are covid vaccines coding for that they claim to? (and was this willfully ignored?)

impure thoughts on synthetic spike proteins: moving the safety goalposts (part 2)

there are some extremely worrying reports emerging of new forms of what appear to be prion based neurodegenerative disease that rapidly manifest post covid vaccination.

you do NOT want a prion disease. it’s a result of misfolded proteins and in cases like CJD universally fatal. per mayo clinic, it’s extremely rare affecting 1-2 people per million per year. that makes this clustering and timing look extremely unusual.

(note: i’m not sure why they are describing CJD as taking decades to progress as it seems to be more like a 1 year timeframe though that seems to be from diagnosis rather than contraction which would almost never be detected without unusual diagnostics and so may only catch very late state disease)

the first patient here was

and the thing about a prion disease is once you know to look for it, the diagnosis is definitive and because it’s so rare, an uptick in occurrence is a VERY loud signal especially with such extraordinarily tight timing.

as can be seen, progression in many patients was extremely rapid

and nearly all were showing symptoms within 15 days

and progression was fatal. half were dead in 5 months.

this alone would generally be enough to pull pretty much any other recent vaccine off the market.

consider also the UK reaction to “mad cow.”

but given what has already been ignored here and the seeming acquiescence of “health agencies” in doing so, i would not hold my breath of i were you…

instead, let’s look at just how we got here and why pretty much everyone should have seen this coming:

first off, the structures of the synthetic spike proteins in the vaccines were problematic from the word go because they were highly CG enriched and enabled by a a pseudo uridine passkey. certain internet felines were yowling volubly about this a ways back.

CG enrichment in covid vaccine mRNA

codon optimization for easier design and manufacture led to CG enrichment in drug vs wild.

CG content (guanine-cytosine content) is the percentage of nitrogenous bases in a DNA or RNA molecule that are either guanine (G) or cytosine (C).

actual virus is 36%. pfizer is 53%. moderna is 61%. those are, respectively, 47% and 69% more CG content than live virus.

this much higher level of CG has serious implications as such genes express more efficiently and as all preferred mammalian codons carry a G or C in the third position, you can get lots of inadvertently active areas.

imagine you’re playing boggle in a language with 4 letters (where all meaningful words (in this case, all preferred mammalian codons) have 3 letters and end in either a C or a G) obviously, the number of words you make when you shake the dice will change if you add more C’s and G’s to the set.

each of these “words” codes for an amino acid or a providing signals to protein synthesis.

so, add more C’s and G’s, and any given string is going to code for more aminos/proteins, often in unpredictable fashion and combination. this has all manner of effects including alterations in regulatory and structural roles. it’s a bit of a biological pandora’s box and can cause immune malfunction and even diseases like crohns and cystic fibrosis.

you can up expression of genes by several or even by hundreds of times by enriching CG.

this was NOT tested for in the trials.

it’s a little technical and eye glazing, but i REALLY recommend you read the CG substack above as it points RIGHT at issues like CJD.

the same is true of all kinds of oncogene expression that will cause cancer, lymphoma, etc.

we’re swimming in some VERY unpleasant water here and as we’re about to see, all the safeguards generally used to avoid it seem to have been disabled.

there is a great article on trial site news discussing a set of potentially serious phraud issues in the pfizer trials around the proteins expressed by the HEK cells (human embryonic kidney) in the pfizer drug trials.

this is a little technical, so let’s unpack:

mRNA vaccines (adenovirus vaccines like AZ too) are not intended to trigger or train immune response by themselves. instead, they penetrate cells and provide instructions to them to produce sets of proteins that look like those produced by cells infected with pathogen (in this case, sars-cov2).

how well they do this is a key issue in both efficacy and predictability. this can be measured using techniques like western blot to see just what is being produced and this was asked of the drug companies by regulators because something truly outlandish was going on: the purity level of these drugs has been alarmingly low. (bold mine)

 Last June, Trial Site News broke the scandal of the leaked European Medicines Agency emails and confidential Pfizer/BioNTech related documents, with an in-depth analysis and a follow up report.

