor can it be) how much?
- What are the effects, God forbid, for those "far end of bell curve" folks who produce the MOST?
- Besides the general overproduction risk, what of the SPECIFIC risk of overproduction, that depends on what the specific proteins the body is being told to produce (/potentially overproduce)?
Second, we find out evidence that overproduction, as expected, occurs sometimes. In a broad sense of admission of a "syndrome"
Related to this, if overproduction occurs, what is the limitation, if any, on where it may go and what systems it could wreak havoc on?
Then we find specific research from the developers themselves. Indeed while the traditional means was limited by how much was put in the body, and so resulted in a local reaction that created enough immune system response, overproduction due to the new technology is in no way limited to the area where it is introduced.
NO LESS THAN THE STUDIES FROM THE MANUFACTURERS THEMSELVES SHOW, WITH NO LESS THAN A RADIOACTIVE TAG, THAT IT SPREADS EVERYWHERE.
Finally, I connect a dot probably few are. Why is the risk profile across the population of this mere vare-ee-int (misspell on purpose) exactly the OPPOSITE of the initial novvull version? Quick answer - it's the treatment, stupid. The damaging protein is more likely to be overproduced by those with healthier systems. Across a population, that means those that are younger. The very demographics who basically had ZERO effect from the initial problem. Because their systems are healthier, they are more likely to be able to create new proteins, and therefore more subject to overproduction of a protein due to the unnatural instructions they're given. God forbid what that means for those systems of those age 18 and younger that are in a growth phase.
["explicit content" is a curse word toward the end of the episode, used as an expression of frustration]
As to the question implied by the title, part of the answer is "When you decide it is too much of an emergency to actually vet and study your 'preventative treatment.'"
First, I pose the question early, based on what I know of the mere differences in basic CONCEPT of how the new versions of "preventative treatment" work, versus the old.
(yes, being vague in terms in this description on purpose)
- What are the limits on overproduction, since the body is being told to produce it, but not being told (nor can it be) how much?
- What are the effects, God forbid, for those "far end of bell curve" folks who produce the MOST?
- Besides the general overproduction risk, what of the SPECIFIC risk of overproduction, that depends on what the specific proteins the body is being told to produce (/potentially overproduce)?
Second, we find out evidence that overproduction, as expected, occurs sometimes. In a broad sense of admission of a "syndrome"
Related to this, if overproduction occurs, what is the limitation, if any, on where it may go and what systems it could wreak havoc on?
Then we find specific research from the developers themselves. Indeed while the traditional means was limited by how much was put in the body, and so resulted in a local reaction that created enough immune system response, overproduction due to the new technology is in no way limited to the area where it is introduced.
NO LESS THAN THE STUDIES FROM THE MANUFACTURERS THEMSELVES SHOW, WITH NO LESS THAN A RADIOACTIVE TAG, THAT IT SPREADS EVERYWHERE.
Finally, I connect a dot probably few are. Why is the risk profile across the population of this mere vare-ee-int (misspell on purpose) exactly the OPPOSITE of the initial novvull version? Quick answer - it's the treatment, stupid. The damaging protein is more likely to be overproduced by those with healthier systems. Across a population, that means those that are younger. The very demographics who basically had ZERO effect from the initial problem. Because their systems are healthier, they are more likely to be able to create new proteins, and therefore more subject to overproduction of a protein due to the unnatural instructions they're given. God forbid what that means for those systems of those age 18 and younger that are in a growth phase.
["explicit content" is a curse word toward the end of the episode, used as an expression of frustration]