The bottom line is that I have simply checked the gene sequences of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and verified that they BOTH contain nucleic acid code that translates to the shorter PRRARSV protein code, which is a kind of “hall pass” into the cell nucleus.
Thus, BOTH of these vaccines produce a spike protein which science would predict has the same ability as the virus spike protein, to (1) get into the cell nucleus, and furthermore (2) schlep its own mRNA along with it into the cell nucleus, and finally (3) as proven by experiment on the Pfizer vaccine, integrate the spike protein gene sequence into the human cellular genome.
That’s it. If you want all the gory details, stay tuned. Otherwise, that’s the BLUF (bottom line up front). Have a great day! -Wolf
OK – I have an important update to the whole topic of mRNA vaccines messing with people’s genes, and in particular, with a part of the COVID-19 spike protein mRNA sequence called the PRRARSV nuclear translocation signal. This “key” within the whole sequence is like an ID card for the cell nucleus. It was identified in the natural COVID-19 spike protein, and now it appears to remain in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
I have posted on this topic – the PRRARSV Nuclear Translocation Signal – THREE times before.
First, I posted when I discovered the Mehedi paper, and realized how important it is.
The Mehedi paper explains WHY there is genomic incorporation of the COVID-19 spike protein – specifically, because the spike protein has what is essentially a key to the cell nucleus.
Genomic DNA Incorporation of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Explained by Unique Hidden Key to Nucleus and Spike’s Surprising Ability to Transport mRNA
This is SO HUGE. I must explain this to you. TL;DR – The spike protein not only contains a special sequence that allows it into the cell nucleus – it also has an ability to bring its own spike mRNA sequence with it. Both features appear to be unique among coronaviruses. The features explain genomic …
The next time I posted, was the moment that I realized that the murdered American scientist Bing Liu had been directing his research focus to the EXACT SAME SPOT in the SARS-CoV-2 gene sequence – the PRRARSV sequence – when he was conveniently murdered by a crazed acquaintance who was apparently contending with him over a lover.
To me, this murder absolutely REEKED of MKULTRA. Bing Liu had a plausible weakness and it was exploited. Not all people realize how dangerous the science world can be. Not so this cowboy – I’ve been through a lot of weird, evil bullshit in Scienceville, over the years.
Bing apparently recognized that this sequence is found in snake venoms and other, more deadly viruses, and was thus potentially close to realizing that this part of the sequence was behind certain aspects of the pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2, as well as those other things.
Stated another way – maybe nuclear translocation is WHY those other things are so bad.
Dear KMAG: 20230130 Joe Biden Didn’t Win ❀ Open Topic / Bing Liu Murder Potentially Linked to PRRARSV Nuclear Translocation Signal in Spike Protein of COVID Vaccines
Joe Biden didn’t win. This is our Real President: AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS. This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both). …
Finally, at a certain point I realized that any “accidental” explanation of the presence of a working translocation signal which not only violates the central promise of mRNA vaccine technology, but installs the violation itself in the nucleus, was simply too incongruous to be an accident. It’s a BLOODY HACK. There was no way that – on the very first roll-out of a genetic vaccine – the technology which was PRIZED for making the technology safe against genetic incorporation, instead caused genetic incorporation OF the very instructions for genetic incorporation.
I mean, think about it. What are the chances? It’s almost as crazy as the sinking of the “unsinkable” Titanic.
You see what I’m sayin’? This outrageously excellent attack simply cannot be a case of “whoops”. The TRICK is not the “AW SHUCKS, THAT’S LIFE” which sells as stage two to the hubris of the chumps. That’s just the getaway. The TRICK is the LIE – the PROMISE that is actively worked against from the very beginning, and intentionally not delivered.
Ask yourself a simple question. Why should the very first examples of mRNA vaccines for humans violate the most important safety standard of the mRNA platform? Why would the vaccines do exactly what they PROMISED US the vaccines would not do? TL;DR – They didn’t just lie to us about the spike mRNA not going …
I wrote that last post with a certain sense of frustration. NOBODY in COVID Dissident World seemed to understand the importance of this whole “nuclear translocation signal” thing. Either that, or they were utterly afraid to speak of it. Indeed, our RDS is one of the few people who has dared to shine a light on the topic.
I set it aside for a while and basically gave up.
The other side did not give up. During that time, I was seriously shadow-banned on Twitter. Elon’s FEDS are busy little beavers, damming up the truth.
But now, something interesting has happened. On Twitter.
