How Long Do Pfizer Lipids Last?

Mechanistic investigation continues

Previously The Daily Beagle sniffed out a possible cause of blood clots via fibrinogen production from the liver attacked by LNPs (lipid nanoparticles). We’ve been attempting to expand upon this discovery, and discovered a new alarming issue in a number of FOIA documents that warrant further investigation.

Redaction Provides Clues

A heavily redacted Australian government FOIA (FOI-2389-06), on page 46, contains a giant blacked out area relating to the metabolism of the LNPs:

Page 46

It suggests Pfizer do not want a major issue exposed about the LNPs, specifically in relation to how long it takes the body to metabolise them.

The Australian FOIA does confirm one thing, however, per The Daily Beagle article, that the LNPs do indeed end up in the liver (keep tabs on the word ‘minor’ as it becomes relevant later on):

Page 46

‘Minor’ naturally suggests the liver is not metabolising it. You might think that’s a good thing, but the liver is essentially the body’s toxin filter. The failure of the liver to filter this is a bad sign.

Double Trouble

There is also not just ‘one’ type of LNP in the Pfizer shot, but, two — ALC-0159 and ALC-0315. There is no clear documentation explaining what ALC stands for, but it could mean ‘aminolipid cationic’, as ALC-0315 is a a pH-sensitive cationic lipid.

These types of LNPs were patented by Acuitas Therapeutics back in 2017, having started their priority submission back in late 2016.

We’ve dubbed them both ‘Alucard’ lipids to better remember their code names (‘Alucard’ is a spelled-backwards alias of the vampire Dracula used in the novels).

From our understanding, when ‘Alucard’ lipids are exposed to a difference in pH levels (which occurs when the pH neutral shot is injected into the non-neutral pH blood), they change shape, and according to one Pfizer patent, they ‘pronate’, which is required for them to enter cells and ‘work’.

Additionally, ALC-0159 is what’s known as a “PEGylated” lipid (part of the chemical composition contains PEG-2000; PEG stands for polyethylene glycol). ALC-0315 isn’t. So they’re distinct types, meaning they won’t necessarily behave in the same way.

Don’t worry if you don’t fully understand the technical details at this stage as it will be subject to a follow up article, this is just some background to chew on. For the meantime we’re focusing on the duration.

So What Are Pfizer Trying To Hide?

Naturally, the Australia government, having sold their people out for profits and ‘commercial interests’, is not likely to disclose.

However, the Australian FOIA references the same LNP study as found in the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit document we covered earlier, “JW v HHS FDA Pfizer BioNTech Vaccine”, which does give us the information.

Page numbers for references are based on the PDF reader numbering and not what’s shown on the pages (as multiple documents are bundled together):

Page 451

On page 451, Pfizer are forced to admit that in four distinct species (including human), the ‘Alucard’ lipids are metabolised slowly. This is our first red flag as it means the body isn’t able to clear them quickly enough, and explains why they kept the metabolic rates censored in the Australian FOIA.

Page 453

On top of both ‘Alucard’ lipids being metabolised slowly in general, the ALC-0315 is metabolised even slower than the ALC-0159 (the ‘PEGylated’ type), implying it should be focused on more heavily.

What Is Metabolism In This Context?

When something gets metabolised, it either gets ‘changed’ (your liver has broken it down into something or combined it with something), or ‘unchanged’ (your liver was unable to either break it down or combine it). An element produced by metabolism via such change is called a ‘metabolite’.

Page 22

For example, on Page 22 we learn that ALC-0159 (the “PEGylated” lipid) has the metabolite (out of several) of ‘N,N-ditetradecylamine’.

In ALC-0159, on page 458, we can see both the PEG-2000 and the N,N-ditetradecylacetamide as part of the chemical formulation of “2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide)”.

It’s from the ‘N,N-ditetradecylacetamide’ we get the ‘N,N-ditetradecylamine’. Put short, we can usually determine where a chemical has come from, assuming we can find it.

Pfizer Is Full Of It

These changed or unchanged elements are then excreted by the body, either via urine or faeces. So examining excretion is complementary to examining metabolites and how long they last for. A simplified car analogy, it’s like examining exhaust fumes to determine efficiency of combustion.

