I don't think a ribosome can see the 3' end when it starts translating an mRNA into a protein, so any short mRNAs transfected into your cells could be producing all sorts of weird stuff.
I do think lot to lot quality control is going to be implicated in the variability of outcomes. It's highly unlikely that the rush to mass production has produced anything like a controlled process for what, billions of doses? And what about contaminants coming along for the ride in different batches. What a bloody, greedy mess.
"Early in the pandemic many people noticed CDC C19 qPCR primers that hit Human DNA. Debunkers quickly reminded people that in order for PCR to amplify, you must have all 3 primers land in proximity (100-400bp) to one another. So single primer alignments to different distant locations in the genome could be ignored.
I don’t have any theory to offer, just some observations...!
I got 2 kittens from the same litter. They had vaccines at 8 weeks ( then the male developed a weird skin rash on face that vet hospital dermatologist couldn’t diagnose- it got better with iodine washes!) and again at 12 weeks. The male was castrated under GA at 4 months. At 6 months the male developed heart failure and required admission for 5 days being kept in an oxygen chamber. He had high troponin on day 6 and ultrasound diagnosed ‘transient myocardial thickening’. I was told this was often a reaction to a vaccine or anaesthetic and they were surprised at the time delay. He got better with diuretics and anti platelets. He’s nearly 4 now and always less springy when chasing a toy than my others and I’ve been told his life will be shortened. Cats are injected in the scruff of the neck, not into muscle. He didn’t have a covid vaccine so clearly any vaccine can cause myocarditis.
The smallpox/monkeypox vaccines all had a high risk of myocarditis in comparison with other vaccines.
The list of possible side effects for vaccines seem remarkably similar and across species too. My previous cat developed a lump in the neck after yearly repeat vaccinations and after googling I discovered sarcomas can occur. Apparently a particular dog vaccination ( given in US) is recommended now to be given in the leg so that if/when a sarcoma develops then they can just amputate the leg ( which you can’t do with the scruff of the neck)!
Jan 23, 2023·edited Jan 23, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I watched the first interview of Prof Robert Clancy by John Campbell on Campbell's channel. Clancy is an immunologist. What I took from the interview is that no one really understands all that the mRNA and AAV/DNA shots are doing in the body. They discussed different damage mechanisms; you can't help concluding it must be individualized.
Your fine analysis here of the small study reinforces that conclusion: we're conducting a risky experiment with truly rotten design on a large sector of the human race.
I never could understand how Girardot could claim similar damage came from prior vaccines hitting a vein.
With great respect, I congratulate you and your staff for the first, detailed publication on autopsy findings of five deceased (in temporal connection with the injection of mRNA drugs)!
I am confident and hopeful that your team will publish findings (including detection of modified mRNA and spike protein, and possibly detection of cationic lipids with MS/MS technology) not only for those who died of myocarditis in the period up to seven days, but also for the other patients.
More than a year ago, I addressed the myocarditis problem in adolescents (it involved the student body of our university) and our rector and his advisory team in several analyses (also publicly available). I attach two of these analyses. At that time, the toxic effects of LNPs (mediated via intracellular lipid receptors and caspase 1/11), as demonstrated by Ndeupen et al (1), were not yet known, which is why I had to limit myself to the interaction of the spike protein with TLR-4 (2). This turned out to be complex, as the spike protein can also bind LPS (analogous to CD14), according to Schmidtchen's group, and facilitates transfer to the receptor (3).
I have two comments on your publication:
1. accidental intravenous injection of BNT162b2 lipid nanoparticles as a cause of myocarditis?
Cited for the i.v. hypothesis is e.g. by you (4) and authorities a study in mice already presented by me in October 2021 in "Tip of the Iceberg: Part 1 and Part 2" (5). My assessment, supported by three decades of scientific cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry, is as follows:
Pfizer/Biontech, had, in my opinion, a significant influence on the content of the publication. The authors distract in the title, abstract, and text from results reported in Table 1 and in the "Supplemental Data" (Figure S 3)". Table 1 clearly shows that after two i.m. Injection, the same changes are observed in the myocardium as after a single i.v. injection. This is consistent with reports of adverse events demonstrating that the incidence is substantially higher after second injection. Interestingly, there is a lack of data on troponin levels after two i.m. Injection. In Figure S3, the authors show that BNT162b2 mRNA is found in nearly equal amounts in myocardial tissue on day 1 after both i.m. and i.v. injection.
