"Pfizer and BioNTech thus could not actually know that their mRNA transfections would lead to such durable expression of spike protein that IgG4-mediated tolerance already emerges ..."
They were warned. So they cannot use that excuse.
Long before EUA, FDA and vaccine makers were warned about induction of inappropriate IgE and IgG4 antibodies by COVID vaccines. They ignored it. Prediction comes true, with devastating consequences.
This used mRNA to create the RBD in the cell instead of the full length spike, but it was dropped due to higher retrogenicity, ie worse side effects. The trial was a dose ranging from 1ug to 60ug, but apparently the side effects for dose 2 at 50ug (which they didn't go into 🙄) were bad enough not to give a second dose for 60ug.
So perhaps making shorter proteins with mRNA leads to greater problems, a concern if the yield is poor as for some of the commercial batches. I can't figure out if there could be a possibility the damaged mRNA could lead to shorter proteins, if free spike protein is found in post vaxx myocarditis, what other bits of random protein could there be?
Interestingly it looks like the t-cell responses for a 1ug dose were pretty good though the neutralising antibodies were weaker, though at 43 days the antibodies for 1ug were still rising though the antibodies for the higher doses were already fading.
At the time all this helped convince me they were pushing to release as soon as possible using as much mRNA as possible. It made me wonder if a younger healthy person might create more antigen in their cells than an elderly person, exactly the opposite of what's needed, leading to worse side effects in the young and inadequate immunity in the elderly.
(Of course a higher antibody read would give a better impression of protection from infection, thereby extending it's use to the whole population 'to end the pandemic') This and other things pretty well convinced me personally to give the vaxx a wide berth...
Bravo Brian, another pointed knock out of the park!🎩🎩👏👏👏
This is the point from the beginning- nothing, nada, zip, bupkis, zilch!! Has been done properly with these ridiculous junk shots. The signals were there and there were too many "we dont have the data, because we didnt look for that."
I read what they submitted to the TGA, back in 2020/21, and when i discussed concerns with friends that have worked on clinical trials and submitted data to TGA before- their response, "Oh, you don't understand how trials are done and data." 😐😐😑
If you passed reading and comprehension in school, then you can read a document and understand it, you just might need a dictionary while you do it, & it may take longer!
I thought "Due Diligence and Art" might be an actually cool contemporary media art book, which would be surprising because that whole scene was REALLY into the pandemic, as it is inherently technologically driven and has been starving for something new for over a decade.
Now I feel like that was too harsh and may be inaccurate. But you know, it points to something, and artists as a class are, you know, supposed to be a good indicator of unconscious cultural wishes and pressures, well art is supposed to be, but these days everything has to take place at the level of the human itself... there used to be a time when you'd meet someone and hit it off and maybe a few days later you'd go to a video store together and the point wasn't the content of the movie you were going to get, the point was walking around and looking at movie covers as you mutually navigated that ephemeral question, "what do I want?"... even this consumer fairytale is more sane and generous and accountable to who we are as modern humans (consumers) than I don't know, streaming spike proteins into your blood like it's Netflix or something.
I'm trying to put words to why everything is so god damn literal these days, why more than ever people have to rigidly hold to the content as the point, and over that to the most linear interpretation of such content (present context excluded of course). I think that by turning the clock back just a couple of decades to when we were consumers, we can see the whole logic, op or not, is that we are platforms. Which... could be a step in either direction actually, but in this case of course it is most certainly in the wrong one (the Gates route as opposed to Kildall if I'm kind of getting what another commenter suggested)...
The person as a platform could really go either way. Hm. We get stuck with pseudo-ecological consumerist garbage bio-chattel or whatever.
Anyway any fixation is covering for a lack. Just a good, clean psychoanalytic insight that is good to hold in mind... oh yes, the artists show us, that if this whole situation were operationalized for some yet to be understood reason, I imagine the people who were responsible for it would be like "damn these people REALLY wanted a pandemic!". To which another old grizzled operator might reply, "Yeah I've been here a long time but this one did go off hotter than expected... must be 'volatile tinder'"...
So whence this "volatile tinder"... I think part of it is the destruction of all forms (which is fun but generationally has become institutional which produces existential predicaments one would think would be obvious), the abysmal all-encompassing metaphysical cynicism of a materialist project that is not riding high, you know stuff like that... more (lacanian) psychoanalysis, last night I was like, wow, the vaccine is very obviously the phallus (formally and as language's effective agent in reality) and the virus is structurally the object cause of desire (the properties of language create a structural impossibility, that is an "object" we are always seeking and cannot ever get and somehow this impossibility becomes culturally shared, not unlike the nested inferences that gives us virus and transmission).
