So, I’m on mobile rn so my ability to be specific or thorough is limited, and I may mis-name some things. But here are my notes on your impressive and very nicely sourced post:
-The pre-fusion stabilization is an interesting fad / obsession in the distributed research that led to the cvaxxes. Pre-fusion doesn’t mean pre-cleavage. So the bushy S1 part of the spike can still be cleaved, break off early, head to the nucleus, fly around the bloodstream, who knows what. All the S-2P does is ensure that if the S1 unit opens up, the spring-loaded heptad repeats of the S2 stalk can’t shoot upward and cause membrane fusion. So on the face of it this does nothing for the safety of the spike, contra a lot of fact checks. But maybe it makes for a more consistent / robust antibody response. Certainly the results are impressive, though there’s zero experimental demonstration that the prolines have anything to do with this (as opposed to the widespread dispersion via LNP+PEG or the pseudo-U). So in the end it was just something thrown in either out of groupthink or an unpublished nefarious end; but I really can’t see how they make the spike worse than it already is.
-Your article wades into the FCS insert. Note that here we are dealing with the “wild” viral spike as opposed to anything edited in for the vax, and that the P in this insert is another, separate, odd “design choice.” P is a unique amino acid because it acts like a rigid bracket wherever you put it. (This is why when you put it next to a spring loaded HR it can’t move anymore). It is not popular in nature when it comes to protease motifs nor the furin cleavage (protease) motifs. (The insert FCS also has an R one spot out of place.) So it’s very conspicuous. But not related to the edits in the shots.
-My best understanding is that there is no difference between Comirnaty and BNT162b2, aside from legal treatment within the US. So the latter should also be stabilized and codon-optimized. Stabilization should not affect trimerization except potentially to preserve it via preventing release of the spring-loaded heptad repeats, which is like opening a jack in the box that also breaks itself apart. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517321003914 Is a good source for what’s known to be in the different products. As for codon optimization, it may lead to all sorts of transcription errors (wrong residues) resulting in expression of variant spikes, or it may do nothing. But nature (the virus) is not an idiot and probably knows better than humans which codons lead to more correctly-produced spike.
-HexaPro appears to achieve “9.8X” better expression vs a different proline-stabilized spike, via other substitutions that essentially glue nearby loops together to make a taxidermy-ed version of the final product. So this can’t be used to extrapolate the expression-boosting power of the proline subs since it is comparing vs them.
-The date refresh on the approval spreadsheet may be related to the switch to tris buffer for the adult products. Just a wild guess.
More spam and GIGO. You noted that they were using PCR tests as "Confirmed Covid." We know that this is nonsense.
I believe that all metanalyses since 2019 are deeply flawed for this reason. Steve Kirsch believes that the metanalysis is the highest form of medical information, which might be an appropriate assumption for an engineer.
I have routinely had JAMA comments rejected "Not meeting our community standard" when I asked that the PCR Ct's be revealed. I actually saw one the other day where this consideration was buried in the comment section of JAMA online, though.
As there is no incentive for honest research, you will have to keep trying to show the lies from the available corrupt datasets. I very much appreciate your expertise, our epidemiology lectures were so deadly that I took the day off and went skiing for many of them.
I envision first as director and last as executive producer. So like Baric’s always in the last spot, but I don’t picture him sweating over a NGS machine all day.
Very good dissection of the study design! Wow!
Could you please have a look and second-opinion this post of mine as suggested by Igor Chudov?
https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/mrna-jabs-you-havent-seen-nothing
So, I’m on mobile rn so my ability to be specific or thorough is limited, and I may mis-name some things. But here are my notes on your impressive and very nicely sourced post:
-The pre-fusion stabilization is an interesting fad / obsession in the distributed research that led to the cvaxxes. Pre-fusion doesn’t mean pre-cleavage. So the bushy S1 part of the spike can still be cleaved, break off early, head to the nucleus, fly around the bloodstream, who knows what. All the S-2P does is ensure that if the S1 unit opens up, the spring-loaded heptad repeats of the S2 stalk can’t shoot upward and cause membrane fusion. So on the face of it this does nothing for the safety of the spike, contra a lot of fact checks. But maybe it makes for a more consistent / robust antibody response. Certainly the results are impressive, though there’s zero experimental demonstration that the prolines have anything to do with this (as opposed to the widespread dispersion via LNP+PEG or the pseudo-U). So in the end it was just something thrown in either out of groupthink or an unpublished nefarious end; but I really can’t see how they make the spike worse than it already is.
-Your article wades into the FCS insert. Note that here we are dealing with the “wild” viral spike as opposed to anything edited in for the vax, and that the P in this insert is another, separate, odd “design choice.” P is a unique amino acid because it acts like a rigid bracket wherever you put it. (This is why when you put it next to a spring loaded HR it can’t move anymore). It is not popular in nature when it comes to protease motifs nor the furin cleavage (protease) motifs. (The insert FCS also has an R one spot out of place.) So it’s very conspicuous. But not related to the edits in the shots.
-My best understanding is that there is no difference between Comirnaty and BNT162b2, aside from legal treatment within the US. So the latter should also be stabilized and codon-optimized. Stabilization should not affect trimerization except potentially to preserve it via preventing release of the spring-loaded heptad repeats, which is like opening a jack in the box that also breaks itself apart. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517321003914 Is a good source for what’s known to be in the different products. As for codon optimization, it may lead to all sorts of transcription errors (wrong residues) resulting in expression of variant spikes, or it may do nothing. But nature (the virus) is not an idiot and probably knows better than humans which codons lead to more correctly-produced spike.
-HexaPro appears to achieve “9.8X” better expression vs a different proline-stabilized spike, via other substitutions that essentially glue nearby loops together to make a taxidermy-ed version of the final product. So this can’t be used to extrapolate the expression-boosting power of the proline subs since it is comparing vs them.
-The date refresh on the approval spreadsheet may be related to the switch to tris buffer for the adult products. Just a wild guess.
Thank you - sure, taking a look
More spam and GIGO. You noted that they were using PCR tests as "Confirmed Covid." We know that this is nonsense.
I believe that all metanalyses since 2019 are deeply flawed for this reason. Steve Kirsch believes that the metanalysis is the highest form of medical information, which might be an appropriate assumption for an engineer.
I have routinely had JAMA comments rejected "Not meeting our community standard" when I asked that the PCR Ct's be revealed. I actually saw one the other day where this consideration was buried in the comment section of JAMA online, though.
As there is no incentive for honest research, you will have to keep trying to show the lies from the available corrupt datasets. I very much appreciate your expertise, our epidemiology lectures were so deadly that I took the day off and went skiing for many of them.
Brian,
Can you clarify or confirm something for me, please.
With any multi-author scientific paper, is the author who contributed the most named last?
I envision first as director and last as executive producer. So like Baric’s always in the last spot, but I don’t picture him sweating over a NGS machine all day.