Forget nanograms Synthetic GMO Plasmid DNA in mRNA Jabs, the E. Coli Genomic DNA has a limit of 100 picogram per dose imposed by the FDA because it is considered extremely dangerous. That is too high.
I am behind with reading most of your "recent" substacks!!!! This is because I was VERY busy writing my preprints (another one just submitted yesterday). I thought, what I had been working on would be done much sooner, and I wanted to finish it before diving into anything else.
Your stuff here is LOADED! It is insane these products are still being used!
One quick idea - my hypothesis: the mRNA-LNP jabs cannot engage the required antigen processing pathways. As I argue in my preprints (e.g., https://osf.io/fjnav_v1), the evoked proteins/peptides may, therefore, not end up immunogenic, especially when they enter the "secreted" fate. I write more about this in the new preprint that I just submitted.
Rationally speaking, it would make sense to incorporate the DNAs, as they may enhance the inherent adjuvant features that can get lost when the mRNA-LNP injections enter the non-permissible pathway. The inclusion of the DNA may indeed have been to enhance adjuvanticity. They may also have been included to try to force another antigen processing pathway.
SECOND: the strange lot (RNA-RF200321-06) that you mentioned is also used in the Australian study in the most critical steps - trying to confirm the cellular localization and fate of the mRNA-LNP products. I have been fussing about this in at least three of my recent preprint - there is no proof these products assume the required pathway (they are either using alternative products or writing it in a misleading way)! The SV40 DNA and its influence on nuclear targeting may have been on purpose to try to capture another pathway, and not have the products run off and be secreted. So, the DNAs may have at least 2 roles, of how they were thought to support the mRNA injections, at least, this is my hypothesis. ...
Again, at the core of it all: the mRNA products do not assume the required pathways and, ergo, their "antigens" are not always immunogenic. I don't think they understood this part. Or, perhaps they did - in the AUS study, the most important components about cellular localization and fate are retracted (I discussed this in https://osf.io/preprints/osf/5dz3f_v2 and my forthcoming preprint).
Thank you for pointing to the Rhesus Macaques study - I had not known about this. Seems loaded too!!!
Holy Toledo Siguna!!! Wow I need to read your note and preprints several times. But I have always suspected some of this stuff but don’t have the background to explain. Alternative pathways indeed. Fits.
I just looked at the AUS study. The different lots (and DNA presence) may indeed explain some of the "paradoxes" that I described in my recent preprint!!!! Have to look into it in more detail
Also, the pivotal western blot Pfizer (and Moderna) did for the regulators to show that the correct protein was made, used this special lot. I could not figure out why. The EMA asked for the process 2 vials to also be studied and that's when Pfizer provided those computerized western blots and thus blotgate. Does that provide extra ammo for you? I have an excel spreadsheet on all the non-clinical studies and the lots used if you are interested.
Does the Western Blot for the "correct" protein products somehow relate to their localization as well? I seem to remember reading some studies where the mere presence of the produced proteins from the mRNA jabs was regarded as proof of their anticipated fate - to act as antigens and engender the wonderful immune responses. Need to read the kinetics article. Thanks for sharing. I wonder if it will say when/why the modRNAs may disappear so that they could not act as adjuvants. If so, the DNAs would be essential.
Oh wow, interesting. So I'm no immunologist or molecular biologist, but if there were lots of DNA fragments deliberately included as an adjuvant in the animal studies, does this mean they were trying to show no Th2-shift? No risk of ERD?
I think you are correct in your suspicions. It seems completely reasonable to consider that both the residual DNA and LNPs, when detected by the immune system will be regarded as non-self, and attacked. ‘Adjuvant’ as in being a trigger for the immune system seems inevitable. The modRNA, when detected, should also trigger the immune system. The prevalence and persistence of these triggers would no doubt have a profound impact.
Wouldn't changing things be an admission of guilt, both for the makers and the regulators? Maybe it's not about efficacy, maybe DNA contamination makes them safer (kidding).
Great work, thank you. I suspect the technical batch was done as a "worst case". It would be cheaper and available faster. The conversation possibly went like this ...Let's see what we get if we take a batch tbat hasn't had any / much downstream processing to clean it up and then anything tbat has will be "better" as there should be fewer impurities.
Then they maybe realised they needed the impurities to get the response as you describe and had to leave them in.
Forget nanograms Synthetic GMO Plasmid DNA in mRNA Jabs, the E. Coli Genomic DNA has a limit of 100 picogram per dose imposed by the FDA because it is considered extremely dangerous. That is too high.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/bacterial-dna-a-major-worry-in-jabs
Oh it’s dangerous all right, especially longer term. But all the animals had a great immunological response! Lots of antibodies schmantibodies ™️
Priming for future allergic response.
Thanks for your work. I don't have much scientific training, but I make an effort by reading articles like yours.
When I do, my sense is always strengthened that this technology makes informed consent impossible.