Thanks for letting me ramble; I managed to push a couple of thoughts I was having a little further.
Jan 16, 2023·edited Jan 16, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Those perfect Western blots are suggestive of a high school science fair project. You know, the kind where they hypothesize a mechanism for training an immune response to a virus in humans and then test it on several hundred million people.
I have a lot of experience with all sorts of western blots. The Pfizer western blots look HIGHLY suspicious, there is no way to generate such even and orderly blots. Occasionally, a blot from commercial gels such as Invitrogen Nupage or BOLT type gels can look very even and synthetic but not such a large experiment with multiple lanes. You always get some noise and some deformed, irregular bands. In addition there is no loading control, such as actin, GAPDH or tubulin, which is also very unusual.
Also, I find it very hard to believe that overexpressed, full length spike protein would be such a clearly defined, crystal clear band with zero degradation and/or truncation products on the blot. HEK293 cells usually generate loads of protein but also loads of degradation/truncation products.
A blast from the past: Robert Malone explained in the Corona Investigative Committee that "the Moderna vaccine is the NIH vaccine."
Was he wrong?
NIH? Isn't that part of the USFG? Curioser and curioser.
Question: Who funds the NIH? Now, who really funds the NIH? Or, rather, who funds those who fund the NIH?
How are we so sure that "evil and greedy multinational corporations have captured regulatory agencies to maximize their profits at the expense of the blood of everyone"? Am I the only one who thinks that it seems likely that those evil corporations are captured by someone else, because the prejudices of most people against capitalism make these corporations the perfect decoy to do things that are not possible under "normal" circumstances?
I was actually going to comment about the Alzheimer's debacle, but unfortunately Western Blot manipulation is not uncommon. It even happens with slides where someone may just take one slide and turn it 180. Apparently many Chinese labs were doing that in their reported studies.
The slides are so selective that it's extremely likely labs choose the best ones to pick from, or they can just take a photo and slide (no pun intended) over a bit and get another photo.
When writing my post on the bacteremia study I was going to have a big tirade on how I have no idea whether the crypt-ileum slides were representative of other images seen or if they just selected for one with many goblet cells to be an infected mouse while the one with fewer were ones with very few goblet cells.
As technology becomes even more advanced it's very likely that many of these issues will get even worse.
Not sure if you've seen this, but the Midwestern Doctor has shown these western blot bands, allegedly representing different proteins from different batches at different conditions, to be related by copy-pasting: https://twitter.com/MidwesternDoc/status/1613216030876176390
What would other pharmacology tests be? (besides biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles and biodistribution of cells that it took in the nanoparticles?). I recall the shot was authorized with only a handful of the normal tests done; no oncology, pregnant women, interaction with other medications.
"...showing that the product they were claiming “causes cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein"". It's hard for me to find a source stating the difference between the vaccine spike and viral spike. Does anyone know offhand, or have a good resource? Was it about the charge...
Thank you for those explanations. This is much appreciated as I am unfamiliar with much of molecular biology. Most importantly to me, we don't have the sequence of the spike protein made by the vax, that I can find. I have been suspicious for 2 yrs that other cryptic proteins are being made, the spike is cleaved in more than one place....etc etc.
Yes, my big issue is there is no pharmacology!. None. A big black hole from injection to antibodies. Have pieced some of the kinetics of this product and I have a pretty good idea of how transfection occurs, but after that it's another blank (from transfection to antibodies).
And how does that modified mRNA get degraded in the cytosol? New paper says it gets repolyadenylated in vivo (but not in vitro) and continue to make protein, so could those fragments get polyadenylated in vivo too?
And those LNPs get hydrolyzed with the modRNA and form adducts. They had no idea that would happen.
My thinking is Pfizer/BioNTech must have been given the sequence (like Moderna was?) and was told to go make it. I think the goal of these products was to get mRNA into arms, and not necessarily to get antibodies.
What are the best data sources for trying to analyze the question of whether or not there have been excess deaths since late 2021?
How much can we believe Arkmedic's new post on "Don't be an arse (ass)"?
It certainly seems worse that I thought.
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/dont-be-arrsey
"Pfizer and BioNTech thus could not actually know that their mRNA transfections would lead to such durable expression of spike protein that IgG4-mediated tolerance already emerges ..."