Damning details in both reports exposed how key regulators such as the EMA, FDA, Health Canada and the MHRA were fully aware of the significant drop in RNA integrity (which is a critical quality attribute) to ~55% in the commercial batches (Process 2: large scale production) of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine compared to ~78% in the clinical batches (Process 1: small scale production).

The RNA integrity level is a measure of how intact the modified mRNA molecules are in the vaccine. The explanation of what an intact mRNA molecule is comprised of, can be extracted from the following Patel et al paper, written by Pfizer and BioNTech researchers.

this is cause for serious concern. 78% is already low. 55% is unlike anything i have ever seen in production especially as this is being deemed a “product related impurity.”

and one would expect a serious response. instead, they just changed the standard to make 55% “passing”

A document from a pivotal meeting of November 26, 2020, between the regulator (EMA) and Pfizer/BioNTech revealed the alarming fact that this “major objection” was “solved” by simply lowering the standard down to 50% even when Pfizer claimed, “The efficacy of the drug product is dependent on the expression of the delivered RNA, which requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule.” Furthermore, the level set was significantly lower than the minimum threshold of 70% that Acuitas Therapeutics had stipulated.

This lowering of the standard to allow up to half of the modified mRNA in the vaccines to be fragmented or truncated was done against the backdrop of another alarming concern arising from these impurities: ‘the possibility of translated proteins other than intended spike protein (S1S2) resulted from truncated and/or modified mRNA species should be addressed.’

now think back to the boggle metaphor around CG enrichment. this kind of impurity in structure would be bad enough, but in the presence of that level of increased tendency to “spell bad words” and code for everything from prions to cancers gets blown into the stratosphere.

this is russian roulette with A LOT of full chambers to the point where even the EMA (europe FDA equivalent) opined:

'A severe deficiency of the characterisation section is that no biological characterisation is presented and that the mode of action is not described. This is not found acceptable and the dossier should be updated with relevant information.

this led to a set of western blots submitted by pfizer purporting to show that coding was tight and targeted and that there was nothing to worry about.

but the validity of these blots has been called into question as their utter perfection looks implausible, especially for a hand done blot. you can read the full “blotgate” argument on the TS news link above. i’m not really sure how to assess it yet. some have claimed that these near perfect bands could be the result of using an aglient reader and others that it’s still impossible and/or far too perfect across batches to be anything but cut and paste.

i got this take from fellow feline and long term gatopal™ kevin mckernan who has, frankly, forgotten more about genetics and the sequencing thereof than i am ever likely to know. it raises an interesting question “why would we seek to answer a 2020’s question with 70’s technology”?

They are obsessing over the western blot images which do look manipulated or unconvincing. What’s outrageous is that they’re using western blots in 2022.

It’s like arguing over Pfizer having their CRT monitor upside down when the real question is why the hell are still using CRTs?

They should do peptide sequencing of the products. Not western blots. LC-MS/ QTOF Mass spec is the standard for peptide sequencing.

would love to get additional takes from anyone deeply knowledgeable on this process as i’m just not hands on enough with that tech to take a strong view, but there is a phishy scent on the air here.

it’s a really important issue, perhaps a pivotal one. if this response data was falsified, it’s game over. that’s outright pfraud and deliberate masking of a key safety signal in response to a direct regulator question.

even what’s currently passing for public health and drug regulation these days would have to sit up and take notice and fraud is a universal contract solvent, so all the liability shields evaporate.

seems like a topic worth digging into because there sure is a lot of “suddenly” around these days and at some point someone is going to need to explain/own it.

and there seems to be a lot of very iffy behavior here.

how on earth did health agencies decide to be OK with 55% purity and move the goalposts?

are they even looking at prion issues?

cancers?

did anyone check or validate these blots or independently verify? were they run on high purity product or the 55% RNA integrity commercial batches?

certainly a lot of ground here for a diligent regulator to explore…

none of this was normal.

none of this was “happenstance.”

you do not suddenly just discard 100 years of regulatory and pharmacological practice, pandemic guidelines, and general standards and sense on safety.

someone here made choices.

these goalposts got moved so far that they are not even on the field anymore.

and demanding to know who, why, and on what basis this occurred is the key to preventing this from happening again.