Discover more from Wholistic
Covid Drug Molnupiravir: Toxic Chemotherapy for the Genome?
Or a freefloating bioweapon that could destroy the entire ecosystem?
There’s a classic Alex Jones rant about chemicals in the water turning “the friggin’ frogs gay” that has been memed to death and even turned into a remix with 16 million YouTube views and counting.
It’s easy to laugh at Jones, but some of his predictions seem to come true, spawning the saying “Alex Jones is always right.”
The reality behind Alex’s famous rant is that chemicals have been entering our water supply, including many of the common drugs we take. These chemicals include everything from pesticides to hormones from birth control to chemo drugs.
“The results show that pesticides with this mechanism of action can cause permanent damage, such as reduced fertility in frogs exposed at the tadpole stage. This supports previous research showing that endocrine-disrupting substances in the environment may negatively impact amphibians. The substance linuron isn’t approved for use in Sweden, but it’s used in other parts of the EU and in North America,” says Cecilia Berg, ecotoxicologist and project leader.
Pharmaceutical drugs are also in our water supply. Did you want to avoid taking psychotropic drugs like Prozac? Too bad, because you might be consuming it even if you don’t want to, seeing as your neighbor may be peeing it out daily.
The Following Are Some of The Most Common Ways that Drugs Contaminate the Environment:
During the manufacturing process, drug residue may infiltrate surface waters.
Drugs are metabolized by humans and then excreted in trace quantities into the sewage system. This pollution inevitably finds its way into the water supply after going through treatment systems.
Veterinary pharmaceuticals are excreted in soils and surface waters by pasture animals.
The drugs used in livestock can be distributed using manure as a fertilizer.
Unused drugs are often dumped into public water supplies through sinks, toilets, and landfills.
During the manufacturing process, direct pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere.
What Happened to the Green Pharmacy Movement?
The issue of pharmaceutical contamination is a huge problem, and one that the media hasn’t really been paying much attention to since the problem first started getting some traction years ago.
There has been some discussion of a green pharmacy movement to help counter some of the ecological problems of modern medicine. But not enough. The idea of a “green pharmacy” seems to have taken a backseat to the dominating environmental narrative of climate change.
My background actually includes environmentalism, and I used to volunteer for a Los Angeles organization called Heal the Bay to collect water samples in the Malibu hills. The septic tanks of the posh celebrity homes were responsible for atrociously high bacterial counts at Malibu beaches, which often scored worse pollution scores (Fs) than seedy Venice Beach, where I lived at the time.
That was probably my first lesson in green hypocrisy.
I even had an environmental blog briefly, focused in part on technology, but it didn’t gain much readership, so I abandoned it. I was ahead of the curve. I wrote a scathing article in the late 2000s about how “climate change” was a terrible issue to focus on, since it was so divisive and overshadowing much more tangible environment problems such as visible pollution in the water and air, issues that maybe left and right could find some common ground on.
Since then, the divide has gotten even worse, and the only “critical” environmental issue is climate change. Sure, we have a big plastic island floating around the Pacific, and Fukushima is still spilling radiation into the sea. We have aging nuclear infrastructure leaking toxins into the environment...did you know about the Red Hill contamination crisis in Hawaii? I only found out about it by accident.
But who cares about all that? Climate change, climate change, climate change!
I’m in disagreement with the right regarding environmental issues as a whole, as I think our entire ecosystem (not just the climate) is under a tremendous amount of stress due to human activity. That said, I’m in disagreement with the left that “climate change” is the number one problem or the only thing we need to focus on.
Climate change is an easy virtue signal, in addition to being a great way for governments to take more control, without actually solving many of the real environment pollution problems we face.
If you pay attention, you’ll notice that climate change narratives generally center around control, much like the covid pandemic. “Climate change” also offers a potentially lucrative new “stock market” consisting of carbon credits...so climate change is environmentalism co-opted for control and money.
But mitigating the damage that pharmaceutical drugs are causing the environment? It’s not profitable and doesn’t lead to any obvious control systems. No wonder it’s ignored.