I am behind with reading most of your "recent" substacks!!!! This is because I was VERY busy writing my preprints (another one just submitted yesterday). I thought, what I had been working on would be done much sooner, and I wanted to finish it before diving into anything else.
Your stuff here is LOADED! It is insane these products are still being used!
One quick idea - my hypothesis: the mRNA-LNP jabs cannot engage the required antigen processing pathways. As I argue in my preprints (e.g., https://osf.io/fjnav_v1), the evoked proteins/peptides may, therefore, not end up immunogenic, especially when they enter the "secreted" fate. I write more about this in the new preprint that I just submitted.
Rationally speaking, it would make sense to incorporate the DNAs, as they may enhance the inherent adjuvant features that can get lost when the mRNA-LNP injections enter the non-permissible pathway. The inclusion of the DNA may indeed have been to enhance adjuvanticity. They may also have been included to try to force another antigen processing pathway.
SECOND: the strange lot (RNA-RF200321-06) that you mentioned is also used in the Australian study in the most critical steps - trying to confirm the cellular localization and fate of the mRNA-LNP products. I have been fussing about this in at least three of my recent preprint - there is no proof these products assume the required pathway (they are either using alternative products or writing it in a misleading way)! The SV40 DNA and its influence on nuclear targeting may have been on purpose to try to capture another pathway, and not have the products run off and be secreted. So, the DNAs may have at least 2 roles, of how they were thought to support the mRNA injections, at least, this is my hypothesis. ...
Again, at the core of it all: the mRNA products do not assume the required pathways and, ergo, their "antigens" are not always immunogenic. I don't think they understood this part. Or, perhaps they did - in the AUS study, the most important components about cellular localization and fate are retracted (I discussed this in https://osf.io/preprints/osf/5dz3f_v2 and my forthcoming preprint).
Thank you for pointing to the Rhesus Macaques study - I had not known about this. Seems loaded too!!!
Holy Toledo Siguna!!! Wow I need to read your note and preprints several times. But I have always suspected some of this stuff but don’t have the background to explain. Alternative pathways indeed. Fits.
I just looked at the AUS study. The different lots (and DNA presence) may indeed explain some of the "paradoxes" that I described in my recent preprint!!!! Have to look into it in more detail
Also, the pivotal western blot Pfizer (and Moderna) did for the regulators to show that the correct protein was made, used this special lot. I could not figure out why. The EMA asked for the process 2 vials to also be studied and that's when Pfizer provided those computerized western blots and thus blotgate. Does that provide extra ammo for you? I have an excel spreadsheet on all the non-clinical studies and the lots used if you are interested.
If so, then this DNA is intentional for many reasons, and modRNA vaccines dont work and never will. Plus here is a kinetics article that may be useful to you. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939641124000481#section-cited-by
Does the Western Blot for the "correct" protein products somehow relate to their localization as well? I seem to remember reading some studies where the mere presence of the produced proteins from the mRNA jabs was regarded as proof of their anticipated fate - to act as antigens and engender the wonderful immune responses. Need to read the kinetics article. Thanks for sharing. I wonder if it will say when/why the modRNAs may disappear so that they could not act as adjuvants. If so, the DNAs would be essential.
There is some data on TH1/Th2 in the animal studies of Astra and JJ
https://drbine.substack.com/p/mogliche-erklarung-fur-th2-shift?
Oh wow, interesting. So I'm no immunologist or molecular biologist, but if there were lots of DNA fragments deliberately included as an adjuvant in the animal studies, does this mean they were trying to show no Th2-shift? No risk of ERD?
Is this more fraud?
The deliberately wanted to shift the immune response to avoid ERD, yes, that's what they say in their documents.
I think you are correct in your suspicions. It seems completely reasonable to consider that both the residual DNA and LNPs, when detected by the immune system will be regarded as non-self, and attacked. ‘Adjuvant’ as in being a trigger for the immune system seems inevitable. The modRNA, when detected, should also trigger the immune system. The prevalence and persistence of these triggers would no doubt have a profound impact.
From not such a “ washed up pharmacist “ …..show this to the “ knuckleheads “ at the TGA and watch those eyes glaze over ….🤦♂️🦧🤷♂️
Fascinating, Maria. Thank you!
Wouldn't changing things be an admission of guilt, both for the makers and the regulators? Maybe it's not about efficacy, maybe DNA contamination makes them safer (kidding).
Great work, thank you. I suspect the technical batch was done as a "worst case". It would be cheaper and available faster. The conversation possibly went like this ...Let's see what we get if we take a batch tbat hasn't had any / much downstream processing to clean it up and then anything tbat has will be "better" as there should be fewer impurities.
Then they maybe realised they needed the impurities to get the response as you describe and had to leave them in.
The whole thing is very concerning.
Yes, I've thought of that. It is a common pharma ploy as well. Only it doesn't really explain the SV40