Our mission, as God-fearing and God-loving patriots, is to defend this Constitutional Republic and to increase its greatness, in all good things and ways, by using our voices in free but courteous speech, by discussing the happenings of the world and coming to a profound understanding of those things, and by sharing and promulgating these Truths on both this platform and others.
The free vintage image for the header of today’s offering is courtesy of ClipArt and Google Images.
Health Friday is a series devoted to information about Big Pharma, vaccines, general health,, and associated topics. There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats by Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: AI-generated items will be cited as such in today’s offering. If readers wish to post AI-generated items in today’s discussion thread, they must cite their source. Thank you. Note: As with Part One, today’s offering is not to be viewed as a “hit piece” on Dr. Sinclair, nor as a denigration on his work. This series is simply focused on aspects of one part of his work.
First area: continuation of the presentation of WO/2020069373, the Patent (second Patent) template for ER-100, an “invention” by Dr. David Sinclair, PhD, of Harvard University, et al. The Patent is here: https://patentscope.wipo.net/search/en/WO2020069373. The Title of the Patent is: “WO2020069373 — CELLULAR REPROGRAMMING TO REVERSE AGING AND PROMOTE ORGAN AND TISSUE REGENERATION.”
Section 00542 and Section 00543: “TRE-human OSK – SV40 (SEQ ID NO. 105)” — the gene sequence.
Section 00544 and Section 00545: “EFS-human OSK-SV40 (SEQ ID No: 106)” — the gene sequence.
Section “Additional Embodiments”: there are 151 listings of additional embodiments (combinations) of the ER-100 template: Sections numbered 00578 through 00730.
The following are from the PDF of the Patent.
FIG. 3: circle schematic (vector map) showing the SV40 position. Please see below:
FIG. 7C: schematic of optic nerve crush performed on the lab mice to simulate an eye injury as part of the experiments to lab-create the ER-100 template. Please see the image, below:
FIG. 8A: image of “Regeneration Potential”. Please see below:
Second area: The initial (first) Patent regarding ER-100, also an “invention” of Dr. David A. Sinclair, et al. This patent is found here: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docID=WO2020069339&_cid=P22-MRGI4D-39697-1. The Title of this Patent it: “MUTANT REVERSE TETRACYCLINE TRANSACTIVATORS FOR EXPRESSION OF GENES.” The International Filing Date for this Patent was 27 September 2019; the Publication Date was 2 April 2020. Inventors: Sinclair, David, A., et al. Patent Applicants: the President and Fellows of Harvard College, 17 Quincy St., Cambridge, MA, 02138.
The following are short summaries of some of the Claims listed in this Patent:
Claim Number 10: listing of SV40.
Claim Number 22 and Claim Number 23: “SV40-derived terminator sequence.”
Claim Number 30 “Pharmaceutical composition”, followed by Claim Number 33 (includes viruses and AAV); Claim Number 34 (includes SV40); Claim Number 44 (methods) — Claim Number 44 lists doxycyline as “promoting expression of the first transgene.”
Claim Number 45, Claim Number 46, Claim Number 47: 1st and 2nd engineered nucleic elements present in a virus.
**** Claim Number 48: “…wherein the method comprises withdrawing tetracycline.”
**** Claim Number 49: “therapeutically effective amount of [a]-[b] or [a]-[c] are administered to a subject in need thereof.” This refers back to Claim 1 of the Patent above, in which [a]-[b] = the G72 and the G12 positions in the rtTA3 of the composition (SEQ ID NO:11); and, [a]-[c] = the G12 and the F67 positions in the rtTA3 (SEQ ID NO:11.)
FIG. 8B: schematic of SV40 sequence added to TRE3G and presence of ftTA4 element. Please see below:
FIG. 9: circle schematic (vector map) of the “mutant” tetracycline (doxycycline) in the ER-100 composition at position 1000. Please see below (Yours Truly rotated the image which is in the Patent):
FIG. 13: circle schematic (vector map) of SV40 relative to promoter / terminator / editing sequences in the ER-100 composition. Please see below (Yours Truly rotated the image which is in the Patent):
Third area: the Clinical Trial (in recruiting) for ER-100: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07290244, “Evaluating ER-100 for Safety in People with Glaucoma or Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (Optic Nerve Conditions.)” Study Start (Actual): 2026-03-02; Primary Completion (Estimated): 2027-05; Study Completion (Estimated): 2032-03; Enrollment (Estimated): 18; Phase: Phase 1. Yours Truly will be discussing items from the “Researcher View” of this clinical trial.
