As u/v8power has asserted, the Salk institute noted an additional role of the spike protein. In addition to its role as a point of attachment by the virus for endocytosis into the cell, it also has an additional role of shutting down specific signaling pathways through the S-protein -- ACE-2 protein interaction itself.
This is not really new news, as it had already been shown to have an independent deleterious effect. It is because of this known interaction that we knew that zinc would be a useful prophylactic and treatment (a cofactor of the ACE-2 protein).
What is good about this paper is that the pathways have been further elucidated, which provides new potential avenues for treatment and prevention. It also shows clearly why and how the protein (from both the vaccine and the virus) interact with the endothelium, causing harm directly to those cells (even without the virus itself), proving that the vaccines are far from safe.
Was it a collusion to design the vaccines using this spike protein? It could have been designed in no other way, since the spike glycoprotein is what is presented to the immune system (it covers the virus).
So the short answer is no, not in the way that you mean.
Was it designed prior to the accidental release of the virus by a bat in a Wuhan wet market that just happened to be spitting distance from the lab that was paid by the CDC to investigate that exact gain of function on that exact virus?
The Salk paper alone doesn't indicate the mRNA gene therapies are far from safe. Indeed, they end by suggesting the therapy is beneficial in multiple ways: "This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury."
I didn't mean to suggest they said it was far from safe. I meant that they showed that it was.
I'm a scientist. I used to read the conclusion before the figures/plates. Now I read the figures and plates and generally skip the conclusion. The data is the science, the conclusions are the narrative. They can keep their narrative, I can read the data for myself.
Thank you for that paper. This is not news to me though. I have been talking about the nonspecific nature of these immunotherapies for over a year. I have designed similar technology, but with additional cell-specific targeting ligands attached to PEGylated liposomes (or mesoporous silica) which substantially improves their specificity and rate of uptake.
The fact that these lacked any cell specific targeting means of course they will go into any cell without discrimination. It also means they can be transcytosed across the BBB. Any nanoparticle that doesn't carry a substantial negative charge less than 100nm or so will eventually undergo endocytosis once it comes into contact with a cell membrane.
No one thought they wouldn't enter the bloodstream. That would be beyond ridiculous. The Pfizer protocols were even looking out for disease states that would indicate such off target effects.
If the spike proteins are in the blood, then is it true they can be exhaled?
The spike protein is a transmembrane protein. It is very difficult (in a lab) to take a transmembrane protein out of a lipid bilayer. In vivo? Not going to happen.
Even if it did, it would lose its structure. It is designed to retain its tertiary structure only in the hydrophobic environment of the lipid bilayer, with those bilayer lipids pushing in on the sides. In the aqueous environment outside of the bilayer it unfolds or takes on a completely different tertiary structure. It would lose all its "signaling" properties, such as they are.
Having said that, there are some transmembrane proteins that have some of their exterior cut off by some enzyme. This cut off part becomes a signaling peptide. So it isn't impossible for a small part to be cut off, though as far as I am aware, such small peptides are specific (only some proteins will undergo such a process, by design, not by accident).
It is extraordinarily unlikely that the spike protein is being cut at all. Even if it was, its ACE-2 interactive properties come from its tertiary structure. In the secondary structure those interactive moieties are no longer in contact. It is impossible due to the structure of the protein for those moieties to be in contact once some part of the exterior is cut (if that unlikely event were to happen).
So, short answer, no.
The only evidence I have seen for a sympathetic response to the vaccine has been via menstruation. Menstrual sympathy is well documented and is a pheromone response. Since the vaccines can be a large attack on the vascular system, and can be anywhere in that system, I think the "vaccine shedding" phenomenon is likely related to menstrual sympathy and a phenomenal response.
Would you say the mRNA gene therapies are as dangerous or less dangerous than the actual virus? Using official death toll numbers, it seems they're about two orders of magnitude less dangerous.
Short answer, I don't know.
I think the official numbers are off by as many as two orders of magnitude for the vaccine (more likely one) and the numbers for the coronavirus deaths are off by almost certainly an order of magnitude. Since we have proven therapeutics that cost literally pennies that were forcefully not used, it is likely it could be reduced by another order of magnitude. That would put the vaccine and the virus at about the same level for deaths, or less with therapeutics. That is a guess, but I have spent a lot of time looking at the numbers and can somewhat justify that guess.
If those guesses are correct, the numbers suggest a serious injury other than death is substantially more likely from the vaccine than the virus, so in that way the vaccine is almost certainly much worse. Of course that assessment is presented without evidence, so take it with a grain of salt. I could be more detailed with that if you want.
We also don't know the long term effects, which could put the vaccine at undeniably worse than the virus. I don't think it will be too bad though, because I think we would already know if it were, but we shall see.
