I passed a car on the road last week with a bumper sticker that made me chuckle. It read: “Critical thinking — the other national deficit.” I’ve been thinking about that bumper sticker a lot lately — ever since my essay “What is Luciferase” (exclusively on Substack) set off a firestorm. The corporate media issued the same blanket denial with the same regurgitated sentences (a cut and paste journalism job if ever there was one!) seemingly around the world: there’s no such ingredient secretly hiding inside the experimental vaccines!
Did any of these so-called journalists do the homework? Did any of them actually perform a fact-check? Of course they didn’t. Most of them didn’t even read the essay. (Let’s be honest: most of them don’t read anything at all.) I had left the instructions for fact-checking my claim right there for everyone to see:
-
Go to the MODERNA website.
-
Click: the PATENTS page.
-
Click: PATENT US 10,703,789
-
Do a keyword search for: Luciferase.
This was too difficult a task for our dishonest horde of corporate journalists. At least one brave soul bothered to do it — and that honest man happened to be a Google software engineer named Zach Vorhies.
Let me repeat: Luciferase is INCLUDED in the mRNA sequence of the Moderna patent! So I’m right — and the corporate media is wrong. Does this surprise anybody?
The corporate press has already admitted that Luciferase was used in the testing phase of the vaccines as well. So it’s listed in the mRNA sequence of the Moderna patent AND it’s used in the testing of the vaccines but I’m a conspiracy theorist?
One more thing: the new COVID-19 antibody test is called SATiN and it uses Luciferase. No, I’m not kidding. Just click here to see for yourself.
Let me repeat that information: the antibody test is called SATiN.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not getting anywhere near this dark stuff. Just listen to how the SATiN test works:
“We basically incubate those three little molecular biological pieces with a prick of blood,” Stagljar says. “And if there are antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the blood, these antibodies will ‘glue’ the three parts of luciferase into a functional molecule that will start shining.”
In other words, you need to have COVID-19 antibodies present to make the enzyme glow. When the glow occurs, the researchers can then measure the amount of light emitted with an instrument called a luminometer. The more antibodies a person has, the brighter the luciferase will shine. There’s something very wrong here. You know it and I know it. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand: names matter. It’s not an accident that they’ve given this name to this test. It’s a warning.
He who has ears, let him hear.
https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/luciferase-was-bad-but-it-gets-worse
Names do matter.
The name "Lucifer" is translated from the Hebrew word הֵילֵל, which transliterated is pronounced "hêylêl." This is how it was originally written in the Bible, and it means "morning star" or "bright one."
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/1966.html
Since not everyone can read Hebrew, translators used a Latin word to translate. "Bright one" became "light bringer." In Latin, this is the word "lucifer."
Lucifer's name was one that we gave him based on a direct translation from the Hebrew term for the entity. It wasn't given by God. It wasn't chosen by Satan. It's a name we used to best fit what the Hebrews had called him.
Since "lucifer" literally just means light-bringer, that word has uses outside of simply referring to a religious evil. It can also just literally mean "light bringer." Luciferase is an enzyme that works on luciferin to... bring light.
Lucifer: = lux (light) + ferre (carry)
It's found in fireflies, which are probably not evil. It's also found in snails, which are also probably not evil.
Also, I did read your article, which I have posted here.
https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/US10703789.pdf
Page 46 (Table 4) has the table you're worried about, but it is not what you claim. Luciferase is not included in the mRNA sequence of the vaccine. Table 4 does not list anything that is actually in the vaccine.
That table refers to tools you can optionally use in order to visualize a cDNA template during PCR.
Which is used to help develop and test a vaccine. It's not actually the sequence they're using for the vaccine itself.
Per the paper:
In other words, you can create the cDNA template (which is used to create the resulting mRNA) using a luciferin primer if you'd like. If you use it, you can evaluate how well everything is transcribing by measuring the amount of light produced when it's bound to luciferin.
But you don't have to. It's just there as information to help you test if you'd like. That's what the table shows.
It does not anywhere in that paper suggest that luciferin is actually in the vaccine itself. This is a patent to show the process they used to test and validate their results. If you're interested in how it is used during PCR and what your patent paper is describing, there's another article you can read here (full PDF is available on the link on the page):
https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/15/1-2/193/915631
Thank you. This is what I thought from previous research into this, but I didn’t document my findings so I wasn’t sure. This post is at least partially wrong and your comment should be up top.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_luciferin
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10703789B2/en
Well done
Tip top. Tippy top.
I’m sorry. You present yourself as a researcher, so I was under the impression I wouldn’t need to clarify what “cite” meant.
So either I did copy my specific argument and you can’t find it, or I didn’t and you are making baseless accusations as if they were evidenced.
Neither shows much in the way of your own research competency. Please remember this next time you decide to accuse me of having no idea what I’m doing as a researcher.
I feel like it's rather insulting to the nature of this board and your cohorts for me to have to explain to you that linking to a search engine is not citing proof that I copied my argument from the mainstream media. I'm looking for direct evidence that this is true.
Can you find ANYONE who talks about this paper specifically in the media? Anyone who analyzed the pages that I did? Anyone who referred to the OP's question as specifically as I was able to?
If you can't find the evidence to back up your belief that I did not write this analysis based on my own research, then you either failed to base a conclusion off of any evidence, or you failed to obtain evidence that you are certain must exist.
Either way, it's a bad look for researcher, especially one who is as confident in your conclusions as you are. I'm going to leave you here to consider that and exactly how you should approach your research topics in the future.
Cheers.