That said, don’t make the mistake of trying to argue that climate change isn’t real. It’s the same mistake that the “covid isn’t real” people are making. You get stuck in that argument and end up making yourself look like a flat earther instead of steering and controlling the narrative.
Denial is a defensive position.
I’m going on offense. You can argue whether climate change is real or not until you are blue in the face, but it won’t change a damn thing. But I’m looking to shift the narrative completely.
Let’s talk about how our public health policies might be making everything worse and potentially not just harming people but also the environment.
It’s rather ironic to me that the left has fully embraced the vaccine narrative, because mass vaccination as a whole creates environmental waste in the form of chemical byproducts during production as well as syringe waste.
Natural immunity is much more environmentally sound, and yet you’ll rarely hear an environmentalist suggesting we encourage natural immunity for those who are at an almost zero risk of severe covid.
We should be pointing that out, and frequently.
Worse, some scientists are trying to figure out how to put vaccines in our food supply, which means the vaccines themselves could enter into the general environment, harming not just people but wildlife. This isn’t a new thing, by the way. They have been testing edible vaccines for over twenty years.
We need to get in front of this, like yesterday.
Molnupiravir: Worse Than You Thought
Enter molnupiravir. This is the “game-changing” covid drug that the media has been swooning over while making ivermectin out to be some sort of poison.
The UK is set to be the first country to use molnupiravir, and will be given to vulnerable and elderly patients starting very soon.
If you thought synthetic hormones in the environment were bad, wait until you hear what molnupiravir does.
I can’t do this subject justice. So I recommend that when you are done reading this, head on over to Unglossed and read the article Doppelgänger by Brian Mowrey.
Here’s my attempt to summarize his main points in plain language:
Molnupiravir can “insinuate into viral mRNA, causing errors in replication and translation” and “insinuate into nuclear RNA.”
Errors in viral replication may mean new variants...but that may be the least of the problems. Mowrey mentions the potential for “misfolded proteins” that could go anywhere in the body. We’re potentially talking prions here.
You know, like mad cow prions.
Autoimmunity is also a concern.
Molnupiravir may also get into cell mitochondria, disrupting cellular metabolism, which could starve cells to death.
The drug could potentially compete with natural chemicals that produce cell membranes and protein structures necessary for human cell metabolism.
Here’s the kicker:
Molnupiravir, which we’ll call “M” for short in terms of its chemical action, could vie with natural cellular processes, and accidentally be replicated into DNA during DNA repair. Mowrey writes: “There, M will presumably be misread by polymerase as T instead of C, resulting in cellular metabolic failure leading to apoptosis, or carcinogenesis - conversion into cancer cells.”
(Apoptosis is a fancy term for “cell death.”)
That’s not all:
As with virally-infected cells in the first example, apoptosis of cells containing M would merely release A/U/T/G/C and M bits into the body, where they might be salvaged or excreted. M, unlike most drugs, is possibly not going to ever be truly “metabolized” out of potential active forms. It will only alternate between 2/3phosphate+1/2OHthing+ forms, bounce from cell to cell, and repeat the same interactions until degraded. The “half-life” for M - when it ceases to be available in actively employable forms - in the real world is probably unknowable.
What he means is that mutated cells, thanks to M, may keep the vicious cycle going indefinitely in your body. But that’s not the worst of it:
Excreted M, for example, could enter the microbiotic genome (bacteria in the gut and elsewhere), potentially producing mutant bacteria. Even upon the death of bacterial cells due to lethal mutations during DNA repair and cellular division, M could still be recycled to other bacteria. These bacteria could, of course, carry M to other organisms, conceivably resulting in “wild-caught M-induced carcinogenesis and infertility” throughout every kingdom of life.
Non-excreted, free-floating cellular M, once reduced to lower levels, could end up incorporated into viable RNA and DNA viruses, and transmitted from the original recipient.
Humans will merely be the vector for some amount of M to “infect” the entire nucleoside-metabolic cycle of the Earth, until finally degraded.
In other words, molnupiravir could turn into a sort of environmental “virus” of its own...let’s call it malware with an M.