From the “Outcome Measures (Primary)” section: it appears that study subjects will take an 8-week course (56 days) of doxycycline, which is called an “Activation Period.” There are numerous tests that study subjects will take during this “Activation Period”, such as, “Safety Laboratory Tests”, blood tests of various types, etc.; “Changes in Baseline Intraocular Pressure” tests; “Changes in Visual Acuity” tests; among other tests. These tests will be repeated on Day 112 of the study.
From the “Outcome Measures (Secondary)” section: it appears that study subjects have “secondary measures” testing performed during the 56-day doxycycline “Activation Period”, and also repeated on Day 112 of the study, such as: “Change in Baseline in Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) Test Results”; Retinal Nerve Thickness tests; ER-100 viral shedding tests; tests to determine if ER-100 viral DNA has appeared in the aqueous humor of the eye; among others. Study subjects will be followed “for up to 5 years to monitor long-term health and vision outcomes.”
From the “Detailed Description” section: NCT07290244 will have two “study cohorts.” Within each cohort, a “sentinel” study subject will receive an initial dose of ER-100 in an eye. From there, various tests will be performed to investigate whether this dose was tolerated; if it was, the dose will be “approved” by “Data Safety Monitoring Board”, and the other study subjects in the same cohort will receive that dose of ER-100. It appears that increase, or reduction, of the ER-100 dose will also be under the aegis approval of this board.
From the “Intervention” section: this describes the makeup of ER-100. At no point in this section is there any mention of SV40: only the other three “Yamanaka factors” are mentioned (OCT-4; SOX-2; KLF-4.) There is no mention of SV40 being used to “swap out” the fourth “Yamanaka factor” (c-Myc.) Were the study subjects informed that there would be SV40 in the ER-100 dose that would be injected into their eye? https://www.lifebiosciences.com/life-biosciences-announces-first-patient-dosed-in-phase-1-trial-of-er-100-for-optic-neuropathies/, 9 June 2026.
Fourth area: the 2020 paper by David A. Sinclair, et al., the “template” for ER-100: https://ophed.com/system/files/2020/09/s41586-020-2975-4_SMALL.pdf, “Reprogramming to recover youthful epigenetic information and restore vision”, David A. Sinclair, et al.; 2 December 2020.
From the section, “Reset of ageing signatures rather than identity”, the following quotation: “Our first goal was to find a way to reset the epigenome without erasing cell identity. Among the genes expressing the Yamanka factors, Myc is an oncogene that reduces the lifespan of mice (20) and is not required for the initiation of cellular reprogramming (21). We therefore excluded MYC from out experiments…” Based on this, Yours Truly asks this question: If it is true that Myc is an oncogene, and that for this reason, it was excluded from the Sinclair experiments: then why was a known potential cancer promoter element — SV40 — included in the template formulation (composition) for ER-100? Please see below, again from the paper, in the Methods section, subsection “Production of adeno-associated viruses“:
Another quotation from the section cited above: “Next we tested the long-term safety of ectopically expressing OSK in vivo. To deliver and control OSK expression in mice, we engineered a dual adeno-associated virus (AAV) system under the tight control of a tetracycline response element (TRE) promoter (Fig. 1a).”
Section 0047: AAV (adeno-associated viruses) may be used in compositions of ER-100. So can any of the recombinant viruses (herpes virus; vaccinia virus; alphavirus; and so on — “alone or in combination.”
Section 00221: list of recombinant viruses.
**** Section 00222 and Table 1.: list of recombinant AAV virus types; Table 1. is the list of AAV serotypes. AAV2 and AAV9 were the serotypes most used in the mice experiments for the December 2020 paper. AAV9 serotypes cross the Blood-Brain Barrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeno_associated_virus.)
**** Section 00239, Section 00240, Table 2.: OSK (the Yamanaka Factors OCT-4, SOX-2, KFL-4) “…may be activated…in combination with activating an enhancer of reprogramming and/or inhibiting a barrier of reprogramming.” This sentence is highly significant, in light of the Table 2. Non-limiting strategies to enhance reprogramming.One of the “barriers to reprogramming” that would be inhibited is the p53 protein — the very protein that is the “master control” element in the human body to detect and suppress cancer cells. (https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-our-censored-study-showing, Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, 19 December 2025; https://www.theqtree.com/author/pavaca1/, search “p53”.)