They were warned. So they cannot use that excuse.
Long before EUA, FDA and vaccine makers were warned about induction of inappropriate IgE and IgG4 antibodies by COVID vaccines. They ignored it. Prediction comes true, with devastating consequences.
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/long-before-eua-fda-and-vaccine-makers
Late to this, but it reminded me of a paper I read in mid 21 when considering the vaxx, written about the other Biontech candidate BNT162b1
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2814-7
This used mRNA to create the RBD in the cell instead of the full length spike, but it was dropped due to higher retrogenicity, ie worse side effects. The trial was a dose ranging from 1ug to 60ug, but apparently the side effects for dose 2 at 50ug (which they didn't go into 🙄) were bad enough not to give a second dose for 60ug.
So perhaps making shorter proteins with mRNA leads to greater problems, a concern if the yield is poor as for some of the commercial batches. I can't figure out if there could be a possibility the damaged mRNA could lead to shorter proteins, if free spike protein is found in post vaxx myocarditis, what other bits of random protein could there be?
Interestingly it looks like the t-cell responses for a 1ug dose were pretty good though the neutralising antibodies were weaker, though at 43 days the antibodies for 1ug were still rising though the antibodies for the higher doses were already fading.
At the time all this helped convince me they were pushing to release as soon as possible using as much mRNA as possible. It made me wonder if a younger healthy person might create more antigen in their cells than an elderly person, exactly the opposite of what's needed, leading to worse side effects in the young and inadequate immunity in the elderly.
(Of course a higher antibody read would give a better impression of protection from infection, thereby extending it's use to the whole population 'to end the pandemic') This and other things pretty well convinced me personally to give the vaxx a wide berth...
Bravo Brian, another pointed knock out of the park!🎩🎩👏👏👏
This is the point from the beginning- nothing, nada, zip, bupkis, zilch!! Has been done properly with these ridiculous junk shots. The signals were there and there were too many "we dont have the data, because we didnt look for that."
I read what they submitted to the TGA, back in 2020/21, and when i discussed concerns with friends that have worked on clinical trials and submitted data to TGA before- their response, "Oh, you don't understand how trials are done and data." 😐😐😑
If you passed reading and comprehension in school, then you can read a document and understand it, you just might need a dictionary while you do it, & it may take longer!
I thought "Due Diligence and Art" might be an actually cool contemporary media art book, which would be surprising because that whole scene was REALLY into the pandemic, as it is inherently technologically driven and has been starving for something new for over a decade.
Now I feel like that was too harsh and may be inaccurate. But you know, it points to something, and artists as a class are, you know, supposed to be a good indicator of unconscious cultural wishes and pressures, well art is supposed to be, but these days everything has to take place at the level of the human itself... there used to be a time when you'd meet someone and hit it off and maybe a few days later you'd go to a video store together and the point wasn't the content of the movie you were going to get, the point was walking around and looking at movie covers as you mutually navigated that ephemeral question, "what do I want?"... even this consumer fairytale is more sane and generous and accountable to who we are as modern humans (consumers) than I don't know, streaming spike proteins into your blood like it's Netflix or something.
I'm trying to put words to why everything is so god damn literal these days, why more than ever people have to rigidly hold to the content as the point, and over that to the most linear interpretation of such content (present context excluded of course). I think that by turning the clock back just a couple of decades to when we were consumers, we can see the whole logic, op or not, is that we are platforms. Which... could be a step in either direction actually, but in this case of course it is most certainly in the wrong one (the Gates route as opposed to Kildall if I'm kind of getting what another commenter suggested)...
The person as a platform could really go either way. Hm. We get stuck with pseudo-ecological consumerist garbage bio-chattel or whatever.
Anyway any fixation is covering for a lack. Just a good, clean psychoanalytic insight that is good to hold in mind... oh yes, the artists show us, that if this whole situation were operationalized for some yet to be understood reason, I imagine the people who were responsible for it would be like "damn these people REALLY wanted a pandemic!". To which another old grizzled operator might reply, "Yeah I've been here a long time but this one did go off hotter than expected... must be 'volatile tinder'"...
