CG enrichment in covid vaccine mRNA

why the vaccines may have VERY different systemic effects vs covid virus

the other day, i wrote about the manner in which mRNA vaccines look to be suppressing not only innate immune function, but also the mechanisms by which pathogens and cancers are detected.

are mRNA vaccines causing innate immune suppression?

this piece also discussed the pseudo uridine passkey by which these drugs can permeate your whole body unmolested and the long period in which they generate synthetic spike proteins. these spike proteins are, themselves, a serious pathogen and they look to be produced for in excess of 60 days post injection.

this alone would be cause for concern, but such concerns may be significantly amplified by another issue: the elicited S proteins are NOT the same genetic sequences as live virus.

they are highly CG enriched and that has great potential for danger.

let’s start HERE:

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.

this gets a bit abstruse, so perhaps a metaphor is in order:

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 should have been. this is why you would want to spend several years studying this before sending it out for widespread use.

this was known, but ignored.

The altered codon assignments within the mRNA template dramatically increase the quantity of polypeptides and/or proteins produced [85]. Synonymous codon placement also results in a change in the multifunctional regulatory and structural roles of resulting proteins [86]. For this reason, codon optimization has been cautioned against due to its consequent changes causing perturbation in the secondary conformation of protein products with potentially devastating effects on their resulting immunogenicity, efficacy and function [87,88]. Notably, various human diseases are the result of synonymous nucleotide polymorphisms [89].

this is basically telling you not to play this particular game of boggle because you have no idea what’s going to happen (but it’s almost certainly not going to be good.)

a nasty ringer is the emergence of the GGGG quadruplex (made easier by adding more G’s) which can cause neurological disease and bind to prions.

this may actually be quite a lot worse in that it appears that you do not even need a full quadruplex for this to happen. duplexes will do if the protein can fold in such a way as to generate what is effectively a quadruplex binding site and thus based on THIS study, all of these sites can play this role: (i) d(TGGGGT), (ii) r(GGAGGAGGAGGA) and (iii) d(GGAGGAGGAGGA) can serve as a quad.

this appears to facilitate the transition of PrPc into its pathologic isoform.

that’s bad.

eyes are likely badly glazed again, so let’s unpack:

PRPc is cellular prion protein common in mammals. its pathologic isoform is the actively harmful form of this protein (PRPsc) that causes actual prion diseases. an isoform is simply another form of a protein generated by alternative splicing. this allows a single gene or gene family to code for multiple proteins. (isoforms)

many times, these similar proteins have similar or identical functions.

sometimes, they don’t.

PrPsc is one of those times.

the pathologic isoforms of prion proteins are, to put it mildly, very bad news. a prion is a protein that can trigger other proteins to misfold. this not only alters its function, it transmits this error to normally folded proteins of the same type. so it spreads. and once it starts, there is really no stopping it. this is the source of a nasty list of neurodegenerative diseases you very badly do not want such as creutzfeldt–jakob disease and fatal familial insomnia that more or less all amount to “brain swelling until you invariably die.” there is no getting better from these. (mad cow was also a prion).

salting the boggle set with more G’s makes if far more likely you’re going to start setting off this process and a fair few others besides: from the innate immune suppression study: (pG4 is a GGGG quadruplex)

OK. get ready for more eye glazing:

As described elsewhere, during the cellular translation of vaccine mRNAs, an increased assembly of a number of RNA binding protein helicases, such as eIF4A bound to eIF4G, will occur [74]. The presence of increased pG4s in synthetic mRNAs can potentially amplify binding of RNA binding proteins and miRNAs. This form of molecular crowding of protein components (helicases) with great affinity for G4 binding [100] will decrease the number of RNA binding proteins binding G4s normally available for miRNA regulation. This loss of RNA binding proteins as well as miRNA availability for regulation by binding to G4s can dramatically alter the translational regulation of miRNAs present in cells and thereby disrupt essential regulation of oncogene expression. An example is the p16-dependent regulation of the p53 tumor suppressor protein [100,107].

cliff notes:

more G quadruplexes, through a complex interaction with micro-RNA will favor expression of oncogenes. these are mutated genes that, as the prefix indicates, cause cancer.

combine that with the suppression of toll like receptors (TLR) 7 and 8 and inhibition of BRCA 1 and 2 gene activity through IRF 7 and 9 inhibition (discussed in the prior substack linked above) and you are wide open for cancer growth at just the time you have unleashed all sorts of cancer promoting potential.

you’ve turned off the smoke detectors and the sprinklers just as you began playing with fire and kerosene.

there have been A LOT of worrying anecdotes:

and this starts to find LOTS of unpleasant confluence with results coming out of VAERS:

Jessica Rose @JesslovesMJK

Cancer. Lots of leukaemias, lymphoma, bladder and breast cancer reports.

April 30th 2022

4,052 Retweets7,096 Likes

and with some work by longtime gatopal™ ethical skeptic:

(a malignant neoplasm is a cancerous tumor)

who states:

Cancers are at an 8.4 sigma high as of MMWR Week 16 of 2022. This equates to a 7.7% breakout, even higher than we saw last month wrt the Wonder-MCOD death comparative categories for 2021/22 vs 2021/20 (~4 - 5% higher)

this appears to be well in excess of what would be either covid pull through (accelerated death among the weakened) or the result of missed early detection. alone, one might be tempted to ascribe it to a lack of care and screening over 2 years but as a mosaic of data with the rest and with a solid reason to suspect a causal pathway, this gets increasingly unpleasant in its implications.

is this mRNA vaccine-cancer link proven beyond doubt? no.

is it suggestive enough to warrant A LOT of serious work? yes, i think so.

not having done this pre-release is a massive, monstrous lapse. the safety work here seems slipshod, incomplete, and short-term. none of these are things you look for in a product about to go into a billion people.

but it fits the pattern of all basic standards having gone out the window in the last 36 months or so.

maybe i and a number of other researchers are off base. (and, frankly, i’m at the ragged edge of my genetics and immunology here and perhaps past it, so please chime in if i’m screwing something up, it’s far from implausible)

i flat out hope i’m misreading this because this would be a staggeringly horrific outcome that makes herd level antigenic fixation look like a sunny day at the seashore.

mRNA is a problematic modality. it failed in multiple therapeutic applications due to awful side effects. it had never been used in humans before.

and now we’re running what amounts to a massive global trial that has not even worked out toxicity and dose ranging around adverse events.

VAERS has exploded and we’re so far past outcomes that would have had any other vaccine in history off the market that you’d need the hubble telescope to see back that far.

that such seriously pointy questions were not addressed prior to these drugs becoming the fastest uptake of a pharma product in human history beggars belief.

but they need to be asked and the answers found, and the sooner the better.

and you know what cats are like around pointy questions.