A Tale of Two Acronyms: PRRARSV and SV40
RDS posted a comment that included a tweet of a translated video of the brave Japanese professor who publicly challenged the Japanese Ministry of Health over the crappy vaccines.
Here, Murakami is discussing contaminating plasmid DNA (little circles of DNA) which were found in very significant quantity in expired vials of the Pfizer vaccine. It’s easier to watch the video on Twitter.
This SV40 stuff also gets into a shocker about nuclear incorporation, but this is not the same shocker as the PRRARSV stuff. This is ANOTHER ANGLE on a different path into the nucleus.
Are you starting to believe me now about intent? Read on.
The translation is as follows. It is a conversation between Professor Murakami (M) and another person (P). I may have gotten a couple of assignments mixed up, when both are talking, but have done my best to attribute statements properly, based on what I can discern.
Commentary by Professor Murakami
(M) It is now possible to read the DNA sequences present in the vaccines. This is the DNA read from the Moderna vaccine.
(P) It may be difficult for the general public to understand, but this sequence is in the form of a ring. Plasmid DNA is in the form of a ring, and the DNA sequence is described in this ring. Spike proteins are encoded in this part of the DNA sequence.
(M) This part of the DNA sequence shows the spike gene. The Moderna’s vaccine has a vector sequence that is often present in Escherichia coli. However, the Pfizer’s vaccine has a staggering problem. I have made an amazing finding. This figure is an enlarged view of Pfizer’s vaccine sequence. As you can see, the Pfizer’s vaccine sequence contains part of the SV40 sequence here. This sequence is known as a promoter. Roughly speaking, the promoter causes increased expression of the gene. The promoter is a sequence that is essential for gene expression. The problem is that the sequence is present in a well-known carcinogenic virus. The question is why such a sequence that is derived from such a cancer virus is present in the Pfizer’s. There should be absolutely no need for such a carcinogenic virus sequence in the vaccine. This sequence is totally unnecessary for producing the mRNA vaccine. It is a problem that such a sequence is solidly contained in the vaccine. This is not the only problem. If a sequence this is present in the DNA, the DNA is easily migrated to the nucleus. So it means that the DNA can easily enter the genome. The problem is that if such a sequence remains intact, the DNA is easily migrated to the nucleus. It means that the DNA can easily enter the nucleus. These are such alarming problems.
(P) Does it mean that the SV40 promoter also contains sequences that can be migrated to the nucleus?
(M) Yes, that’s what I mean.
(P) So you are saying that the DNA can go to the nucleus easily?
(M) It means that the DNA contains sequences that can easily go to the nucleus. This is a well-known fact. This fact has already been documented in a number of scientific literature. It is essential to remove such sequences. The sequences have to be removed. However, Pfizer produced the vaccines without removing the sequences.
(P) This is outrageously malicious.
(M) That’s right. Pfizer retained the SV40 promoter sequence which is completely unrelated to the in vitro synthesis of the messenger.
(P) This issue should be questioned. Why such a promoter sequence is present in the DNA? This kind of promoter sequence is completely unnecessary for the production of the mRNA vaccine. In fact, SV40 is a promoter of cancer viruses.
(M) Yes, SV40 is well known.
(P) The sequence that promotes the cancer virus is present in the DNA for some reasons. As we know, we use this SV40 promoter sequence in various experiments. However, the question is why the promoter sequence is present in this mRNA vaccine.
Do YOU have some questions at this point? I sure as hell do. And the presence of multiple PHARMA TROLLS on Twitter, muddying the water with disingenuous excuses and throw-away coddles, makes things look even more suspicious.
RDS and I discussed this at some length in Saturday’s open. I urge interested readers to follow the above link, repeated here, to see our talk about this video, but it is not necessary for the following discussion.
I then proceeded to Twitter, and got caught up in a variety of arguments between the awesome Jikkyleaks and various “defenders of the narrative”, to put it kindly.
Many of these people (I will avoid calling them “pharma trolls”) shoot from the hip, and – despite sometimes being what should be experts in their fields, seem to have no grasp of basic logic applied to basic principles of biology. They are perfect, however, for defending scientific orthodoxy in a somewhat religious manner.
Meanwhile, sharper people in biotech who understand the basic WTF (like the presence of extraneous DNA in an RNA vaccine being an actual problem) are literally running toward the enemy with the downfall of the original vaccine sales narrative.
I should add, at this point, that SOMEBODY at Twitter is desperately covering all of this up. Twitter uses a stealthy way of “downgrading replies” to hide really important pharma stuff, without overtly banning content. It’s rather ingenious, but it’s VERY frustrating.