So whence this "volatile tinder"... I think part of it is the destruction of all forms (which is fun but generationally has become institutional which produces existential predicaments one would think would be obvious), the abysmal all-encompassing metaphysical cynicism of a materialist project that is not riding high, you know stuff like that... more (lacanian) psychoanalysis, last night I was like, wow, the vaccine is very obviously the phallus (formally and as language's effective agent in reality) and the virus is structurally the object cause of desire (the properties of language create a structural impossibility, that is an "object" we are always seeking and cannot ever get and somehow this impossibility becomes culturally shared, not unlike the nested inferences that gives us virus and transmission).
Thanks for letting me ramble; I managed to push a couple of thoughts I was having a little further.
Those perfect Western blots are suggestive of a high school science fair project. You know, the kind where they hypothesize a mechanism for training an immune response to a virus in humans and then test it on several hundred million people.
HOW DID I NOT SEE “BLOTTER-GATE” AT FIRST
Corrected.
I have a lot of experience with all sorts of western blots. The Pfizer western blots look HIGHLY suspicious, there is no way to generate such even and orderly blots. Occasionally, a blot from commercial gels such as Invitrogen Nupage or BOLT type gels can look very even and synthetic but not such a large experiment with multiple lanes. You always get some noise and some deformed, irregular bands. In addition there is no loading control, such as actin, GAPDH or tubulin, which is also very unusual.
Also, I find it very hard to believe that overexpressed, full length spike protein would be such a clearly defined, crystal clear band with zero degradation and/or truncation products on the blot. HEK293 cells usually generate loads of protein but also loads of degradation/truncation products.
A blast from the past: Robert Malone explained in the Corona Investigative Committee that "the Moderna vaccine is the NIH vaccine."
Was he wrong?
NIH? Isn't that part of the USFG? Curioser and curioser.
Question: Who funds the NIH? Now, who really funds the NIH? Or, rather, who funds those who fund the NIH?
How are we so sure that "evil and greedy multinational corporations have captured regulatory agencies to maximize their profits at the expense of the blood of everyone"? Am I the only one who thinks that it seems likely that those evil corporations are captured by someone else, because the prejudices of most people against capitalism make these corporations the perfect decoy to do things that are not possible under "normal" circumstances?
Who crwated it? Just Connecticut the DODs.
Thanks Brian, brilliant analysis.
Do you have a Twitter handle so that I can follow on Twitter?
Thank you.
I was actually going to comment about the Alzheimer's debacle, but unfortunately Western Blot manipulation is not uncommon. It even happens with slides where someone may just take one slide and turn it 180. Apparently many Chinese labs were doing that in their reported studies.
The slides are so selective that it's extremely likely labs choose the best ones to pick from, or they can just take a photo and slide (no pun intended) over a bit and get another photo.
When writing my post on the bacteremia study I was going to have a big tirade on how I have no idea whether the crypt-ileum slides were representative of other images seen or if they just selected for one with many goblet cells to be an infected mouse while the one with fewer were ones with very few goblet cells.
As technology becomes even more advanced it's very likely that many of these issues will get even worse.
Not sure if you've seen this, but the Midwestern Doctor has shown these western blot bands, allegedly representing different proteins from different batches at different conditions, to be related by copy-pasting: https://twitter.com/MidwesternDoc/status/1613216030876176390
What would other pharmacology tests be? (besides biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles and biodistribution of cells that it took in the nanoparticles?). I recall the shot was authorized with only a handful of the normal tests done; no oncology, pregnant women, interaction with other medications.
"...showing that the product they were claiming “causes cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein"". It's hard for me to find a source stating the difference between the vaccine spike and viral spike. Does anyone know offhand, or have a good resource? Was it about the charge...
Thank you for those explanations. This is much appreciated as I am unfamiliar with much of molecular biology. Most importantly to me, we don't have the sequence of the spike protein made by the vax, that I can find. I have been suspicious for 2 yrs that other cryptic proteins are being made, the spike is cleaved in more than one place....etc etc.
Yes, my big issue is there is no pharmacology!. None. A big black hole from injection to antibodies. Have pieced some of the kinetics of this product and I have a pretty good idea of how transfection occurs, but after that it's another blank (from transfection to antibodies).
And how does that modified mRNA get degraded in the cytosol? New paper says it gets repolyadenylated in vivo (but not in vitro) and continue to make protein, so could those fragments get polyadenylated in vivo too?
And those LNPs get hydrolyzed with the modRNA and form adducts. They had no idea that would happen.
My thinking is Pfizer/BioNTech must have been given the sequence (like Moderna was?) and was told to go make it. I think the goal of these products was to get mRNA into arms, and not necessarily to get antibodies.