Commentators, e.g. (6) have adopted the focus on "intravenous" - without asking much about the mechanism of toxic effect. Thus, it was implied and generally accepted that (only) intravenous, but by no means regulation, intramuscular injection (after aspiration) can cause myocarditis. In other words, negligence of physicians and/or authorities (frequently cited laudable exception is Denmark) but LNPs not containing BNT162b2mRNA are (co-)causative of myocarditis.
This raises the question of whether all 16 (15 + 1) subjects in the study were injected intravenously by (7), because the plasma levels of all are relatively uniform.
2.frequency of myocarditis after CARS-CoV-2 infection.
You cite (8) as an example. However, (9), for example, comes to different results.
With warm, collegial regards!
Your
H. Glossmann
References
1, Ndeupen S, Qin Z, Jacobsen S, Bouteau A, Estanbouli H, Igyártó BZ. The mRNA-LNP platform's lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory. iScience. 2021;24(12).
2. Yang G, Zhang S, Wang Y, Li L, Li Y, Yuan D, et al. Aptamer blocking S-TLR4 interaction selectively inhibits SARS-CoV-2 induced inflammation. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):4-6.
4. Schwab C, Domke LM, Hartmann L, Stenzinger A, Longerich T, Schirmacher P. Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination. Clinical Research in Cardiology [Internet]. 2022;(December 2020). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5
5, Li C, Chen Y, Zhao Y, Lung DC, Ye Z, Song W, et al. Intravenous Injection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccine Can Induce Acute Myopericarditis in Mouse Model. Clinical Infectious Diseases [Internet]. 2021 Aug 18;2019(Xx Xxxx):1-18. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/6353927
6 Rzymski P, Fal A. To aspirate or not to aspirate? Considerations for the COVID-19 vaccines. Pharmacological Reports [Internet]. 2022;74(6):1223-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43440-022-00361-4
7. Fertig TE, Chitoiu L, Marta DS, Ionescu VS, Cismasiu VB, Radu E, et al. Vaccine mRNA Can Be Detected in Blood at 15 Days Post-Vaccination. Biomedicines. 2022;10(7):1-11.
8 Heymans S, Cooper LT. Myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: clinical observations and potential mechanisms. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2022;19(2):75-7.
9. Tuvali O, Tshori S, Derazne E, Hannuna RR, Afek A, Haberman D, et al. The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients-A Large Population-Based Study. J Clin Med. 2022;11(8).
With respect to the mouse iv ,im injection paper ,very often cited as to blame physicians for having not aspirated( and thereby causing myocarditis) pls note that there was an MTA between Pfizer and the authors.The drug (with a batch number )was obtained from the company. Clearly ,the entire paper was written to give the impression that it is the doctors`fault. Even official health agencies have cited this nonsense.The effects of the first injection ( either im or iv) cannot be due to adaptive immunity. And twice the i.m. dose. has the same result as one time iv.By the way, the im injected mice suffered the greatest loss of weight ( not discussed by the authors). Moreover, any troponin data are not reported for the second shot.The paper mentioned the toxic effects of (only) nasal application of empty LNPs (Sonja Ndeupen et al.) However, they did not report (or performed ?) the correct controls- empty LNPs.Pfizer knew about the myocarditis risk . We do know :it is dose-dependent, second injection is apparently amplifying damage of the first shot, females are about 4 to 5 times less vulnerable compared to males -in the age range of 6-25 years.I have suspected a role of TLR-4 ,which is a well characterized target for the trimeric spike of Sars-Cov 2( not for Sars-Cov1 or other relatives!).
In any event,I recently summarized the strategy of the pharmaceutical companies to counterattack concerns about the myocarditis risk as follows:
1.The Covid -19 "disease" has a 1000-fold higher risk and people may die from it
2.In contrast to Covid-19 , myocarditis after the shot is very rare ,very mild, transient and can be easily treated
3.The most cynical explanation is that the medics did not aspirate( "To aspirate or not to aspirate ? ")
I think in consideration of choppy RNA we would have to look and see whether there are cellular responses to halt such a production. I mentioned it a while back, but apparently a majority of the proteins that our cells produce are misfolded and require editing, so I'm curious if truncated proteins would be recognized and dealt with.
I suppose that's why other viral proteins are helpful since they help to shut down those regulatory processes.
But in any case, this is frustrating because choppy spike would seem like one of the easiest things to isolate.
As to bolus, I remember the mouse studies and the general worry about not aerating during vaccination, but that seems to have disappeared as well. I believe Dr. Malone assuaged concerns over IV injection with, "trust me", sort of. Not to denigrate Dr. Malone, but it was a strange remark given that it's quite possible out of the millions of doses that a good deal of people received IV injections accidentally due to statistical probably alone.