All of above is aside from the fact that Dr. Sinclair and his co-authors apparently had no issues with simulating eye injury effects in lab mice by crushing the optic nerve of the mice (under anesthesia); and, with simulating glaucoma effects in lab mice by injecting large amounts of microbeads into the eyes of the mice. After which, the mice were evaluated, then eventually euthanized for autopsy. Yours Truly will call these lab mice “Sinclair’s mice” (recall the phenomenon of “Fauci’s beagles” in the NIH-funded experiments with beagle puppies and sand flies: please see https://bfp.org/, the Beagle Freedom Project.)
Yours Truly is not making a case against therapeutic efforts that MAY BE helpful or conclusive in slowing down, stopping, or even reversing, medical conditions such as, certain eye diseases (whether or not these eye diseases are relating to the aging process): therapeutic efforts that MAY work. However, one also believes that therapeutic efforts which include inhibiting the body’s ability to detect and suppress cancer cells (such as, ER-100 containing elements that would inhibit the p53 cancer cell detector / suppressor protein); along with adding a known potential cancer promoter element (SV40) — is not the way to go. Similarly, why would a therapeutic effort need to include potentially using a recombinant virus (such as, ER-100 containing elements of, for example, the herpes virus [see Part One of this series])? If one is reading the December 2020 paper and the Patent WO/2020/069373 for the ER-100 template correctly; and the September 2019 Patent WO/2020/069339 for the “Mutant Reverse Tetracycline Transactivators” correctly — it appears that a tetracycline (doxycycline) is first added into, then removed from, the composition of ER-100, thus requiring a course of doxycyline to be taken by the patient (or, in the case of NCT07290244, the study subjects) to “activate” the “transgenes” in the composition. What happens after the 56-day course of doxycycline that the Clinical Trial NCT07290244 study subjects will take, in order to “activate” the ER-100 in the body? Does the ER-100 just keep working “on its own” inside the body after this course of doxycyline is completed? What happens if the ER-100 stops working, either during the clinical trial, or during the 5-year-follow period? What about the 5-year-long follow timeframe for the NCT07290244 study subjects in general?: Is this out of an “abundance of caution?” Or, is it, so to speak, to use the study subjects as a kind of “long-term human lab mouse study group since actual mice don’t live for 5 years” situation? Is it reasonable to ask: What recourse do the NCT07290244 study subjects have in the event that a serious adverse event occurs to them, either during the study period, or afterwards?
Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA1
(Intellectual Property Disclaimer and Notice: Except for the linked URLs and other items available on the Internet, the ideas and/or opinions in today’s offering are by PAVACA1 (M.E. Forbes, aka M.E.C. Forbes.) Credit must be given to PAVACA if ideas and/or opinions in today’s offering are used by other blog writers; by podcasters; or in print or social media.)
The free image of an eye for the header of today’s offering is courtesy of ClipArt and Google Images.
Health Friday is a series devoted to information about Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and associated topics. There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: AI-generated items in today’s offering will be cited as such. If readers wish to post AI-generated items in today’s discussion thread, they must cite their source. Thank You.
ER-100: SV40 Injected into the Eyes to “Reverse Aging”: Part One of Two
There is a certain tenured PhD professor in genetics at Harvard University. His name is David A. Sinclair. He is a native of Australia. Dr. Sinclair, and his lab at Harvard, specialize in the study of what ages human beings. He also studies methods and ways to slow down, or even to stop, this aging process. He is the holder of numerous Patents in this regard. Please see: https://sinclair.hms.harvard.edu/people/david-sinclair. Dr. Sinclair is also the co-founder of a company called Life Biosciences. The company’s statement: “At Life Biosciences, we are on a mission to reverse age-related disease” (https://www.lifebiosciences.com/about-us/about-life-sciences/.) Today’s offering is not to be viewed in any way as a “hit piece” on Dr. Sinclair, or to denigrate his work: instead, it is to present another take on a certain project that he is working on.
However — the Life Biosciences press release, cited above, mentions only three of the four “Yamanaka factors” that ER-100 would be be utilizing. This is not a small point. And this is where the story gets interesting.
