This series is brilliant! A bit taxing for the non-scientist (retired systems/software engineer here), but still accessible (and even entertaining) for those with an interest in figuring it out. My mind has gone through a number of theories and sources over the last 2 years. Glad I came upon your sub stack!
Essentially, "more research is required". It really is fascinating seeing you put together this information. We do have to keep in mind that the pseudouridine residues are likely to alter the longevity of the mRNA as it prevents it from being targeted by nucleases (same with the poly-A tail). I wonder if radiolabeled PEGs or mRNA may help with figuring this out.
But for now, it is "trust but verify" and "wait for further evidence".
1) "This needs more research ..." is invariably part of the conclusion of most research reports. This helps with the next grant.
2) To return to the H1N1 story, my wife (1960's) was sick for two weeks from a droplet exposure; I, from the 1950's, was sick two days. The memory B cells and FDC's may be part of the explanation.
3) Dr. Malone's review of the mRNA pseudoudouridine chemistry this week was a powerful clue about the persistence of the injected mRNA, and the spike protein. "Much more research" was needed before unleashing these chemotherapies on entire populations.
4) Brian's explanation is superb- this is still graduate level immunology.
Hm, if I thought more research was required, I probably would have plowed ahead with my original cancer extracellular matrix theory! That was the alluded-to, but not included testimony by the "star expert."
I couldn't protect the theory from the localization attack no matter how hard I tried, along with finding out that antigen retention used to be assumed as normal, HIV as a proof-of-concept for the LNP size, and the whole "RNA will degrade with the trace water inside the LNP" thing being an unlikely assumption, and so the "other side" ("defense") convinced me as I was writing the whole thing out!
Are you telling me your line of thinking changed the further you assessed the evidence?? To be fair, many of this is new to me and I have no idea what the cancer extracellular matrix theory is so I'd probably be part of the peanut gallery if you were to have included that theory in excess.
It will be detailed in a follow-up post. I still think it's plausible in general, but unrelated to the germinal center evidence. But either the germinal centers OR another "sequestering" theory could be related to the "exosomes study" evidence.
Cancer ECM never came up in your line of study/work? Since you're fluent in biochem (*edit: i mean organic chemistry lol; I'm always least precise with the most common terms) I imagined your background was possibly in therapeutics, and it seems like the ECM element is becoming big in that field. The graphical abstract of the study linked in footnote 13 gives a picture of the idea - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-60-day-rna-mystery-pt-2?s=w#footnote-13
RE "real vaccines" - really? I wonder if that was in his early post about injecting children that I never got around to reading. The only "real" vaccine that doesn't require universal uptake to confer quasi-natural immunity is the Sabin polio. All injected vaccines - including the post-Sabin injected polio vax used by the West after the 90s - are just houses of cards that rely on suppressing community spread in order to generate the impression that they are magically equal to natural immunity despite confusing the immune system by presenting the immune challenge directly in the blood. The status quo - "welcome to life, you've got an immune system, you'll probably be fine" was so much superior to all this Zero Virus nonsense...
This series is brilliant! A bit taxing for the non-scientist (retired systems/software engineer here), but still accessible (and even entertaining) for those with an interest in figuring it out. My mind has gone through a number of theories and sources over the last 2 years. Glad I came upon your sub stack!
Thank you!
Thanks for this! 👍🏽
Essentially, "more research is required". It really is fascinating seeing you put together this information. We do have to keep in mind that the pseudouridine residues are likely to alter the longevity of the mRNA as it prevents it from being targeted by nucleases (same with the poly-A tail). I wonder if radiolabeled PEGs or mRNA may help with figuring this out.
But for now, it is "trust but verify" and "wait for further evidence".
1) "This needs more research ..." is invariably part of the conclusion of most research reports. This helps with the next grant.
2) To return to the H1N1 story, my wife (1960's) was sick for two weeks from a droplet exposure; I, from the 1950's, was sick two days. The memory B cells and FDC's may be part of the explanation.
3) Dr. Malone's review of the mRNA pseudoudouridine chemistry this week was a powerful clue about the persistence of the injected mRNA, and the spike protein. "Much more research" was needed before unleashing these chemotherapies on entire populations.
4) Brian's explanation is superb- this is still graduate level immunology.
Hm, if I thought more research was required, I probably would have plowed ahead with my original cancer extracellular matrix theory! That was the alluded-to, but not included testimony by the "star expert."
I couldn't protect the theory from the localization attack no matter how hard I tried, along with finding out that antigen retention used to be assumed as normal, HIV as a proof-of-concept for the LNP size, and the whole "RNA will degrade with the trace water inside the LNP" thing being an unlikely assumption, and so the "other side" ("defense") convinced me as I was writing the whole thing out!
Are you telling me your line of thinking changed the further you assessed the evidence?? To be fair, many of this is new to me and I have no idea what the cancer extracellular matrix theory is so I'd probably be part of the peanut gallery if you were to have included that theory in excess.
It will be detailed in a follow-up post. I still think it's plausible in general, but unrelated to the germinal center evidence. But either the germinal centers OR another "sequestering" theory could be related to the "exosomes study" evidence.
Cancer ECM never came up in your line of study/work? Since you're fluent in biochem (*edit: i mean organic chemistry lol; I'm always least precise with the most common terms) I imagined your background was possibly in therapeutics, and it seems like the ECM element is becoming big in that field. The graphical abstract of the study linked in footnote 13 gives a picture of the idea - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-60-day-rna-mystery-pt-2?s=w#footnote-13
RE "real vaccines" - really? I wonder if that was in his early post about injecting children that I never got around to reading. The only "real" vaccine that doesn't require universal uptake to confer quasi-natural immunity is the Sabin polio. All injected vaccines - including the post-Sabin injected polio vax used by the West after the 90s - are just houses of cards that rely on suppressing community spread in order to generate the impression that they are magically equal to natural immunity despite confusing the immune system by presenting the immune challenge directly in the blood. The status quo - "welcome to life, you've got an immune system, you'll probably be fine" was so much superior to all this Zero Virus nonsense...