This is a protein that binds to the same receptors as a particular snake venom because of homology (the reactive site has protein similarity). It was almost certainly by design. What it is not is a "venom" it's a "virus." Not that the distinction here is all that important, but "anti-venom" has nothing to do with it specifically. Anti-venom is a specific monoclonal antibody that binds to a specific protein region. Monoclonal antibodies are very specific. In the case of SARS, you can have many different monoclonal antibodies that will work (binds to different parts of the SARS-CoV-2 virion). If the particular one for the snake venom also works on SARS that's great (though I'd be surprised if it works very well since the similar region is not large).
There are also many other treatments that can be used on a virus though, not just monoclonal antibodies. Things like HCQ, Ivermectin, etc. are likely even better than monoclonal antibodies (not to downplay its effectiveness).
what sucks is that I've seen so many people here dismiss the whole thing because it in no possible way be "snake venom"...well yeah duh! But who ever said it was snake venom? Why were people here even spreading that? Common deep state tactic (which the Devil does too) is you take the truth and you twist it just a little, and when you're just one degree off, then one mile down the road you are way off from the truth. "Eat the fish but spit out the bones" is how I approach all information.
I've seen so many people here dismiss the whole thing because it in no possible way be "snake venom"
I'm not sure if that's true. I personally dismissed "venom to poison the water", which many others did as well. And in truth, I didn't really "dismiss it," I asked for source evidence that wasn't Stew Peters and got downvoted into oblivion for not believing he was an automatic truthsayer. I never said it was impossible that SARS might have homology with snake venom, in fact I said that was quite possible.
RIght, I understand people HERE have been saying that, but that's why it's a problem because people obviously didn't watch the videos and read the articles. I meant to say that none of those who did the research and published the videos said it was literally snake venom. I suppose it's a matter of semantics, but it isn't literally snake venom. I guess it's kind of like the Covid "vaccine", like technically it is in no way a vaccine in the same sense that the traditional vaccines are but we use the same term to define it because in the general application it is one. People get so hung up on semantics haha, and I wouldn't normally care but when facts are confused with theories, semantics unfortunately DO matter. Cheers bruh! :)
Of course, it's just a protein. It is only effective as a toxin if it is injected into the bloodstream though. That is the definition of "venom": an injected toxin.
I mean, it's theoretically possible such a protein could have a partial effect if swallowed in large enough quantities, but the stomach will break it down, so it will probably have no effect at all, especially in small quantities like a "poisoned water supply."
Could it cross the blood brain barrier though, say by shoving a giant swab all the way down ones nose, or by injecting a "vaccine" incorrectly and getting into the blood stream? We were told it wasn't a leaky vaccine, however this has been proved absolutely incorrect.
I'm just thinking out loud here. It was one of my first questions, "I thought venom had to be direct into the blood stream" and not just via a third party, ie water.
Do you mean if someone actually got bit by a snake?
I don't think so. The Vitamin D/Zinc is to help protect the cell when SARS binds to the ACE-2 receptor. This is binding to a different receptor. I'd have to look into it more to be sure, but off the cuff, I really don't think so.
This is not snake venom...
This is a protein that binds to the same receptors as a particular snake venom because of homology (the reactive site has protein similarity). It was almost certainly by design. What it is not is a "venom" it's a "virus." Not that the distinction here is all that important, but "anti-venom" has nothing to do with it specifically. Anti-venom is a specific monoclonal antibody that binds to a specific protein region. Monoclonal antibodies are very specific. In the case of SARS, you can have many different monoclonal antibodies that will work (binds to different parts of the SARS-CoV-2 virion). If the particular one for the snake venom also works on SARS that's great (though I'd be surprised if it works very well since the similar region is not large).
There are also many other treatments that can be used on a virus though, not just monoclonal antibodies. Things like HCQ, Ivermectin, etc. are likely even better than monoclonal antibodies (not to downplay its effectiveness).
what sucks is that I've seen so many people here dismiss the whole thing because it in no possible way be "snake venom"...well yeah duh! But who ever said it was snake venom? Why were people here even spreading that? Common deep state tactic (which the Devil does too) is you take the truth and you twist it just a little, and when you're just one degree off, then one mile down the road you are way off from the truth. "Eat the fish but spit out the bones" is how I approach all information.
I'm not sure if that's true. I personally dismissed "venom to poison the water", which many others did as well. And in truth, I didn't really "dismiss it," I asked for source evidence that wasn't Stew Peters and got downvoted into oblivion for not believing he was an automatic truthsayer. I never said it was impossible that SARS might have homology with snake venom, in fact I said that was quite possible.
Almost everyone.
RIght, I understand people HERE have been saying that, but that's why it's a problem because people obviously didn't watch the videos and read the articles. I meant to say that none of those who did the research and published the videos said it was literally snake venom. I suppose it's a matter of semantics, but it isn't literally snake venom. I guess it's kind of like the Covid "vaccine", like technically it is in no way a vaccine in the same sense that the traditional vaccines are but we use the same term to define it because in the general application it is one. People get so hung up on semantics haha, and I wouldn't normally care but when facts are confused with theories, semantics unfortunately DO matter. Cheers bruh! :)
But they can and do make synthetic snake venom correct?
Of course, it's just a protein. It is only effective as a toxin if it is injected into the bloodstream though. That is the definition of "venom": an injected toxin.
I mean, it's theoretically possible such a protein could have a partial effect if swallowed in large enough quantities, but the stomach will break it down, so it will probably have no effect at all, especially in small quantities like a "poisoned water supply."
Could it cross the blood brain barrier though, say by shoving a giant swab all the way down ones nose, or by injecting a "vaccine" incorrectly and getting into the blood stream? We were told it wasn't a leaky vaccine, however this has been proved absolutely incorrect.
I'm just thinking out loud here. It was one of my first questions, "I thought venom had to be direct into the blood stream" and not just via a third party, ie water.
Always learn alot from your posts. Thank you for sharing.
Do you mean if someone actually got bit by a snake?
I don't think so. The Vitamin D/Zinc is to help protect the cell when SARS binds to the ACE-2 receptor. This is binding to a different receptor. I'd have to look into it more to be sure, but off the cuff, I really don't think so.
Monoclonal antibodies, glutathione, melatonin, NAC