Dr. Shinya Yamanaka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinya_Yamanaka) discovered proteins, called Transcription Factors, which regulate / control “…the rate of transcription of genetic information from DNA to messenger RNA [mRNA], by binding to DNA sequences” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_factor.) Dr. Yamanaka reduced the original number of Transcription Factors from twenty-four down to four: OCT-4; SOX-2; KLF-4; and, c-Myc. It is the c-Myc transcription factor that can “go rogue”, so to speak, and foster the growth of cancer cells: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc904, “c-MYC: more than just a matter of life and death”, Stella Pelengaris, et al. A screenshot of the Abstract of this article is below:
What is SV40 — the element that has been proven to be in both the Pfizer-BioNTech and in the Moderna modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccines”? Please see:https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.2.119, “Cell and Molecular Biology of Simian Virus 40: Implications for Human Infections and Disease”, Janet S. Butel, John A. Lednicky; 20 January 1999. Following is a quotation from the Abstract of this paper: “Simian virus 40 (SV40), a polymavirus of rhesus macaque origin, was discovered in 1960 as a contaminent of polio vaccines that were distributed to millions of people from 1955 to early 1963. SV40 is a potent DNA tumor virus that induces tumors in rodents and transforms many types of cells in culture, including those of human origin.” (Bolding mine.)
Why is Yours Truly including a mention of SV40 here? Because SV40 is contained in ER-100. It is the “swapped-out” protein for the fourth Yamanaka Factor, c-Myc, discussed above. The following screenshot, below, is from the Latypova article on ER-100: a screenshot from the 2020 published paper by Dr. David Sinclair, et al. (which will be further discussed in Part Two.) It is also, in Yours Truly’s opinion, the reason why the Life Biosciences press release, cited above, mentions only three of the Yamanaka Factors — it is possible that the companydoes not want the public to know that SV40, a cancer-causing element, is contained in the drug: especially in light of the fact that more people are starting to realize that SV40 is in the modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccines” that they have in their bodies:
In other words: the poly(A) “signal” used in the modified AAV-TRE-OSK element in ER-100 is the SV40 poly(A) “signal.” AAV is “adeno-associated virus vector” element; TRE is the tetracycline-derived element; OSK is the acronym for the three Yamanaka Factors OCT-4, SOX-2, and KLF-4 elements. Thus far, then, ER-100 is comprised of AAV (with the SV40 poly(A) tail) + TRE + OSK-4 + SOX-2 + KLF-4. But this is not the entire story. Yours Truly now turns to the Patent “template” for ER-100, which was “invented” by Dr. David A. Sinclair, et al., Patent Number WO2020/069373, filed on 27 September 2019.
The Patent information for WO2020/069373 is found here: https://patentscope.wipo.net/search/en/WO2020069373. The Patent was filed using an international listing, as opposed to a US Patent listing. The International Filing Date was 27 September 2019. The Publication Date was 2 April 2020. The applicamts for the Patent were the President and Fellows of Harvard College, 17 Quincy St., Cambridge, MA, 02138. The funding for the research leading to the Patent was provided through NIAID grants R01AG019719, and R01DK100263. The Title of the Patent is: “1.WO2020069373 – CELLULAR REPROGRAMMING TO REVERSE AGING AND PROMOTE ORGAN AND TISSUE REGENERATION.” The following are Yours Truly’s summaries of some of the listings in the Description of the Patent:
Section 0002: Lists the NIAID grants that funded the “invention.”
Section 0018: mention of SV40: an “expression vector”, also as a “constitutive promoter.”
Section 0019: SV40 amounts used in the composition of the “invention.” These amounts range from AT LEAST 70%, up to 100% “in certain embodiments.”
Section 0033: the “invention” will contain a tetracycline (example: doxycyline.)
Section 0034: the “invention” may include TRE (a Tetracycline Reverse Element (a promoter.))
Section 0035: areas of the body where the “invention” can be used. Examples: eye; ear; nose; mouth; bone; breast; lung; pancreas; cardiac muscle; liver; skin; heart; intestine; testis; ovary.
**** Section 0047: the “compositions” of the “invention” may include “any of the recombinant viruses” (e.g. alphavirus; vaccinia virus; herpes virus; AAV; etc.)
Section 0074: types of ocular diseases the “invention” can be used for.
Section 00109: description of the Gain-of-Function techniques used to produce the “invention.” Section 00100 and Section 00111 further describe the Gain-of-Function techniques used.
Section 00133: the “invention” can also use a “tetracycline-controlled transactivator” called MUTANT REVERSE TETRACYCLINE.
Section 00263: start of listings of the “engineered nucleic acids”, “engineered cells”, “engineered proteins”, and “chemical agents” that the “invention” will use to induce “expression” of the OCT-4, KFL-4, and/or the SOX-2 factors cells.
Section 00294: start of discussion and listings of the various cationic lipids that the “invention” will use in “certain embodiments.” Examples: Lipofectin (DOTMA + DOPE); DOTMA separately; DOSPA; DDAB, etc.
