As reported by Jessica Rose, Pfizer self-published the very same simulated blots involved in “Blot-gate” on January 12:
The study:
There’s nothing truly “new;” this paper publishes the same experiments with the same images mailed to regulators so they could perfunctorily pretend to regulate, but a bit more detail on methods.
Accordingly, I have made small updates to Sunday’s post to include the minor revelations disclosed in Patel, et al. The following review was added in the footnotes:
Patel, HK. et al. “Characterization of BNT162b2 mRNA to Evaluate Risk of Off-Target Antigen Translation.” Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences.
Supports my interpretation of the regulators being pre-aware of the processing step. Patel, et al. casually report that for the experiments besides the cell-free degradation assay, “mRNA sample results are reported as ProteinSimple Wes assay run lane images.” Regulators probably knew this.
Contra my original text, ProteinSimple does constitute a tool to convert real blots directly to touched-up, simulated blots. i.e., the tool that I reported “should not exist,” exists (it is always helpful when brand names are specified). I have edited the text of this post with the original version preserved in strikethrough.
Reveals that Pfizer has either changed its mind or never was in agreement with the theory (prevailing in the reports submitted to regulators) that most partial RNAs were the product of degraded full RNAs. Patel, et al. now opine that most partial RNAs are incomplete transcriptions. This conclusion is portrayed as stemming from the experiments in question, as if to imply that no further work has been done to investigate manufacturing quality besides these few experiments on pre-EUA batches:
The data demonstrate that BNT162b2 fragments originate predominantly from premature transcriptional stops during manufacturing and do not have the capacity for protein translation, as evidenced by orthogonal protein expression systems.
Today
I am finally going to make a post about the mythical thing called the “worry window” (mythical at least before the bivalent booster, which is being delivered when the previously-boosted are the virtually only ones being infected anyway).
So get those unsubscribe-fingers ready.
😅 I love the poll.
Brother - you piss me off occasionally but I ain’t never gonna unsubscribe. You have very important thoughts that need to be shared. My only criticism of you ever (what pisses me off) is when you use bad data (e.g., your state death data) to then do “good” analyses. It’s still garbage in garbage out, no matter how good your analysis. But when you are breaking down the genetic code stuff, the signatures and patterns, and describing what’s happening biochemically, you’re at the top of your game. You ask the right questions. Just gotta be careful w those data sets; it can become a modeling circle jerk real fast.