Question: what is going to happen to the BINDING ISOMERIC ANTIBODIES which have been produced by the immune system in response to the cmRNA coding with Pseudouridine? What is the defining factor which will constitute a sufficient condition for these isomeric abs to be activated, that is, to become neurotoxic prion-like T-bacilli proteins?
Want to add my name to the Paxlovid rebound list. Tested positive PCR and antigen, took 5 day regimen of Paxlovid, symptom free by day six, tested negative, two days later, all symptoms returned, tested positive, still positive after ten days, but mostly symptom free.
Interesting! But how would you know these are not re-infections instead of flare-ups?
Now, I'm actually not the party-pooper who believes that, but we should ask ourselves if that is possible?
But the real reason I bring it up is because re-infections in general are rare. In any community where a virus rages, you don't see the ones who get it first be reinfected by the later ones. Immunity even though it matures for months is already quite strong right after clearing an illness. So even though in such a community the first one who cleared the virus, will be frequently re-exposed, they do not get re-infected. Killingly, et al. seems to confirm.
So why is it not here? I mean, we pause some virus replication, but most of it is cleared. Then we stop the medication and the remainder is free to replicate again. But at the same time, the body should be high on all the flavours of anti-bodies (IgA, IgM ad IgG) and may have started to produce already some CD8 T memory cells as well. Either way, we just cleared let's say 99% of the virus be it with help of the anti-viral. So why does the immune system have such trouble stopping this let's say 1%? What is different compared to a re-exposure?
It seems that the immune training is impaired as well by the anti-viral!?
Or is this simply an artifact that the ones who get this anti-viral are typically people with poor immune function?
So as someone who used to do PCR testing (well, I did the RNA extracting) the quantification comes down to the instrument and other factors. The rt-PCR instrument needed to be calibrated with a tray containing various concentrations of fluorescence to create a normal curve relative to fluorescence I believe.
For every PCR tray a positive control is added that serves as a reference for all the other testing wells. As for fluorescence, most assays use fluorescent labeled fragments of DNA that are cleaved after a cycle of amplification. Each gene has a different fluorescent tag which is how they differentiate the genes from one another.
Anyways, the PCR test measures at what cycle the fluorescence passes a threshold value. Then the instrument essentially can work retroactively I believe based on an exponential curve, such that:
Fixed viral load = [initial viral load] x base (greater than 1 but less than 2)^Ct
The instrument knows the viral load- it's the threshold that's crossed. The Ct count can be retroactively calculated, and the base value is likely based on the calibration. Plug all of them in and it gives the initial viral load which would tell you whether you are "infectious" using similar measures as outlined in the University of Washington protocol. However, because the initial viral load is related to the Ct count I think they usually stick with the Ct count and it's probably much easier to report.
I've written about my experiences as a COVID tester before. It's floating around in my Substack somewhere but I do remember writing about the sensitivity of these tests. I will tell you that human error is all over the place when doing COVID testing so something to keep in mind when evaluating the results.
Fantastic post! Thank you for directing your attention and competence to this. I believe that we are just getting started really looking at paxlovid.
If I recall correctly, paxlovid was tested on unvaccinated people. If vaccinated people are disproportionally getting viral resurgence, this could be due to the following:
- The 5 day PAUSE button that is called Paxlovid, leads to mostly satisfactory results in UNvaccinated people, whose immune system can mount vigorous response during those 5 days, leading to only 20% viral resurgence
- If vaccinated people, due to immune system damage/tolerance to the spike antigen, are unable to create durable immune response during the same 5 day pause, it could explain resurgence in them.
In addition, it may be that Omicron, despite appearing mild, takes more time to clear and a five day PAUSE is not enough. As you or maybe Modern Discontent alluded to, it may be that the protease inhibitor needs to be given for longer (but hopefully not forever as you mentioned)
In addition, it may be that paxlovid trial was rigged, and resurgences were somehow masked by trial protocol.
5 day pause? Sure, but it's much deeper than that. The key to understanding the entire vaccination campaign are the CHIRAL ISOMERS.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.oprd.1c00400 (N4-hydroxycytidine isomer)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261232v1.full (dimethyl-bicyclo[3.1.0] proline isomer)
Question: what is going to happen to the BINDING ISOMERIC ANTIBODIES which have been produced by the immune system in response to the cmRNA coding with Pseudouridine? What is the defining factor which will constitute a sufficient condition for these isomeric abs to be activated, that is, to become neurotoxic prion-like T-bacilli proteins?