Now, from the above, thus far, ER-100 is comprised of: AAV (with the SV40 poly(A) tail) + TRE (Tetracycline Reverse Element promoter) + OSK-4 + SOX-2 + KFL-4 + possibly “any of the recombinant viruses (Section 0047) + a MUTANT REVERSE TETRACYCLINE TRANSACTIVATOR FOR EXPRESSION OF GENES (Section 00133) + NANOPLASMID (Section 00200) + a cationic lipid (Section 00294.)
It also appears, in Yours Truly’s opinion, that ER-100 for use to “reverse aging in the eye” may be only the first application of Dr. Sinclair’s “invention.” It appears that the “certain embodiments” of his “invention” can potentially be used to “reverse the aging” of many areas and organs of the human body.
To be continued in Part Two.
Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA1
(Intellectual Disclaimer and Notice: Except for the linked URLs and other items in today’s offering that are available on the Internet, the ideas and/or opinions in today’s offering are by PAVACA1 (M.E. Forbes, aka M.E.C. Forbes.) Credit must be given to PAVACA if ideas and/or opinions in today’s offering are used by other blog writers; by podcasters; or in print or social media.)
The above image (also the header image) of a vintage Rolodex in today’s offering is courtesy of Google Images.
Health Friday is a series devoted to Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and associated topics. As today’s offering speaks to the disaster of COVID-19, Yours Truly dedicates it to all persons, of whatever age or location, who have passed away from either the negative effects of a COVID-19 virus infection; or, from the negative effects of the COVID-19 “vaccines” that they had in their body.
There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s offering for AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none, except perhaps for AI-generated images within linked URLs. If readers wish to post AI-generated content in today’s discussion thread, they must cite their source. Thank you.
Vaccines, Amen, by Attorney Aaron Siri. Attorney Siri is involved with https://phmpt.org/ (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, one of the organizations that have forced the release of thousands of documents on the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” via FOIA lawsuits.)
The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, by John Leake and Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH. Mr Leake and Dr. McCullough are involved with https://www.thefocalpoints.com/, a website that focuses on, among other topics, disseminating the real truth about the COVID-19 “vaccines”, the role of Bio Pharma in promoting the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines”, and more.
Information Compendium sitesrelated to COVID-19:
From Children’s Health Defense: https://www.covidindex.science/, via Dr. Brian Hooker, PhD, Chief Scientific Officer of CHD. This is a searchable index of thousands of items.
Preventing Cancer: The ROOT Protocols. https://doi.org/10.71189/JIM/2025/V01N04A02, by Paul Marik, MD, and Justus Hope, MD. Both of these medical doctors are involved with Independent Medical Alliance https://imahealth.org/ (formerly FLCCC.) Interested readers must register with the Journal of Independent Medicine (the journal of Independent Medical Alliance) in order to view the entire paper. A story on The ROOT Protocols is here: https://imahealth.substack.com/cp/178752784, 12 November 2025.
Dr. Jessica Rose and Dr. Kevin McKernan have just finished a new project which reveals the truth behind the inclusion of N1-Methylpseudouridine, in both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines”; and, of the inclusion of a gene code piece from the African Green Monkey cancer promoter, SV40, in the Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines”: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/we-know-exactly-how-and-why-the-dna. “We now exactly how and why the DNA is in the Moderna and Pfizer vials”, 15 November 2025. Please see the screenshots from this article, below;
Three:
A new study, by Alain R. Thierry, et al., reveals that 100% of COVID-19 “vaccinated” persons have microclots in their blood; and, that COVID-19 “vaccinated” persons who present with symptoms of “Long COVID” also have microclots: https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-study-anomalous-amyloid, “Breaking Study: Anomalous Amyloid Microclots Found in 100% of the COVID-19 Vaccinated”, Nicolas Hulscher, 17 November 2025. Please see the screenshots from this article, below:
The scientific paper referred to in the Hulscher article is here: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.70613, “Circulating Microclots Are Structurally Associated With Neutraphil Extracurricular Traps and Their Amounts Are Elevated in Long COVID Patients”, Alain R. Thierry, et al., 2 October 2025. Note the use of the word, “circulating.” This means that the microclots in the blood of the COVID-19 “vaccinated” persons are moving around inside the body. The Abstract from this paper is below:
The COVID-19 “vaccines” — all of them — if, for no other reason, must be immediately removed from use, from the market, and removed from any immunization schedule (especially the Immunization Schedules of the CDC), because of the evidence presented in the Thierry, et al., paper regarding circulating microclots in the blood of COVID-19 “vaccinated” persons, and in the blood of COVID-19 “vaccinated” persons who present with symptoms of “Long COVID.” There is no other acceptable option at this point.