I have evidence the CDC is fudging with the death numbers, as in shifting deaths around, or holding off on them, or possibly not reporting them at all. I've downloaded the CDC death report for the past three months and the numbers from early 2020 all the way up until now are changing every week. Why would death numbers from March 2020 be changing every week? Or December 2020 for that matter. And we aren't talking small numbers in some cases. In Dec. 2020, when we apparently had the highest death count of all time, they are STILL adding on many thousands of deaths per week. Something is rotten in Denmark.
Bottom line, its really difficult to determine anything with fraudulent reporting (45 cycle PCR test lol). Its all guesses.
I learned the mRNA gene therapies cause the body to produce a set of antibodies that are different than if exposed to the actual virus. I also learned that they're more effective (95%) than actual virus (75%) upon (re-)catching the virus. But, somehow I think there may be unintended consequences (mRNA might be better short term while natural immunity better long term). What's your opinion?
Any idea that your bodies immune system, if it has already successfully fought off the virus is inferior to any vaccine under any circumstances, is complete bullshit.
The vaccine itself is not shown to be 95% effective, that is also bullshit. The sample size for that number was way too small to make that determination. Out of 50k ish people (if I remember correctly) 180ish from the control group contracted the virus and 8ish from the vaccinated group got the virus. 1-(8/180) = 95%. Total bullshit way of determining efficacy. Then in a document that was released it said that the real efficacy of the shipped vaccines was substantially worse. Apparently their nanoparticles didn't like being shipped.
If you get sick, and you live, your immune system will likely be well prepared to fight off that same virus for life.
A while back we previously discussed the mRNA therapies corrupting DNA. You pointed out they don't change DNA, but I pointed to articles regarding cancer in animal studies. Did you learn anything new?
I don't remember the specifics or context of "cancer in animal studies". Unfortunately I don't remember reading those papers, though I usually look at everything someone posts in response, so not sure why I don't remember. is there more context?
I still assert that under normal cell operations (which would include the state of dealing with the vaccine) mRNA does not get written to DNA with any reasonable frequency (1:1 quadrillion (or less) chance is insufficient frequency for discussion).
It is claimed here that the spike protein is known to be toxic but that they also believed that it stayed put at the vaccination site. now they believe it gets into your blood stream and so travels round the whole body spreading the toxin.
The spike protein does the damage, that's why the weak suffer.... the spike protein is able to get deeper into the body.
The spike protein binds to ace2 receptors causing clotting and bleeding. This leads to heart, brain, and lung problems.
The vaccine makes your body replicate this protein within the body, and we're seeing that damage happen.
They're not hiding anything, they know people are too lazy with inflated egos and will NEVER seek the information themselves. They don't need to hide, people are too retarded and rotted to see what's in front of them
As u/v8power has asserted, the Salk institute noted an additional role of the spike protein. In addition to its role as a point of attachment by the virus for endocytosis into the cell, it also has an additional role of shutting down specific signaling pathways through the S-protein -- ACE-2 protein interaction itself.
This is not really new news, as it had already been shown to have an independent deleterious effect. It is because of this known interaction that we knew that zinc would be a useful prophylactic and treatment (a cofactor of the ACE-2 protein).
What is good about this paper is that the pathways have been further elucidated, which provides new potential avenues for treatment and prevention. It also shows clearly why and how the protein (from both the vaccine and the virus) interact with the endothelium, causing harm directly to those cells (even without the virus itself), proving that the vaccines are far from safe.
Was it a collusion to design the vaccines using this spike protein? It could have been designed in no other way, since the spike glycoprotein is what is presented to the immune system (it covers the virus).
So the short answer is no, not in the way that you mean.
Was it designed prior to the accidental release of the virus by a bat in a Wuhan wet market that just happened to be spitting distance from the lab that was paid by the CDC to investigate that exact gain of function on that exact virus?
Almost certainly.
I didn't mean to suggest they said it was far from safe. I meant that they showed that it was.
I'm a scientist. I used to read the conclusion before the figures/plates. Now I read the figures and plates and generally skip the conclusion. The data is the science, the conclusions are the narrative. They can keep their narrative, I can read the data for myself.
Thank you for that paper. This is not news to me though. I have been talking about the nonspecific nature of these immunotherapies for over a year. I have designed similar technology, but with additional cell-specific targeting ligands attached to PEGylated liposomes (or mesoporous silica) which substantially improves their specificity and rate of uptake.
The fact that these lacked any cell specific targeting means of course they will go into any cell without discrimination. It also means they can be transcytosed across the BBB. Any nanoparticle that doesn't carry a substantial negative charge less than 100nm or so will eventually undergo endocytosis once it comes into contact with a cell membrane.
No one thought they wouldn't enter the bloodstream. That would be beyond ridiculous. The Pfizer protocols were even looking out for disease states that would indicate such off target effects.