I think it's worth considering which cells are actually taking up the mRNA as well. Adipocytes are full of fat, but are they good at producing proteins? With the adenoviral vectors that use DNA muscles are multinucleated, so are they getting a few hits with those vaccines? There's a ton of ambiguity going on here and so much to consider.
I do appreciate that you dived in and tried to piece together your perspective. This tells us we need far more research to figure out what's going on.
I second Richard Sharpe's comment that your diagrams in this case were really excellent and helped make it all more understandable. Thank you also for at least considering Marc G. for a trophy, even if his theory is only, maybe, partially explanatory.
It's a treat to see you working your way through the various hypotheses - this is how science is done! Even those readers who don't fully understand what is being described should be able to realize, by seeing how unsettled the science is, that everyone involved in every aspect of the mRNA transfection drive was way, way over their skis as they jumped off the ramp at Mt. Hubris.
Hmmm to what journal, if not their own( fox guarding chickens) do harmaceuticals send a paper?
According to the info gleaned from the very poorly done study with unknown numbers of mice, that prestigious journal The Journal of Irreproducible Results must be thick these days.
Damn, your diagrams are great. How do you come up with them? I liked the one with the hammers and wrenches (from a previous posting)!
Anyway, until we have a characterization of all the proteins that might be being made by the transfected mRNA (partial and full) we might not be able to say with certainty what is going on.
Interleukin +/- age-related vaccine response impacts also discussed here: https://twitter.com/Clucky92864053/status/1643647717367857153
I don't think a ribosome can see the 3' end when it starts translating an mRNA into a protein, so any short mRNAs transfected into your cells could be producing all sorts of weird stuff.
I do think lot to lot quality control is going to be implicated in the variability of outcomes. It's highly unlikely that the rush to mass production has produced anything like a controlled process for what, billions of doses? And what about contaminants coming along for the ride in different batches. What a bloody, greedy mess.
Of interest to the question of PCR false positives:
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/lariats-and-rna-splicing
Money quote:
"Early in the pandemic many people noticed CDC C19 qPCR primers that hit Human DNA. Debunkers quickly reminded people that in order for PCR to amplify, you must have all 3 primers land in proximity (100-400bp) to one another. So single primer alignments to different distant locations in the genome could be ignored.
Fact Check: True for DNA. False for RNA."
I don’t have any theory to offer, just some observations...!
I got 2 kittens from the same litter. They had vaccines at 8 weeks ( then the male developed a weird skin rash on face that vet hospital dermatologist couldn’t diagnose- it got better with iodine washes!) and again at 12 weeks. The male was castrated under GA at 4 months. At 6 months the male developed heart failure and required admission for 5 days being kept in an oxygen chamber. He had high troponin on day 6 and ultrasound diagnosed ‘transient myocardial thickening’. I was told this was often a reaction to a vaccine or anaesthetic and they were surprised at the time delay. He got better with diuretics and anti platelets. He’s nearly 4 now and always less springy when chasing a toy than my others and I’ve been told his life will be shortened. Cats are injected in the scruff of the neck, not into muscle. He didn’t have a covid vaccine so clearly any vaccine can cause myocarditis.
The smallpox/monkeypox vaccines all had a high risk of myocarditis in comparison with other vaccines.
The list of possible side effects for vaccines seem remarkably similar and across species too. My previous cat developed a lump in the neck after yearly repeat vaccinations and after googling I discovered sarcomas can occur. Apparently a particular dog vaccination ( given in US) is recommended now to be given in the leg so that if/when a sarcoma develops then they can just amputate the leg ( which you can’t do with the scruff of the neck)!
Have you seen this post by A Midwestern Doctor
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/why-does-every-vaccine-often-cause
Which has a unifying theory of why all vaccines are a problem ( bolus or not)?
I watched the first interview of Prof Robert Clancy by John Campbell on Campbell's channel. Clancy is an immunologist. What I took from the interview is that no one really understands all that the mRNA and AAV/DNA shots are doing in the body. They discussed different damage mechanisms; you can't help concluding it must be individualized.
Your fine analysis here of the small study reinforces that conclusion: we're conducting a risky experiment with truly rotten design on a large sector of the human race.
I never could understand how Girardot could claim similar damage came from prior vaccines hitting a vein.
But hey, your wit always makes me laugh anyway.
On December 11th 2022 I wrote a letter ( below, Deeple translated ) to Prof.Schirmacher-but received no answer up to today.