THERE. MUST. BE. ACCOUNTABILITY.
THERE. MUST. BE. JUSTICE.
THERE. MUST. BE. TRUTH.
Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA
(Intellectual Property Notice: With the exception of cited published scientific papers and publicly-available blogs and other websites, the ideas and conclusions in today’s post are by PAVACA. Proper credit must be given to PAVACA if other blog writers, podcasters, social media posts, or print media, use the ideas or conclusions in today’s post.)
The above free vintage image of DNA strands is courtesy of Shutterstock via Google Images.
Health Friday is a series of posts related to Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and associated topics. Since today’s post is related to the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines”, it is dedicated to the memory of Yours Truly’s COVID-19 “vaccinated” late brother, Sam, and to her late cousin Bill; and to all persons, of whatever age or location, who have passed away from the negative effects (direct or indirect) of the COVID-19 “vaccines” that they took.
There are Important Wolf Moon Notifications, the Rules of our late, good Wheatie, and certain Yours Truly caveats, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. The discussion today is not limited to what is presented below: It is an Open Thread.
Above all — There. Must. Be. Justice.
To Begin: Yours Truly will now change the name of the COVID-19 “vaccines” to reflect what they really are — dangerous and deadly bioweapons injections:
COVID-19 Bioweapon Toxin Injections (COVID-19 BTI). They are NOT “vaccines.” The FDA, the CDC, and the makers of these injections/injectables KNOW THIS. If Yours Truly refers to these injectables as “vaccines”, it is for “convenience-recognition” only, e.g., as in scientific papers or in media headlines.
Today’s post is a confirmation and an amplification regarding the discovery of large amounts of “free” DNA residue in vials of the Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 modRNA BTI, BNT162b2. The trail begins here: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/a-new-paper-confirms-presence-of, A new paper confirms presence of DNA in COVID-19 shot vials, settles issues pertaining to DNA quantification models, shows spike persistence and exosomal shuttling (shedding), by Jessica Rose, PhD., 4 December 2024. Yours Truly will address this article and the paper that it cites, in addition to some earlier papers by other researchers on the topic. The “weave” of today’s post is somewhat dense — the depth of the perfidy behind BNT162b2 is wide and deep. Please bear with me.
The Kammerer, et al., paper is hugely important. The multitude of tests and assays that were performed on the samples from the Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 BTI vials is not only incredibly thorough; it is also stunning. Several earlier hypotheses (and evidence from previous scientific papers and articles) regarding these injectables are now confirmed:
One: More of the ingredients of the Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 BTI are confirmed — “loose” DNA; the SV40 African Green Monkey cancer promoter-enhancer genome code sequence; the presence of HEK293 cells (aborted fetal cells); the presence of the antibiotic, Neomycin (a drug that treats bacterial infections); and, ORI replicons in the plasmids in the injectable. ORI replicons are the things that “teach” the “vaccinated” person’s body to make copies of the spike protein — in other words, a type of self-amplifying modRNA mechanism is introduced into the body. Plasmids are tiny DNA molecules that are inside a cell; plasmids are not chromosomal DNA and can independently reproduce themselves. An image of plasmids inside a cell is below (courtesy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmid):
Two: The amount of “loose” DNA in BNT162b2 is well above EMA (European Medicines Agency) limits. A screenshot of Figure 2. section D, of the Kammerer, et al., paper, below, clearly shows this:
Three: The presence of the DNA plasmids and of the SV40 African Green Monkey cancer promoter-enhancer gene code sequence were NOT disclosed to the FDA by Pfizer-BioNTech prior to that agency’s granting of the initial EUA for BNT162b2 on 11 December 2020 for this injectable’s use in the United States. The salient statement from the Kammerer, et al., paper, on this is below:
Yours Truly will note that the FDA also granted “full approval” of BNT162b2 in 2022, under the brand name COMIRNATY, and its “descendant clone” modRNA COVID-19 BTIs, including all “new formula” injections {such as the 2024-2025 COMIRNATY COVID-19 modRNA BTI.)