The spike protein is a transmembrane protein. It is very difficult (in a lab) to take a transmembrane protein out of a lipid bilayer. In vivo? Not going to happen.
Even if it did, it would lose its structure. It is designed to retain its tertiary structure only in the hydrophobic environment of the lipid bilayer, with those bilayer lipids pushing in on the sides. In the aqueous environment outside of the bilayer it unfolds or takes on a completely different tertiary structure. It would lose all its "signaling" properties, such as they are.
Having said that, there are some transmembrane proteins that have some of their exterior cut off by some enzyme. This cut off part becomes a signaling peptide. So it isn't impossible for a small part to be cut off, though as far as I am aware, such small peptides are specific (only some proteins will undergo such a process, by design, not by accident).
It is extraordinarily unlikely that the spike protein is being cut at all. Even if it was, its ACE-2 interactive properties come from its tertiary structure. In the secondary structure those interactive moieties are no longer in contact. It is impossible due to the structure of the protein for those moieties to be in contact once some part of the exterior is cut (if that unlikely event were to happen).
So, short answer, no.
The only evidence I have seen for a sympathetic response to the vaccine has been via menstruation. Menstrual sympathy is well documented and is a pheromone response. Since the vaccines can be a large attack on the vascular system, and can be anywhere in that system, I think the "vaccine shedding" phenomenon is likely related to menstrual sympathy and a phenomenal response.
Short answer, I don't know.
I think the official numbers are off by as many as two orders of magnitude for the vaccine (more likely one) and the numbers for the coronavirus deaths are off by almost certainly an order of magnitude. Since we have proven therapeutics that cost literally pennies that were forcefully not used, it is likely it could be reduced by another order of magnitude. That would put the vaccine and the virus at about the same level for deaths, or less with therapeutics. That is a guess, but I have spent a lot of time looking at the numbers and can somewhat justify that guess.
If those guesses are correct, the numbers suggest a serious injury other than death is substantially more likely from the vaccine than the virus, so in that way the vaccine is almost certainly much worse. Of course that assessment is presented without evidence, so take it with a grain of salt. I could be more detailed with that if you want.
We also don't know the long term effects, which could put the vaccine at undeniably worse than the virus. I don't think it will be too bad though, because I think we would already know if it were, but we shall see.
I have evidence the CDC is fudging with the death numbers, as in shifting deaths around, or holding off on them, or possibly not reporting them at all. I've downloaded the CDC death report for the past three months and the numbers from early 2020 all the way up until now are changing every week. Why would death numbers from March 2020 be changing every week? Or December 2020 for that matter. And we aren't talking small numbers in some cases. In Dec. 2020, when we apparently had the highest death count of all time, they are STILL adding on many thousands of deaths per week. Something is rotten in Denmark.
Bottom line, its really difficult to determine anything with fraudulent reporting (45 cycle PCR test lol). Its all guesses.
Any idea that your bodies immune system, if it has already successfully fought off the virus is inferior to any vaccine under any circumstances, is complete bullshit.
The vaccine itself is not shown to be 95% effective, that is also bullshit. The sample size for that number was way too small to make that determination. Out of 50k ish people (if I remember correctly) 180ish from the control group contracted the virus and 8ish from the vaccinated group got the virus. 1-(8/180) = 95%. Total bullshit way of determining efficacy. Then in a document that was released it said that the real efficacy of the shipped vaccines was substantially worse. Apparently their nanoparticles didn't like being shipped.
If you get sick, and you live, your immune system will likely be well prepared to fight off that same virus for life.
I don't remember the specifics or context of "cancer in animal studies". Unfortunately I don't remember reading those papers, though I usually look at everything someone posts in response, so not sure why I don't remember. is there more context?
I still assert that under normal cell operations (which would include the state of dealing with the vaccine) mRNA does not get written to DNA with any reasonable frequency (1:1 quadrillion (or less) chance is insufficient frequency for discussion).
It is claimed here that the spike protein is known to be toxic but that they also believed that it stayed put at the vaccination site. now they believe it gets into your blood stream and so travels round the whole body spreading the toxin.
Go to the 6:00 mark or thereabouts.
Thanks for the link.
What "identifiable" part?
I heard the wuhan lab was also developing a vaccine before they released covid, seems likely ours are all based on that one, but idk
I did some reasearch and it’s only a fragment of the spike protein, not the whole protein, that the mRNA encodes for.
This is the important question.
The spike protein does the damage, that's why the weak suffer.... the spike protein is able to get deeper into the body.
The spike protein binds to ace2 receptors causing clotting and bleeding. This leads to heart, brain, and lung problems.
The vaccine makes your body replicate this protein within the body, and we're seeing that damage happen.
They're not hiding anything, they know people are too lazy with inflated egos and will NEVER seek the information themselves. They don't need to hide, people are too retarded and rotted to see what's in front of them