More from Twitter (using my alt account as I am blocked for misinformation, pending appeal)
People are getting interested in our paxlovid stuff, without mentioning us of course but whatever
https://twitter.com/EnemyInAState/status/1516588639270092809
https://twitter.com/walidgellad/status/1516040963239653388
https://twitter.com/JFdonoghue1033/status/1515811645515259908 (look at the replies to this one)
https://twitter.com/SteveJoffe/status/1516136976944095247
https://www.coronaheadsup.com/health/treatment/paxlovid/paxlovid-covid-19-infections-rebounding-a-few-days-after-treatment/
https://twitter.com/baby2thfairy/status/1516192113842655243
GOOD ONE: https://twitter.com/TaraL3056/status/1516132283991957514
https://twitter.com/SlightlyUnripe/status/1516566835042287617
https://twitter.com/WoollerEmma/status/1516359610956931080
https://twitter.com/poblematisch/status/1516285346379710469
Apr 21:
https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/urgent-studies-needed-on-paxlovid-does-it-only-help-alleviate-symptoms-and-suppress-viral-load-for-a-while-but-does-not-help-in-total-viral-clearance
https://twitter.com/JeremyLeven1/status/1517264324644982784 <-- he may be a doctor
Want to add my name to the Paxlovid rebound list. Tested positive PCR and antigen, took 5 day regimen of Paxlovid, symptom free by day six, tested negative, two days later, all symptoms returned, tested positive, still positive after ten days, but mostly symptom free.
Another two
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19positive/comments/u61mv9/me_mom_tested_positive_about_almost_2_weeks_ago_2/
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19positive/comments/u612zp/viral_rebound_on_day_13_after_taking_paxlovid/
Jessica Rose also wrote about Paxlovid and her article is very interesting.
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/what-is-paxlovid
Interesting! But how would you know these are not re-infections instead of flare-ups?
Now, I'm actually not the party-pooper who believes that, but we should ask ourselves if that is possible?
But the real reason I bring it up is because re-infections in general are rare. In any community where a virus rages, you don't see the ones who get it first be reinfected by the later ones. Immunity even though it matures for months is already quite strong right after clearing an illness. So even though in such a community the first one who cleared the virus, will be frequently re-exposed, they do not get re-infected. Killingly, et al. seems to confirm.
So why is it not here? I mean, we pause some virus replication, but most of it is cleared. Then we stop the medication and the remainder is free to replicate again. But at the same time, the body should be high on all the flavours of anti-bodies (IgA, IgM ad IgG) and may have started to produce already some CD8 T memory cells as well. Either way, we just cleared let's say 99% of the virus be it with help of the anti-viral. So why does the immune system have such trouble stopping this let's say 1%? What is different compared to a re-exposure?
It seems that the immune training is impaired as well by the anti-viral!?
Or is this simply an artifact that the ones who get this anti-viral are typically people with poor immune function?
So as someone who used to do PCR testing (well, I did the RNA extracting) the quantification comes down to the instrument and other factors. The rt-PCR instrument needed to be calibrated with a tray containing various concentrations of fluorescence to create a normal curve relative to fluorescence I believe.
For every PCR tray a positive control is added that serves as a reference for all the other testing wells. As for fluorescence, most assays use fluorescent labeled fragments of DNA that are cleaved after a cycle of amplification. Each gene has a different fluorescent tag which is how they differentiate the genes from one another.
Anyways, the PCR test measures at what cycle the fluorescence passes a threshold value. Then the instrument essentially can work retroactively I believe based on an exponential curve, such that:
Fixed viral load = [initial viral load] x base (greater than 1 but less than 2)^Ct
The instrument knows the viral load- it's the threshold that's crossed. The Ct count can be retroactively calculated, and the base value is likely based on the calibration. Plug all of them in and it gives the initial viral load which would tell you whether you are "infectious" using similar measures as outlined in the University of Washington protocol. However, because the initial viral load is related to the Ct count I think they usually stick with the Ct count and it's probably much easier to report.
I've written about my experiences as a COVID tester before. It's floating around in my Substack somewhere but I do remember writing about the sensitivity of these tests. I will tell you that human error is all over the place when doing COVID testing so something to keep in mind when evaluating the results.
Fantastic post! Thank you for directing your attention and competence to this. I believe that we are just getting started really looking at paxlovid.
If I recall correctly, paxlovid was tested on unvaccinated people. If vaccinated people are disproportionally getting viral resurgence, this could be due to the following:
- The 5 day PAUSE button that is called Paxlovid, leads to mostly satisfactory results in UNvaccinated people, whose immune system can mount vigorous response during those 5 days, leading to only 20% viral resurgence
- If vaccinated people, due to immune system damage/tolerance to the spike antigen, are unable to create durable immune response during the same 5 day pause, it could explain resurgence in them.
In addition, it may be that Omicron, despite appearing mild, takes more time to clear and a five day PAUSE is not enough. As you or maybe Modern Discontent alluded to, it may be that the protease inhibitor needs to be given for longer (but hopefully not forever as you mentioned)
In addition, it may be that paxlovid trial was rigged, and resurgences were somehow masked by trial protocol.