Page 453

Pfizer admit they have not performed any excretion studies on their shots, and aren’t going to, with the FDA giving a handwave excuse (no real justification) on why they’re not looking at said studies. Referring to the car analogy again, this is like VW saying they won’t be doing any emissions testing on their cars.

This is highly suspicious as it suggests that Pfizer — with the help of the FDA, Australian and various governments and their departments — are trying to avoid revealing something damning about metabolism of the ‘Alucard’ lipids in context of the shots themselves.

What are they specifically trying to hide?

Reading between the lines — given duration seems to be what has been censored on the Australian FOIA, and the avoidant language used on the terms ‘slowly metabolizes’ (rather than ‘fails to clear’) on the American FDA FOIA, suggests it is something to do with the duration of the lipids in the body.

This of course raises the question that is the title of this article…

Just How Long Do They Last For?

Pfizer misleads about the ‘Alucard’ lipids lasting only at most minutes (notice the usage of the word ‘over’ to hide the much greater time duration):

Page 451

Now, you might breathe a sigh of relief, however, personally this confused us as it violated anticipations. It’d be like someone trying to prevent you from entering a room, you go in and it is empty, and they act like it was always empty. If it was always empty why were they trying to prevent you from getting in?

If the duration is so short, why have it redacted in an FOIA?

After much discussion, the sleight-of-hand engaged in by Pfizer was uncovered. By sheer chance, and only the most perceptive of eyes would notice it. It’s on their graph regarding concentration of the ‘Alucard’ lipids. See if you can spot it:

Page 449

See it? At first you might see the triple digits in the hundreds and think it’s a continuation of the hundreds of ‘minutes’ claim, but if you look at the single, lower-case letter the truth is revealed:

The graph is measured in hours, not minutes. Pfizer make explicit references to minutes in writing, but nowhere do they explicitly talk about hundreds of hours, and the only clue is on the graph itself where they can’t hide the information.

This is particularly alarming, as for over 100 hours (>4 days), ALC-0315 appears not to diminish after the approximate 200 hours mark:

This would suggest ALC-0315 is not being cleared from the liver. Which is why they don’t find any changed metabolites in the excretion of rats regarding ALC-0315.

The first graph also suggests ALC-0315 stays for a long time in the plasma (part of the blood):

However the graph prematurely cuts off. The Daily Beagle opted, using graphical continuation, given the decline is visible, to try to ‘predict’ roughly how long it would remain in the plasma (continuation in blue and orange):

Projected mock-up by The Daily Beagle based on the graph from Page 449

This is by no means scientifically accurate (it’s unlikely to be straight lines but curves, so it may take even longer), however, because Pfizer and the regulators engage in malicious secrecy and cover-up, they haven’t disclosed the meaningful nor accurate data, so this is the best we’ve got for the time being. It clearly warrants much further investigation into metabolite duration.

As you can see, ALC-0159 clears at about the 550 hour mark (~23 days), and ALC-0315 at the 1700 hour mark (70.8 days). So in answer to the question: the Pfizer lipids last at least days, if not months. Long enough they’d still be around for follow up shots, essentially ‘dogpiling’.

This is just for plasma, though. It’s impossible to project the liver duration for ALC-0315 because the last segment is flat, that is to say, it does not appear to diminish.

If we attempted to project this for the liver, it would generate a graph to potentially infinity. Whilst we doubt it would last to infinity, it does look like it would last an extremely long time in the liver. This dovetails onto our liver damage mechanism hypothesis.

Others Came To Similar Estimates

This isn’t far outside the anticipated mark either, as one (self-proclaimed) former hospital pharmacy manager and former regulator for drug pricing, had estimated it’d take between 3 weeks (21 days) to 90 days to clear the lipids:

It appears they weren’t far off the mark regarding the half-life, at least in respect to the plasma. It does not look like ALC-0315 clears from the liver, however, and warrants an urgent investigation to determine the time series on this.

Like ‘Alucard’, this lipid simply refuses to die.

Help financially support The Daily Beagle?

Think others should be made aware of this?

Or leave a comment below.