Four: There is a distinct possibility that BNT162b2 can “shed” from “vaccinated” persons onto other persons, via exosomal secretion. From the Discussion section of the Kammerer, et al., paper, below:
The COVID-19 modRNA BTIs are “shuttled” throughout the body of the person who takes these injectables. This “shuttling”, in part, is performed by exosomes. Exosomes are tiny elements that are formed by lipid bilayers and function as a kind of “shuttle service” within the body, carrying proteins, lipids, and other items to and from body organs, including to the skin. Please refer to: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35436552/, “Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs”, Stephanie Seneff, et al., 15 April 2022.
Scientific researchers have been experimenting with SV40 African Green Monkey cancer promoter-enchancer gene code since at least 1997. Please see: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.71.1.427-436.1997, “Direct modulation of simian virus 40 late gene expression by thyroid hormone and its receptor”, Fengrong Zuo, Tod Gulick, et al. Below is a graphic of the SV40 gene code experiment, followed by a portion of the Discussion section of this paper:
Research has been performed regarding SV40-induced cancers, via “methylation.” Please refer to: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cr.7290295, “Epigenetic changes in virus associated human cancers”, Hsin Pai Li, et al., 1 April 2005.
Two papers by Kevin McKernan have researched much of the information that the Kammerer, et al., paper has confirmed. One McKernan paper is here: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/b9t7m, “Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose”, Kevin McKernan, et al., 10 April 2023. A graphic from this paper is below:
Please note that there are two separate SV40 elements in this graphic: the SV40 enhancer and the SV40 “signal” in the poly-A “tail” of BNT162b2.
The other McKernan paper is here, regarding DNA fragments in BOTH the Pfizer-BioNTech AND in the Moderna modRNA COVID-19 BTIs: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/mjc97, “DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose relationship with serious adverse events”, Kevin McKernan, et al., 19 October 2023.
Yours Truly now turns to the “primary source document” for BNT162b2, the International Patent declarationdocument for this injectable. It is found here: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021213945A1/en, published on 28 October 2021. Note: The patent number in the Kammerer, et al., paper (WO2021214204) is a another identifier for this patent. It is difficult to access the actual patent document by using this identifier on a search — the above Google URL is easy to find. Another patent number for BNT162b2, WO2021213924, is similarly difficult to find. Yours Truly suspects that these other patent documents and information were “subsumed” into WO2021213945A1.
Yours Truly found listed in the above document, among many other items:
One: That BNT162b2 targets the “vaccinated” person’s CD 4 and CD8 cells. Please see the screenshot, below, from the International Patent declaration:
Two: That BNT162b2 uses ** either ** N1-Methylpseudouridine, orpseudouridine, or5-methyl-uridine, to replace the natural Uridine in the “vaccinated” person’s body. Please see the screenshot, below, from the International Patent declaration:
The reason why, in Yours Truly’s opinion, there are THREE different types of “fake” Uridine that can be used in BNT262b2 is because Pfizer-BioNTech wanted to have “maximum leeway” to choose any of these three types for use in various formulations and/or lots of BNT162b2. That’s why the words “in one embodiment” are used throughout the patent document. This “leeway” would also theoretically apply to any “descendant clone” modRNA COVID-19 BTI made by this company.
**** Three: Regarding the Kammerer, et al., paper: These researchers used “Sequence ID 16” (SEQ ID 16) in the BNT162b2 International Patent declaration as the basis for their tests and assays regarding the presence of “loose” DNA and the presence of the SV40 African Green Monkey cancer promoter-enhancer gene code piece. Below is a screenshot of the mention of this sequence, and the BNT162b2 patent that was used, by Kammerer, et al.
Yours Truly read through the patent document and found the only area that appears to match SEQ ID 16. A screenshot of this, from the patent document, is below:
From here, Yours Truly found a long list of the actual spike protein gene codes (S protein) in SEQ ID 16. This sequence begins with “hAg-Kozak“, which is important as regards “loose” DNA and the SV40 cancer promoter gene piece code. Please see the screenshot of the hAg-Kozak code, followed by a portion of the spike protein codes, below:
The hAg-Kozak codes are a kind of nucleic acid “pattern” that functions as a “protein initiation site” in mRNA applications (paraphrased from the hAg-Kozak entry at Wikipedia.)
Finally, a screenshot follows of the FI element and Poly-A tail gene codes in SEQ ID 16:
Recall that the Poly-A tail is the “signal” for the SV40 cancer promoter gene code piece in the McKernan paper, cited above.