First of all, these Twitter IC people are fooling the hell out of Elon Musk – or maybe they aren’t. Either way, some of the most important biology about the vaccines is being hidden, and IMO it sucks big-time.
Thus, it was nearly impossible for me to find the following conversation again. Twitter had hidden my comments so effectively, that I myself could not find them in my own timelines of Tweets and Replies. But with persistence, I did find them.
This conversation and the interspersed commentary explains the how and why of my verifying that the nuclear translocation signal IS in fact in the two main mRNA vaccines – and in my opinion, intentionally so.
We begin with a Pharm Boy attacking Murakami’s analysis.
You can smell what is up right away. Taylor had been responded to by one of the more active science fighters, Kevin McKernan.
The linked paper is HERE:
The cited part of the abstract is here:
The abstract, with the relevant text in BOLD, is here:
One of the steps that limit transfection efficiency in non-viral gene delivery is inefficient nuclear import of plasmid DNA, once it has been delivered into the cytoplasm. Recently, via microinjection into the cytoplasm and in situ hybridizations into a few cell types, it was shown that a region of Simian virus 40(SV40), specifically a c. 372-bp fragment of SV40 genomic DNA encompassing the SV40 promoter-enhancer-origin of replication (SV40 DTS), could enable the nuclear import of a plasmid carrying these sequences (Dean D.A. Exp. Cell Res. 230 (1997) 293). In this report, we address the issue of the suitability of the SV40 DTS for cationic lipid-mediated gene delivery, and its capacity to improve the efficiency of the transfection process. For this study, we used transient reporter gene expression assays on various cell types. The gene expression from the plasmid constructs carrying the SV40 DTS varied with cell type and plasmid construct used. Such cell-type and plasmid-construct dependency on gene expression from plasmids containing the SV40 DTS suggests that the gene expression from plasmids is not entirely dependent on its ability to enhance the nuclear import of said plasmids.
The smarmy Taylor responds to this, as follows.
McKernan does not respond to this, and I don’t know whether Taylor’s point is valid, but assuming that it is correct, the point stands – is the fragment included sufficient to enable nuclear translocation?
This is where I decided to “inject” the fact that there already IS a nuclear translocation signal present (in the lipid nanoparticle) in the spike protein mRNA, so that RNA may be covering for DNA transport as well. But I wanted to make sure that McKernan saw it – I don’t particularly care about Taylor. So I answered directly to McKernan, on the same tweet that Taylor used. I included a link to the Mehedi paper, which is sorely under-exposed.
I figured that Taylor would respond, and he/she/it did immediately.
[SIDEBAR – I would not be surprised if Twitter insiders are helping these pharma bots by – e.g. – making sure that Taylor Ray and fellow “influencers” can see my input, but that my fellow free scientists, including Kevin McKernan, cannot.]
Taylor’s comment, beginning with “this paper is about something else”, betrays a kind of battered science syndrome that keeps science exactly where the Cabal wants it – defending its own orthodoxy – never questioning by looking off the plantation. It is based on exactly the kind of authority-and-orthodoxy-defending, “teacher’s pet” science that I detest.
Yes, there is a very legitimate question about “virus versus vaccine” – that a VIRUS result is not exactly the same as a VACCINE result. However, if you’re looking at the same or similar things happening for both, and one has a shared culprit, what does logic say?
The entire vaccine paradigm is built on the idea of virus-vaccine symmetry, so if you’re not looking honestly at “virus predicts vaccine” as your FIRST STEP of analysis, you’re never going to predict anything.
Which, by the way, is exactly what the Cabal wants.
This is a perfect example of “unethical skepticism”, as The Ethical Skeptic teaches us.
Taylor at least has the decency of adding a weak and wobbly excuse for a difference – “whose binding site is inactivated”.
This is chaff and countermeasures, as Sundance likes to say. See if you can put that together from my measured, friendly response.
What I’m saying here implies that the “inactivated binding site” in the vaccine (which itself implies possible changes in the total sequence) does not necessarily affect the presence of a nuclear translocation signal (NTS). These are two different features in the protein. Bringing that up is CHAFF.
Notice that I am not backing down on the idea that data from the virus can and likely is predictive of the vaccines. I am just waiting for Taylor to assert openly that they are not.
Taylor, instead of challenging me, tries a very sneaky deflection.
This gets into bioinformatics. BLAST is a search engine of gene and protein sequences, which allows people to quickly find matching sequences – OR TO MISS THEM.