Em.o.Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Hartmut Glossmann
Specialist in pharmacology / clinical pharmacology
Institute for Biochemical Pharmacology
Peter Mayr-Str. 1
6020 Innsbruck
+43 512 9003 70400
+43 660 140 37 26 (mobile)
+43 512 9003 73400 (FAX)
Hartmut.Glossmann@i-med.ac.at
www.i-med.ac.at/ibp/ <http://www.i-med.ac.at/ibp/>
Dear Dr. Schirmacher,
With great respect, I congratulate you and your staff for the first, detailed publication on autopsy findings of five deceased (in temporal connection with the injection of mRNA drugs)!
I am confident and hopeful that your team will publish findings (including detection of modified mRNA and spike protein, and possibly detection of cationic lipids with MS/MS technology) not only for those who died of myocarditis in the period up to seven days, but also for the other patients.
More than a year ago, I addressed the myocarditis problem in adolescents (it involved the student body of our university) and our rector and his advisory team in several analyses (also publicly available). I attach two of these analyses. At that time, the toxic effects of LNPs (mediated via intracellular lipid receptors and caspase 1/11), as demonstrated by Ndeupen et al (1), were not yet known, which is why I had to limit myself to the interaction of the spike protein with TLR-4 (2). This turned out to be complex, as the spike protein can also bind LPS (analogous to CD14), according to Schmidtchen's group, and facilitates transfer to the receptor (3).
I have two comments on your publication:
1. accidental intravenous injection of BNT162b2 lipid nanoparticles as a cause of myocarditis?
Cited for the i.v. hypothesis is e.g. by you (4) and authorities a study in mice already presented by me in October 2021 in "Tip of the Iceberg: Part 1 and Part 2" (5). My assessment, supported by three decades of scientific cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry, is as follows:
Pfizer/Biontech, had, in my opinion, a significant influence on the content of the publication. The authors distract in the title, abstract, and text from results reported in Table 1 and in the "Supplemental Data" (Figure S 3)". Table 1 clearly shows that after two i.m. Injection, the same changes are observed in the myocardium as after a single i.v. injection. This is consistent with reports of adverse events demonstrating that the incidence is substantially higher after second injection. Interestingly, there is a lack of data on troponin levels after two i.m. Injection. In Figure S3, the authors show that BNT162b2 mRNA is found in nearly equal amounts in myocardial tissue on day 1 after both i.m. and i.v. injection.
Commentators, e.g. (6) have adopted the focus on "intravenous" - without asking much about the mechanism of toxic effect. Thus, it was implied and generally accepted that (only) intravenous, but by no means regulation, intramuscular injection (after aspiration) can cause myocarditis. In other words, negligence of physicians and/or authorities (frequently cited laudable exception is Denmark) but LNPs not containing BNT162b2mRNA are (co-)causative of myocarditis.
This raises the question of whether all 16 (15 + 1) subjects in the study were injected intravenously by (7), because the plasma levels of all are relatively uniform.
2.frequency of myocarditis after CARS-CoV-2 infection.
You cite (8) as an example. However, (9), for example, comes to different results.
With warm, collegial regards!
Your
H. Glossmann
References
1, Ndeupen S, Qin Z, Jacobsen S, Bouteau A, Estanbouli H, Igyártó BZ. The mRNA-LNP platform's lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory. iScience. 2021;24(12).
2. Yang G, Zhang S, Wang Y, Li L, Li Y, Yuan D, et al. Aptamer blocking S-TLR4 interaction selectively inhibits SARS-CoV-2 induced inflammation. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):4-6.
3. Samsudin F, Raghuvamsi P, Petruk G, Puthia M, Petrlova J, MacAry P, et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as a bacterial lipopolysaccharide delivery system in an overzealous inflammatory cascade. J Mol Cell Biol [Internet]. 2022 Oct 14;186(2):227-36. Available from: https://watermark.silverchair.com/mjac058.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAtswggLXBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggLIMIICxAIBADCCAr0GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMyseyyEHscJbGjWuqAgEQgIICjpisr7_V8NMnpA_qkSM-0us0RgmdN7OnHez9YXnbg3ZzJB1
4. Schwab C, Domke LM, Hartmann L, Stenzinger A, Longerich T, Schirmacher P. Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination. Clinical Research in Cardiology [Internet]. 2022;(December 2020). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5
5, Li C, Chen Y, Zhao Y, Lung DC, Ye Z, Song W, et al. Intravenous Injection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccine Can Induce Acute Myopericarditis in Mouse Model. Clinical Infectious Diseases [Internet]. 2021 Aug 18;2019(Xx Xxxx):1-18. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/6353927
6 Rzymski P, Fal A. To aspirate or not to aspirate? Considerations for the COVID-19 vaccines. Pharmacological Reports [Internet]. 2022;74(6):1223-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43440-022-00361-4
7. Fertig TE, Chitoiu L, Marta DS, Ionescu VS, Cismasiu VB, Radu E, et al. Vaccine mRNA Can Be Detected in Blood at 15 Days Post-Vaccination. Biomedicines. 2022;10(7):1-11.