FI element (nucleotides 3864 to 4158): The 3′-UTR is a combination of two sequence elements derived from the “amino terminal enhancer of split” (AES) mRNA (called F) and the mitochondrial encoded 12S ribosomal RNA (called I). These were identified by an ex vivo selection process for sequences that confer RNA stability and augment total protein expression9
Wolf Moon continues: “So basically these are gene sequences that were found to work well as linkers which enhance production of the desired target (the spike protein), and are thus tacked onto the sequence for the spike. IMO they are a lot like the SV40 sequence for DNA, but they work at the mRNA level.”
Further discussion of the TWO separate SV40 cancer promoter elements in BNT162b2 are found in another item cited by the Kammerer, et al., paper: https://anandamide.substack.com/p/pfizer-and-moderna-bivalent-vaccines, “Pfizer and Moderna bivalent vaccines contain 20 – 35% expression vector and are transformation competent in E. coli”, 8 March 2023. A screenshot of their assessment of the SV40 cancer promoter and “signal” placements in BNT162b2 is below:
In Yours Truly’s opinion: What we have here was / is NOT a case of Pfizer-BioNTech saying, “Oops, forgot to remove the loose DNA from BNT162b2 before it was / is put into the vials”; NOR was it / is it, a case of, “Oops, forgot to remove the SV40 elements from the product before it was / is put into the vials.” Instead, it is deliberate inclusion of BOTH the “loose” DNA AND of the SV40 African Green Monkey cancer promoter-enhancer gene code piece into BNT162b2. It says it right there in the International Patent declaration for BNT162b2, the SEQ ID 16 listings. Since BNT162b2 is the basis for the “descendant clone” COVID-19 modRNA BTI by this company, plus the fact that all of these products are manufactured using the “Process 2” method (“marinating” the ingredients of the injectable in E. coli), Yours Truly will posit that it can be assumed that “loose” DNA and the SV40 promoter-enhancer gene codes are present in these “descendant clone” injectables, even if they are present in lesser amounts.
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
Introduction
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.
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.
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.
Japanese professor, Murakami of Tokyo University of Science made an amazing finding.
The Pfizer's vaccine contains the SV40 sequence which is known as a promoter of the cancer virus. The SV40 sequence is completely unnecessary to produce the mRNA vaccine. https://t.co/RtnbCUHAmJpic.twitter.com/gZx5ycf1L9
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.
Enjoy.
We begin with a Pharm Boy attacking Murakami’s analysis.
Hello, this is false. The plasmid does not contain the entire SV40 gene, just the ori of replication, poly(A) signal, and a promoter. None of these sequences allow for translocation into the nucleus. That sequence is contained in the VP2 region, which is not in this plasmid
The abstract, with the relevant text in BOLD, is here:
ABSTRACT
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.
Lmaoooo the plasmid doesn’t contain the enhancer region genius. Just the origin of rep, promoter, and poly(A) signal.
Can you link something saying that using only these three regions that transport into the nucleus is facilitated? Take your time
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.
Is any of this influenced by the simultaneous presence of a translocation signal in the spike protein itself, which does appear to assist translocation of spike mRNA?https://t.co/q2oocDy5eU
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.]
This paper is about the actual spike protein from the virus, not the spike generated from mRNA vaccines, whose binding site is inactivated.
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.
Yes, it's true that Mehedi's work was done on the viral spike mRNA and protein. Likewise, it is true that the full spike pseudo-mRNA in the vaccines has a few seq changes such as prolines to lock conformation, etc. Those don't address whether a functioning NT signal remains.
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.
A quick BLAST search should resolve this as the NLS sequence in the COVID spike is from aa residue 682 to 685.
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 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.
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.
Thank you. You prompted me to do the work. The full nuclear translocation signal (PRRARSV) cited by @masfique appears to be intact in both the actual Pfizer and Moderna sequences. Here is Pfizer.
Taylor’s response was interesting, and I didn’t expect it.
Wonder if the inactivated binding side negates this as it doesn’t allow the vaccine spike to be taken up by the cell. But thank you for doing your due diligence, this is good information
This response actually set me up to explain why the binding site issue is largely irrelevant. First my reply, then the explanation.
Thanks! Even assuming that cell surface binding/entry inactivation reduces direct secondary toxicity of the vaccine-produced spike to new cells, the NTS still means that primary genotoxicity of the Ψ-mRNA+spike may occur for any cell affected by LNP-enabled uptake of Ψ-mRNA.
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.
W
Title: CAREY TREATMENT, THE ¥ Pers: COBURN, JAMES / AUBREY, SKYE ¥ Year: 1972 ¥ Dir: EDWARDS, BLAKE ¥ Ref: CAR019AF ¥ Credit: [ MGM / THE KOBAL COLLECTION ]
