I agree with you that it is unlikely that whatever is happening is changing the germ line. However, you say:
"And so, since there are millions of sperm that vie for fusion with the egg, individual LNPs would have to deliver vaccine mRNA which would then have to successfully incorporate into most or all of these sperm cells, to make it remotely likely that this mysterious genetic gift would pass on to offspring."
Wouldn't it really be the spermatogonial stem cells that would be modified because they are the things that actually generate the haploid spermatozoa?
Maybe I am being too technical, but sometimes the details matter.
Good point. Looks like the problem switches to there being so few of those. But it probably does increase odds of getting a transfection or retroviral gene through the male side
Thank you! A funny note regarding that motivation - it probably originates in past work writing (unpublished) science fiction. In particular I first read about the immune system, viruses, etc., with a goal of accurately predicting something for later reputation (ha) - so it obviously mattered whether things in studies would actually prove correct.
Thanks again, Brian. I admire your patience with these articles. I've said it before, but I think the reviewers are falling down on the job. They should have flagged the question of whether multiple litters in the first generation, or multiple generations of litters. Also, the authors would probably respond to a direct query from readers, such as yourself, asking for a clarification.
This one is still preprint, but I didn't emphasize that point since peer review is just a fig leaf in the current era anyway! Hm, yes - an email might be productive here. I do kind of think this one is so confusing that it will actually be corrected, and an update likely posted on biorxiv.
if the synthetic genetic material is 'just' transiently out there reprogramming the jobs of few cells, how to explain super fast growing cancers of entire organs, 4 different types in one patient for example?
I offered a theory for the carcinogenic mechanism almost a year ago - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/liquid-cancer - my theory is primarily metabolic in nature. In general, I do not think post-vax-cancer demands a "genetic" explanation, and I am skeptical that even if mRNA integration was occurring, it would move the needle on cancer as opposed to a non-integration etiology as I propose.
I call it irrelevant in the context of my sentence. My mechanism centers on the metabolic aspect. It would be inapt to describe it as a "genetic" explanation.
No. You simply disagree with the way I used a term - in a context, not as in some ideal absolute binary descriptor, which is nonsensical since "genes" are involved in all life - and are being childish and rude about it. The entire reason "genetic" was in quotes was to indicate that I am speaking about a way the term is used. The very next clause centers on integration as a key example of what I mean by how "genetic" is used in terms of mechanisms for cancer.
talks about 'replaced by a naturally occurring analog, N1-methyl-pseudouridine, or Ψ.'
Can you point to that real source which defines the N1-m-pseudoU
as 'natural', in the human body? The wiki link you point to is talking about transfer RNA containing pseudouridine (not the N1 methylated version actually), and NOT mRNA, which comes out of nucleus with 'ready made N1-pseudouridine'???
Reviews seem split between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th litters being successive generations and, conversely, serial litters from the same 2 parents. I haven't read the study myself; you're sure it's the former?
Yikes. I wasn’t aware of this debate, and you’ve just switched me to Team Serial. Overall a good example of how poorly study authors can relate the most simple bits of information. They describe their setup as attempting to validate multi-generational reprogramming, and finish by deeming their results to demonstrate a short duration parental response.
“ A number of recent studies reported evidence for transmission of either trained immunity or tolerance across generations in mice” ... “ Nevertheless, the overall protection levels fell across the board with later litters, suggesting that such heterologous effects do not persist for the entire life of *****an****** animal.”
I am a little tired and didn't read this thoroughly, but beta- glucan activates dectin-1 receptors which spike effects, so it is protective against fungal infections related to spike toxicity. I use Nutritional Yeast flakes daily as a beta glucan source. I am not fond of fungal infections.
For general immunity I remain where I was when I wrote "Hot Spot" - there seems to be innate immune suppression, but it probably only results in increased illness when there is a "critical mass" of herd vulnerability so that pathogen doses are amplified, as with the monkeypox outbreak. For anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity I would personally be very worried about the tolerance thing if I weren't pure-blood.
I agree with you that it is unlikely that whatever is happening is changing the germ line. However, you say:
"And so, since there are millions of sperm that vie for fusion with the egg, individual LNPs would have to deliver vaccine mRNA which would then have to successfully incorporate into most or all of these sperm cells, to make it remotely likely that this mysterious genetic gift would pass on to offspring."
Wouldn't it really be the spermatogonial stem cells that would be modified because they are the things that actually generate the haploid spermatozoa?
Maybe I am being too technical, but sometimes the details matter.
Good point. Looks like the problem switches to there being so few of those. But it probably does increase odds of getting a transfection or retroviral gene through the male side
I really appreciate the attitude and motivation you expressed in your last paragraphs. Please continue your devil's advocacy!
