The Moderna patent controv

Aborted comments on the thing with the 19 nucleotides...

Work on yesterday’s promised comments on the Moderna patent controversy spilled over into today, and still remain unfinished. This is not because my thoughts on the controversy are not ready - but because I am having a lot of trouble verifying the actual details of the story.

In particular, the knowledge being asserted or insinuated about what Moderna was doing with the sequence - that there were cell lines somewhere pumping out “mutant MSH3,” for example - seems to greatly exceed available evidence. (Apologies if this explanation is unintelligible to readers not yet familiar with the story; I don’t want to go into the details, because the whole point is that the actual details seem not to be reliable.¹)

At this point, I have concluded that further investigation is not worth my or the reader’s time. The Moderna patent is essentially an imaginarium of all the things they hypothetically might one day think of doing with mRNA, not a document of ongoing or past activities; and if their mRNA patent didn’t have the code, one could have just claimed that the code “had to” have been from Dow instead - they also have patents “impossibly” overlapping the genes in question, from 2002!

And either way (I was all set to mention yesterday before getting bogged down), it’s absurd to imagine that an accidental insert from a Moderna patent read in reverse would happen to place a cleavage site exactly where we know someone trying to improve coronavirus fusion would have inserted it anyway (which is also where Nature would “coincidentally” choose to insert it²). It’s like playing a suspected killer’s record collection in reverse to listen for hidden messages, when their diary is open on the kitchen table and plastered with confessions.

We’re talking about four letters that humans interested in SARS would want to put in anyway, two of which (the Rs) are spelled in a way the virus wouldn’t normally do, but which would have hit a match with the Moderna code if anyone checked in advance of choosing them. If anyone colluding with Moderna wanted to make these words retroactively spell the patent code, in other words, all they needed was the wits to betray their collaborator in advance and to… just choose those letters when spelling the cleavage site.

If you want a more credentialed second opinion, here is Kevin McKernan, who has been engaging the propagators of the controversy throughout the day:

source: twitter

Just 17, Dow?! Give me a break!

See his recent posts for more commentary that mostly aligns with what I said above. We already know who wanted this virus to come about.

Summary: If you haven’t already been sucked into this one, stay that way!

In compensation for today’s scrapped post, I offer the reader a recommendation for Modern Discontent’s excellent essay proposing a direct mRNA etiology of side-effects for the Covid vaccines, which further includes a compelling argument for the mechanism for myocarditis. (Overall, the examination of the direct metabolic disruption caused by mRNA transfection resembles my proposed mechanism for cancer from the injections!) It’s a long read but makes great strides in an area that is still going almost entirely undiscussed thanks to these constant controversies over the spike:

A Possible Relationship between ER Stress, COVID Infection, and Vaccine Adverse Reactions

Thanks for subscribing to Unglossed!

1. I’m not even sure what reference to offer the reader, here. The available summaries of Ambati, B. et al. “MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site” are all excessively un-critical. They translate the paper to lay-speak without explaining the obvious questions that should be answered before jumping to conclusions.

If it weren’t for these vagaries in what Moderna was doing with the sequence, my intended commentary on the sequence itself would have arrived yesterday. I didn’t plan on having to devote the day unsuccessfully trying to literally verify or debunk the controversy, in other words - I just wanted to offer a hot take; more of my, “Actually, Nature’s, like, all a coincidence, man” type of stuff.

I actually think I could have shown that the likelihood of writing both sequences independently was not that small, assuming two different humans are using similar codon-optimization strategies to write them. Again, the snag was clarifying what Moderna wanted to do (if anything) with the gene, other than put “like, maybe this is something we’ll want to do?” down for the record in their patent.

2. This initially was published with a reprise of a cosmic “, man” modifier, which no longer made sense after I moved the other instance into the footnotes, man.