Peter Hotez and Bret Weinstein Still Do Not Understand mRNA technology
I feel a rant coming on
I apologize for sending out another substack but I have been ranting in the background about intelligent people still not understanding this technology. They are stuck in the ANTIBODIES SCHMANTIBODIES paradigm and they need to get out of it.
Peter Hotez
On X, we find that Hotez thinks the residual DNA is a problem since you need electroporation to get DNA into the cells and nucleus.
So Hotez doesn’t understand that the DNA is encapsulated in the LNPs along with the modRNA? Really? Honestly, I think he knows and is just lying here. BUT, it does expose the prevailing understanding of many physicians, virologists, epidemiologist etc who think this product is really just a vaccine. AND DON’T GET TRANSFECTION.
Bret Weinstein
His interview with Tucker Carlson was excellent regarding the WHO etc. BUT, I agree with JJ Coey here. It is beyond understanding that Brett still does not understand that this product is transfected AND that it is a ‘pro-drug.”
I have trouble clipping videos so I’m using Sage Hanna’s post. Look at the first clip from JJ Coey’s stream. Bret Weinstein describes modRNA therapy as:
brilliant and beautiful technology
platform technology we can mix and match
ingenious and elegant therapy
Ok, I can seee his point and agree with his observations. BUT that does NOT mean it is suitable for HUMANS. IMHO, Brett is caught up in a paradigm I see in many physicians.
technology is essentially good, and not just a tool
Because it is good, it should be used, and the cooler the technology, the more we should look to use it because otherwise it is a waste.
coool technology is also a must have because
its cool isnt that enough? see above
if I dont use it I’ll be BEHIND and look STUPID
I want to experiment with it
JJ Cory explains the problems with LNPs and lack of targeting to cells (which CANNOT BE SOLVED, ask Pieter Cullis who invented this stuff), the whole transfection mechanism and then the fact that the modRNA is a “prodrug.”
MY RANT
Doctors and many scientists learn new drugs/technology/concepts by heuristics. Otherwise they’d be overwhelmed with information. The concept that this product is a vaccine was seeded into our minds early so that the endpoint of antibodies schmantibodies (TM) WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC.
As an example, I showed my rheumatologist the Speicher et al preprint on the #27vials and the residual DNA and the SV40 promoter/enhancer contamination. I offered to present to the rheumatology group. She said, OK, here contact Dr X, she is in charge of immunology and drug therapy.
My heart sank. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO GET PHYSICIANS TO SEE WHAT THESE JABS REALLY ARE? And not only physicians.
Because these are NOT vaccines in any way shape or form, the knowledge and assessment required is not epidemiology, virology, immunology or even vaccinology. Yet these are the voices we here both in the MSM and even in the alternative media.
No, what you need to assessed these products is multifactorial and includes (but isn’t limited to)
physical chemistry and physics to understand the LNPs and the drug formulation
biochemistry to understand cell signalling and downstream effects of transfection
genomics and molecular biology
pharmacology including administration (storage and stability etc), biodistribution, metabolism (of the modRNA, the resultant spike protein) and elimination (such as exosomes, the lipids themselves, the modRNA and the spike protein)
manufacturing and GMP requirements
regulatory standards and approvals (but you must understand the pharma/regulatory relationship which many assume is based on $$ but it is not (at least exclusively)
THEN you can add the immunology, epidemiology, virology and clinical trial pieces
Well I’m biased but many of us with pharmacology, manufacturing and regulatory experience have seen these jabs as they really are from the beginning. Or those willing to read the foundational regulatory documents. My major holes are primarily genomics and some biochemistry and I have read more, written more and discussed more science in this area since I graduated many many years ago. Enough for another Masters. I did not spend much time on the clinical trials (though I have analyzed trials for a living in the past) or on the immunology (another major hole). Unless you understand what this multilayered product IS and DOES, who cares about ANTIBODIES SCHMANTIBODIES? The product comes into focus so that frame-shifting, the biodistribution, the issues with the LNPs, the issues with N-1-mpU become clear and you realize how dangerous these products are, and most importantly, HOW MANY FATAL FLAWS this technology has.
So remember this product is a gene therapy product FIRST, and a “vaccine” SECOND.
Please
Rant over.
I would like to add another part of the analysis, overlooked by, well, everyone ? And one they will easily bypass because of IP laws.
Which datasets, which antigenic databases were used to create the mRNA vaccines. Because they used machine learning and algorithms to quickly "produce" the vaccine. How they built their algos.
Everyone will now quadruple down on this, and machine/deep learning and Language models are quite literally the definition of a blackbox.
Weinstein over the last few years has shown himself to be like many intellectuals/experts I know. He has moments of brilliance, and assumes or guesses a great deal. I've heard him pontificate on matters he knows nothing about and get it absolutely wrong but that doesn't seem to stop him from presenting his opinion. I actually started to wonder if there's something darker going on. I think we all need to be very wary of trusting what people say because they have been correct about some things.