That malware would first damage your body, then be excreted into the ecosystem, and from there, self-propagate, causing cancer and infertility not just in humans but in animals and wildlife.
This is really, really bad.
Bees were being threatened with extinction a few years back via Colony Collapse Disorder, which is a euphemistic way of saying “bee genocide” by unknown causes. Pesticides have certainly been looked at as a culprit, but what effects might our free-floating pharmaceuticals also have on bee colonies?
It’s not just bees at risk. In and around Washington, DC and several states this summer, songbirds were dying of a mysterious illness. With neurological symptoms and seizures happening, I’m going to suggest that this might have been due to some type of environmental poison or disease...rather than the climate getting too hot or too cold.
Would we even be able to find out if drug waste is impacting these animals?
Would they tell us?
Was Alex Jones right about the friggin’ frogs?
What Exactly Is Molnupiravir Anyway?
Molnupiravir is a nucleoside analog. According to ScienceDirect, “Nucleoside analogs are a pharmacological class of compounds with cytotoxic, immunosuppressive, and antiviral properties.”
Cytotoxic, meaning they kill cells. Immunosuppressive, meaning they suppress the immune system.
I think calling molnupiravir “malware” is not too far off. I’ll leave the last word on this to Mowrey, who wrote this in a follow up post:
Nucleoside analogs, as I argued in “Doppelgänger,” are not “antivirals.” The mechanism of “viral replication” which they seek to sabotage is intrinsic to cellular metabolism, DNA repair, gene expression, cellular division, and sperm cell longevity. Ribavirin, Molnupiravir, and all other analogs in development, essentially seek to cut off the face to spite the nose. It cannot be done without short and long term harms, and profound risks to fertility. This is not a “therapeutic” platform - it is chemotherapy for the genome. It is an appropriate accident at best, that this particular drug was developed with funding from the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (Ridgeback and Merck only took over after six years of DTRA-funded research24).
And yet not only are nucleoside analog “antivirals” still being aggressively researched, they reside within a cultural blindspot both within the industry and the public at large - they are lethal bioweapons on the scale of Anthrax, inaccurately imagined as “kind of similar to Tamiflu.”
Free Medical Qigong & Spiritual Healing weekly at LearnItLive
Covid Vaccine Freedom Channel on Telegram
Holistic Healing Channel on Telegram
Holistic Health & Wellness Community at Locals
Uncensored Holistic Healing Community at MeWe
Wait, it gets better. In response to the Alex Jones rant about gay frogs, some in academia took issue with the characterization of intersex frogs, because this is perceived as a negative judgement against intersex people. From Troubling Figures: Endocrine Disruptors, Intersex Frogs, and the Logics of Environmental Science, published in the journal Catalyst (emphasis mine):
Environmental toxicologists ring the alarm on “genetic males” being “feminized” by pesticides, both morphologically and behaviorally. But the shock value of the toxicant-exposed frog only functions under the assumption that intersex is indeed a pathology. Despite intersex justice organizing as well as feminist science studies scholarship reminding the public that intersex is common, irrespective of the presence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, this scientific literature emphasizes the novelty of these findings. For instance, Hayes et al. (2002) note, “these abnormalities [of intersex] were never observed in control animals in the current experiments or in over 10,000 observations of control animals in our laboratory over the last 6 years” (p. 5477). Missing from the public discussion of these studies, however, is the fact that many animals lack easily distinguishable sexes in the first place (Roughgarden, 2004; Avise, 2011).
I confess I didn’t read this paper too thoroughly, but it seemed like a jumble of conflicting ideas. For example, on the one hand, European settlers are called out for their colonialist “destruction of the woods” but then labeling an invasive plant species “invasive” is described as a negative judgment. Umm...we wouldn’t have invasive species if it weren’t for colonialism in the first place.
So I’m a bit confused. Is the author here suggesting that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are OK? Or that if an endocrine disruptor artificially causes someone to become intersex, that this isn’t a pathology?
I think we can find a middle ground here and say that environmentally-prevalent endocrine disrupters are bad news, without demonizing people (or frogs) who may have been inadvertently changed due to said endocrine disruptors.