If it's hormone free then what is the mechanism? Saying what it's not doesn't tell me what it is. How is this supposed to function? Because I'd wager it's something equally as unholy and harmful as mRNA.
The new pill works by inhibiting retinoic acid receptor-alpha (RAR-alpha). This is a protein in a family of nuclear receptors that bind to retinoic acid, a derivative of vitamin A that plays a role in sperm formation. By blocking this pathway, YCT-529 consequently prevents sperm production.
This is what it's claiming. My instinct says that this isn't as bad as mRNA, but this area isn't my forte and I don't trust these clowns as far as I can throw them. The major problem is that regardless of how they do this it will be decades after it's approved before we find out about any nasty long term side effects, and that's on the off chance that those side effects aren't intentional.
It also plays a vital role in neurological development during the fetal stage. Impacting or inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins in any way, and then attempting at a later stage in life to have kids, could result in severe neurological impairment of the fetus.
We won't know exactly how that all plays out until longitudinal studies appear.
Also, let's not forget how immunity manipulation played a pretty big role in the mRNA jabs.
Impacting or inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins in any way, and then attempting at a later stage in life to have kids, could result in severe neurological impairment of the fetus.
I don't see how that could possibly happen. You wouldn't get sperm cells in that case and this drug effect reverses when you stop taking it. It's not editing the DNA that codes for these proteins, just temporarily disabling them.
Way more likely to either give you cancer or prevent cancer especially if you take it for a long time.
But I bet this contraceptive comes with a big warning not to let pregnant women look at the pill or even be in the same room.
You wouldn't get sperm cells in that case and this drug effect reverses when you stop taking it. It's not editing the DNA that codes for these proteins, just temporarily disabling them.
Well, that's what they say... but again we don't actually know. Kaarous brought up an excellent point about the means in which Inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins takes place. Is it partial or full inhibitor? Are there signs of linkage mutation? Does it work like a viral inhibitor? Can it bind to work as a multi-variant inhibitor of other proteins?
Way more likely to either give you cancer or prevent cancer especially if you take it for a long time.
This I absolutely agree with, because some partial inhibitors can do exactly that by mutating and evolving into potential cancer cells:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34519269/
This goes back to my concerns over longitudinal studies... because if there are lasting inhibitory factors associated with the RAR-alpha, or potentially induced inhibitory factors to other proteins from partial inhibition, then yes we could see some serious side-effects in the long-term.
And again, we don't have any longitudinal studies to know for sure if there will be partial reactivation, full reactivation, partial inhibition, or full inhibition of the proteins and how that may affect mutating effects or potential long-term effects, until we know for sure exactly how its being inhibited and through what means.
Which still begs the question, how are they saying this is supposed to work? The listed effect is to degrade a protein binding amino acid, sure. But they go out of the way to not explain how that is done and that is worthy of suspicion from anyone with two working eyes.
You claim that various countries are controlled by feminists. If that's true, they don't need a "chance", only to be fooled by a mentally ill tranny on the internet. Noone needed a "chance" to create sarin or weaponized smallpox. You fucking histrionic pooner.
If it's hormone free then what is the mechanism? Saying what it's not doesn't tell me what it is. How is this supposed to function? Because I'd wager it's something equally as unholy and harmful as mRNA.
This is what it's claiming. My instinct says that this isn't as bad as mRNA, but this area isn't my forte and I don't trust these clowns as far as I can throw them. The major problem is that regardless of how they do this it will be decades after it's approved before we find out about any nasty long term side effects, and that's on the off chance that those side effects aren't intentional.
It could be, though, because it can affect the immune system, as it can alter the regulation of immunity cells:
It also plays a vital role in neurological development during the fetal stage. Impacting or inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins in any way, and then attempting at a later stage in life to have kids, could result in severe neurological impairment of the fetus.
We won't know exactly how that all plays out until longitudinal studies appear.
Also, let's not forget how immunity manipulation played a pretty big role in the mRNA jabs.
Yeah, like I said this isn't my forte. It's not like I would have trusted them anyway, but this is good information.
I don't see how that could possibly happen. You wouldn't get sperm cells in that case and this drug effect reverses when you stop taking it. It's not editing the DNA that codes for these proteins, just temporarily disabling them.
Way more likely to either give you cancer or prevent cancer especially if you take it for a long time.
But I bet this contraceptive comes with a big warning not to let pregnant women look at the pill or even be in the same room.
Well, that's what they say... but again we don't actually know. Kaarous brought up an excellent point about the means in which Inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins takes place. Is it partial or full inhibitor? Are there signs of linkage mutation? Does it work like a viral inhibitor? Can it bind to work as a multi-variant inhibitor of other proteins?
This I absolutely agree with, because some partial inhibitors can do exactly that by mutating and evolving into potential cancer cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34519269/
This goes back to my concerns over longitudinal studies... because if there are lasting inhibitory factors associated with the RAR-alpha, or potentially induced inhibitory factors to other proteins from partial inhibition, then yes we could see some serious side-effects in the long-term.
There have been some cases where reactivating proteins doesn't always work: https://jeccr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13046-022-02269-6
And again, we don't have any longitudinal studies to know for sure if there will be partial reactivation, full reactivation, partial inhibition, or full inhibition of the proteins and how that may affect mutating effects or potential long-term effects, until we know for sure exactly how its being inhibited and through what means.
Yeah I read that. See, that's the effect. They go out of their way to not say how and by what means they get there.
As my children would say, that is mad sus.
Which still begs the question, how are they saying this is supposed to work? The listed effect is to degrade a protein binding amino acid, sure. But they go out of the way to not explain how that is done and that is worthy of suspicion from anyone with two working eyes.
You claim that various countries are controlled by feminists. If that's true, they don't need a "chance", only to be fooled by a mentally ill tranny on the internet. Noone needed a "chance" to create sarin or weaponized smallpox. You fucking histrionic pooner.