For sensitive operations, I simply don’t trust BLAST. It’s like Google. It’s a great place to look if you’re willing to throw your cares onto somebody else’s software, but it’s easy to miss things.
The SNEAKY move by Taylor is to MISLEAD me away from PRRARSV into a BAD SEARCH. The suggestion is to use an overly broad search of only 4 amino acids (682-683-684-685). Sorry, Charlie. No dice. I am interested in exactly what I said – PRRARSV – seven amino acids.
Instead, I decided to look for the sequences of the vaccines, and then use simple tools to check for the presence of the PRRARSV signal in them.
To begin with, note that there are TWO kinds of sequences I can potentially get for the vaccines.
- the actual sequences, obtained by analyzing the vaccines
- the “official” sequences, released by Pfizer and Moderna, the FDA, or somebody else
I tried to get official versions, but simply could not find them. So I found a link in the broader discussion of the results which Murakami was looking at.
The actual sequences are mentioned HERE:
From there, I went to this link on GitHub, which contains IMAGES (not text) of the vaccine sequences.
Here is the Pfizer vaccine sequence, as an image:
The first thing you will note is that this is not likely to contain PRRARSV in it, because it’s all G, T, C, and A, like GATTACA.
This code needs to be translated from DNA/RNA to AMINO ACID, and for that, I need TEXT – not an image. So I looked for a different GitHub upload of the data, with text instead of images, and I found one.
This web page includes a link to the actual sequence data, as a “FASTA” file:
The sequence data is here:
From there, I merely needed a translator, which is a relatively simple tool, and which can be found on the web, such as here:
Plugging in the sequences from the paper on GitHub, it’s straightforward. Here are the two vaccines, translated to amino acids, as both images and text.
In each vaccine, there is one and only one instance of the full PRRARSV nuclear translocation signal mentioned by Mehedi, which I have marked in BOLD.
So what does all this mean?
This means that there is no question – the same nuclear translocation signal which gets natural spike protein into the cell nucleus, and natural spike protein messenger RNA into the nucleus, BOTH as demonstrated by Mehedi, is in the vaccine spike proteins.
Do I have to spell it out any more than that? Are the members of the Pfizer Defense Legion so incurious as to what this might mean, that they have to fight the obvious truth every step of the way?
Watch what happens next.
Taylor’s response was interesting, and I didn’t expect it.
This response actually set me up to explain why the binding site issue is largely irrelevant. First my reply, then the explanation.
TRANSLATION: Even if the vaccine-produced spike protein is “inactivated” toward some unspecified binding interaction in some unspecified way [which is contrary to the use of the largely unchanged full spike protein for immunogenic reasons, but let’s just ignore that point], so that the spike does not engage in some alleged “binding” in some way [I provide a plausible example], it doesn’t mean that the spike is not doing exactly what the viral spike has been proven to do, in terms of getting into the cell nucleus, AND bringing in its own mRNA at the same time.
Twitter’s character limits forced me to make that reply too jargon-filled for most, and possibly even for Taylor, who seemed not to have understood the full life cycle of the vaccine.
Allow me to explain in even more detail what I said, which was designed to clarify the issue for Taylor.
Let’s assume that the vaccine spike is somehow “inactivated” in its interaction with cell surface receptors. This would mean that new vaccine spike created by cells, would not interact with new cells in the same way as new disease spike protein, whether that spike was alone or part of a virus particle. I refer to that as “secondary toxicity”.
What I’m pointing out is that this is irrelevant to a “primary” toxicity concern – in fact a “genotoxicity”. This is the risk that spike protein produced in a cell, due to that cell ingesting a lipid nanoparticle of vaccine, might then get into the nucleus, and change the nature of that cell in a more fundamental way.
Now it is understood that the vaccine is “supposed to” lead to the death of infected cells, when those cells produce a bunch of spike protein, and are attacked by the immune system. The problem is that this doesn’t always happen, and indeed may not even be the primary fate of cells which take in the vaccine nanoparticles. What happens if the bell curve of vaccine intake creates a large number of cells which are damaged but not dead – which are not cleaned up by the immune system – and which have injured nuclei? There are lots of ways for things to go wrong.
What I am basically saying is that if the Mehedi results apply to vaccinated cells that are not cleaned up, we have a “bad cell problem”, and the problem isn’t just the spike – it’s in the nucleus. The cell’s problems have just become more “permanent”.
And that’s where things are. That fight is over, but I’m fighting over the De Marinis paper on another part of Twitter. That one is interesting, too.
STAY TUNED FOR MORE.