Thank you! A funny note regarding that motivation - it probably originates in past work writing (unpublished) science fiction. In particular I first read about the immune system, viruses, etc., with a goal of accurately predicting something for later reputation (ha) - so it obviously mattered whether things in studies would actually prove correct.
As a lifelong science-fiction fan, I especially appreciate that.
Thanks again, Brian. I admire your patience with these articles. I've said it before, but I think the reviewers are falling down on the job. They should have flagged the question of whether multiple litters in the first generation, or multiple generations of litters. Also, the authors would probably respond to a direct query from readers, such as yourself, asking for a clarification.
This one is still preprint, but I didn't emphasize that point since peer review is just a fig leaf in the current era anyway! Hm, yes - an email might be productive here. I do kind of think this one is so confusing that it will actually be corrected, and an update likely posted on biorxiv.
When I had papers come out and anyone contacted me with questions or requests I was thrilled. It meant someone actually read them!
if the synthetic genetic material is 'just' transiently out there reprogramming the jobs of few cells, how to explain super fast growing cancers of entire organs, 4 different types in one patient for example?
Our bodies are in a constant fight against cancers, and our immune system is a huge part of that.
The gene-jabs disrupt our cancer-fighting ability; the 'how' is incredibly complicated but includes impairing the important p53 tumor-suppressor gene.
Anyone who claims to have a short answer to the 'how' is lying to you.
yes, I know, I wrote about that topic (which touched p53) to FDA LONG TIME ago:
https://mejbcart.substack.com/p/why-cdcfda-ignore-the-spike-protein
no response, ever.
From whom did you expect a response?
I offered a theory for the carcinogenic mechanism almost a year ago - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/liquid-cancer - my theory is primarily metabolic in nature. In general, I do not think post-vax-cancer demands a "genetic" explanation, and I am skeptical that even if mRNA integration was occurring, it would move the needle on cancer as opposed to a non-integration etiology as I propose.
" I do not think post-vax-cancer demands a "genetic" explanation"???
Excuse me, so how on earth do you call genetic readout/processing of ribosomes of the synthetic genetic material????
I call it irrelevant in the context of my sentence. My mechanism centers on the metabolic aspect. It would be inapt to describe it as a "genetic" explanation.
synthetic GENETIC CODE inapt?? I guess you are missing seriously the basics.
No. You simply disagree with the way I used a term - in a context, not as in some ideal absolute binary descriptor, which is nonsensical since "genes" are involved in all life - and are being childish and rude about it. The entire reason "genetic" was in quotes was to indicate that I am speaking about a way the term is used. The very next clause centers on integration as a key example of what I mean by how "genetic" is used in terms of mechanisms for cancer.
shouldn't get into this exchange without actually reading your 'theory'...
https://unglossed.substack.com/p/liquid-cancer#footnote-8
talks about 'replaced by a naturally occurring analog, N1-methyl-pseudouridine, or Ψ.'
Can you point to that real source which defines the N1-m-pseudoU
as 'natural', in the human body? The wiki link you point to is talking about transfer RNA containing pseudouridine (not the N1 methylated version actually), and NOT mRNA, which comes out of nucleus with 'ready made N1-pseudouridine'???
Reviews seem split between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th litters being successive generations and, conversely, serial litters from the same 2 parents. I haven't read the study myself; you're sure it's the former?
Yikes. I wasn’t aware of this debate, and you’ve just switched me to Team Serial. Overall a good example of how poorly study authors can relate the most simple bits of information. They describe their setup as attempting to validate multi-generational reprogramming, and finish by deeming their results to demonstrate a short duration parental response.
“ A number of recent studies reported evidence for transmission of either trained immunity or tolerance across generations in mice” ... “ Nevertheless, the overall protection levels fell across the board with later litters, suggesting that such heterologous effects do not persist for the entire life of *****an****** animal.”
Pdlm, as the French would say.
I am a little tired and didn't read this thoroughly, but beta- glucan activates dectin-1 receptors which spike effects, so it is protective against fungal infections related to spike toxicity. I use Nutritional Yeast flakes daily as a beta glucan source. I am not fond of fungal infections.
I see on rereading that the LNPs alone seem to increase risk of Candida. I wonder if the positive charge effects dectin-1 receptors somehow.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124719315773
For general immunity I remain where I was when I wrote "Hot Spot" - there seems to be innate immune suppression, but it probably only results in increased illness when there is a "critical mass" of herd vulnerability so that pathogen doses are amplified, as with the monkeypox outbreak. For anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity I would personally be very worried about the tolerance thing if I weren't pure-blood.
The verdict hasn't changed - avoid the gene-jabs.
Thanks to unglossed for this rare and in-depth analysis, I'm still digesting it.