8 Heymans S, Cooper LT. Myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: clinical observations and potential mechanisms. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2022;19(2):75-7.
9. Tuvali O, Tshori S, Derazne E, Hannuna RR, Afek A, Haberman D, et al. The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients-A Large Population-Based Study. J Clin Med. 2022;11(8).
With respect to the mouse iv ,im injection paper ,very often cited as to blame physicians for having not aspirated( and thereby causing myocarditis) pls note that there was an MTA between Pfizer and the authors.The drug (with a batch number )was obtained from the company. Clearly ,the entire paper was written to give the impression that it is the doctors`fault. Even official health agencies have cited this nonsense.The effects of the first injection ( either im or iv) cannot be due to adaptive immunity. And twice the i.m. dose. has the same result as one time iv.By the way, the im injected mice suffered the greatest loss of weight ( not discussed by the authors). Moreover, any troponin data are not reported for the second shot.The paper mentioned the toxic effects of (only) nasal application of empty LNPs (Sonja Ndeupen et al.) However, they did not report (or performed ?) the correct controls- empty LNPs.Pfizer knew about the myocarditis risk . We do know :it is dose-dependent, second injection is apparently amplifying damage of the first shot, females are about 4 to 5 times less vulnerable compared to males -in the age range of 6-25 years.I have suspected a role of TLR-4 ,which is a well characterized target for the trimeric spike of Sars-Cov 2( not for Sars-Cov1 or other relatives!).
In any event,I recently summarized the strategy of the pharmaceutical companies to counterattack concerns about the myocarditis risk as follows:
1.The Covid -19 "disease" has a 1000-fold higher risk and people may die from it
2.In contrast to Covid-19 , myocarditis after the shot is very rare ,very mild, transient and can be easily treated
3.The most cynical explanation is that the medics did not aspirate( "To aspirate or not to aspirate ? ")
I think in consideration of choppy RNA we would have to look and see whether there are cellular responses to halt such a production. I mentioned it a while back, but apparently a majority of the proteins that our cells produce are misfolded and require editing, so I'm curious if truncated proteins would be recognized and dealt with.
I suppose that's why other viral proteins are helpful since they help to shut down those regulatory processes.
But in any case, this is frustrating because choppy spike would seem like one of the easiest things to isolate.
As to bolus, I remember the mouse studies and the general worry about not aerating during vaccination, but that seems to have disappeared as well. I believe Dr. Malone assuaged concerns over IV injection with, "trust me", sort of. Not to denigrate Dr. Malone, but it was a strange remark given that it's quite possible out of the millions of doses that a good deal of people received IV injections accidentally due to statistical probably alone.
I think it's worth considering which cells are actually taking up the mRNA as well. Adipocytes are full of fat, but are they good at producing proteins? With the adenoviral vectors that use DNA muscles are multinucleated, so are they getting a few hits with those vaccines? There's a ton of ambiguity going on here and so much to consider.
I do appreciate that you dived in and tried to piece together your perspective. This tells us we need far more research to figure out what's going on.
Being somewhat (science) illiterate myself. I always read the comments to "tell me" what you said. It's early yet I will check back tomorrow.
You had me at "stochastically"....
I second Richard Sharpe's comment that your diagrams in this case were really excellent and helped make it all more understandable. Thank you also for at least considering Marc G. for a trophy, even if his theory is only, maybe, partially explanatory.
It's a treat to see you working your way through the various hypotheses - this is how science is done! Even those readers who don't fully understand what is being described should be able to realize, by seeing how unsettled the science is, that everyone involved in every aspect of the mRNA transfection drive was way, way over their skis as they jumped off the ramp at Mt. Hubris.
but why would the myo kids have antibodies to S1 yet none (or not enough) to spike when S1 is part of spike???
Hmmm to what journal, if not their own( fox guarding chickens) do harmaceuticals send a paper?
According to the info gleaned from the very poorly done study with unknown numbers of mice, that prestigious journal The Journal of Irreproducible Results must be thick these days.
Damn, your diagrams are great. How do you come up with them? I liked the one with the hammers and wrenches (from a previous posting)!
Anyway, until we have a characterization of all the proteins that might be being made by the transfected mRNA (partial and full) we might not be able to say with certainty what is going on.