I've been waiting all day to get home and read this article. Fantastic job...
I note you ask (although understand of course) "So we really need to understand transfection and provide a way of conveying this concept so everyone understands how DIFFERENT AND UNKNOWN this is. Anyone who can help in this endeavor? "
I think if people know how a normal vaccine works in one's body, versus the mRNA (and also DNA vector vaccine for that matter) which transfect healthy cells to make them behave abnormally maybe we'd get a foothold amongst those that think it's just another vaccine, which it definitely is not...
Anything that enters your cells to cause them to behave abnormally is a danger to your cell, and of course there's billions (or trillions) of these LNPs looking for cells to transfect...
(Actually if anyone has a handy reference to how many potential mRNA containing LNPs there are in a single shot, I'd love a source.)
Having a basic understanding of the importance of the health of mRNA expression in your cells, derived from nuclear origin, to determine cellular identity and function, might be the best way to show people new to this concept, just what is being risked by injecting this transfectable agent in your body... Like putting errant computer code into your system, interrupting very important
bodily processes at the base level?
It's basically a poison, with the potential to kill cells, cause tissue necrosis, the expression of foreign protein also means your body will target and kill cells, due to eventual IG4 expression foreign (and also faulty frameshifted) protein expression has the potential to carry on unabated (prions and also the nasty cytotoxic spike protein), cell dysfunction and/or even genome integration leading to cancer etc... due to this vaccine biodistribution all over the body, wherever an active LNP lands, there the damage will be... Hence the multitude of problems this vax can cause, and as long as promoters call it a vax and not a clever delayed poison, most are none the wiser...
Like the Jonestown trick, drink the Kool Aid, which was not Kool Aid...
I've tried communicating best I can to those that will listen... I dare say most are better at communicating than I am...
But I usually break it down to "Anything that enters your cells to cause them to behave abnormally is a danger to your cell" and as we are multicellular organisms, so this is a danger to us at our most foundational level, with the damage not likely noticed for a number of years...
A nice explanation. I am just concerned that this type of explanation can be applied to regular type medications as well (all drugs are poison), and many may just turn off at that point.
I do like the concept that the mRNA is like putting in errant computer code into your system. That might work. Gets at the subtle effect that programs may work a while but get steadily corrupted.
Absolutely, I see your point re regular medications, I think the idea of genetic process may be lost on most...
I used my old uni textbook, Raven and Johnson "Biology" (1989) which had some great colour diagrams around page 302, and that certainly convinced many people I knew not to touch the genetic vax...
Not sure that you could practically carry a copy of that around though...
The paragraph on page 309, which always helped me understand how it all fits together, may or may not be of use, but I figure once this is understood anyone would be be just as horrified as I was by the mere suggestion of putting"errant" man made mRNA into any cell:
"REGULATING GENE EXPRESSION
A CELL must know not only HOW to make a particular protein, but also WHEN. It is important for an organism to be able to CONTROL WHICH of its GENES ARE BEING TRANSCRIBED, AND WHEN.
There is, for example, little point for a cell to produce an enzyme when the enzyme's substrate, the target of its activity, is not present in the cell.
Much energy can be saved if the enzyme is not produced very much until the appropriate substrate is encountered and the enzyme's activity will be of use to the cell.
👉From a broader perspective, the growth and development of multicellular organisms entails a long series of biochemical reactions, each DELICATELY TUNED to achieve a precise effect. Specific enzyme activities are called into play and bring about a particular change. Once this change has occurred, those particular enzyme activities cease, lest they disrupt other activities that follow.
👉👉During development, GENES ARE TRANSCRIBED in a CAREFULLY PRESCRIBED ORDER, each gene for a SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME.
(*Love this bit 👉) The hereditary message is played like a piece of music on a grand organ in which particular proteins are the notes and the hereditary information which regulates their expression is the score.
Organisms control the expression of their genes largely by controlling WHEN the transcription of individual genes begins (Figure 15-15). Most genes possess special nucleotide sequences called regulatory sites, which act as points of control. These nucleotide sequences are recognized by specific regulatory proteins within the cell which bind to the sites."
Okay, might not be helpful, but I find emphasis on the words capitalised above, plus the bit about the music on a grand organ, the fact it is all delicately timed, for a specified time, when the conditions are just right, when the right substrates are present... To interfere in this delicate process (at any time) with inserting man made mRNA code could (and does) cause catastrophic events within the cell leading to overall collapse of the multicellular organism...
It is a tough one to communicate to others for sure... Maybe errant code is the simplest analogy!
This is a great summary. I find part of the problem communicating to people is that if they have already taken the spike we have nothing to offer them in terms of solutions to try and undo the damage. Therefore even for a lot of people who do get it, they prefer to keep their heads in the sand because the damage is already done, so it’s easier to try and ignore it. If and when we can offer a solution, it may be easier to convince people. I mean nobody is really taking boosters anymore so most people on at least some level do know. I do suggest various supplement regimes, including one to try to dissolve spike protein, but the evidence is still lacking so it requires a leap of faith, time and quite a lot of money!
For me terms like “reproducible”, “reliable”, “well-defined” or similar are missing, particularly from and in a pharmacist’s viewpoint.
Maybe these terms address problems that might go too far beyond a reasonably short article. Hence: Please consider these important issues for a subsequent article.
One single dose of Comirnaty might contain about 10 trillions of modRNA threads. Is it thinkable that 10 trillion threads artificially manufactured in bioreactors are always identical?
Without any in-process problem caused by the unnatural, biologically suboptimal ligand/substrate N1-methylpseudouridin?
How could they identify minimally shifted nucleotide sequences? Among 10 trillion threads?
Even if identified: How could they eliminate the wrong sequences?
What might a minimally shifted sequence cause in terms of peptides?
Some may argue that this would be quantitatively irrelevant. Isn’t it that VAERS is telling a different story here?
Although not fully consistent with the issue of reliability raised above: How long does Mr Smith, once vaccinated, produce the intended “spikeproteins”? And how long does Ms Miller, once vaccinated, produce these things? Ever convincingly clarified?
As to my opinion: These products were the most ill-defined pharmaceutical products ever licensed for wide use.
I try to get at that reproducible, reliable concept by the Process is the Product and that Process 1 vs Process 2 and also Process 3 is a new drug under regulatory guidance. And also a biologic making a biologic is very bad news in that respect. But maybe using reliable and reproducible more is a very good idea. Thanks.
Funnily enough, talking to my pharmacists colleagues about this in the first year and they would furrow their brow and say oh that is not good. Then they went for the booster.
Oh. Please forgive me. I'm so dumb. It is you who wrote that great report. I have sent it to a bunch of lawyers, but it is hard for them to consider because they are stuck, as many doctors are, on antibodies, schmantibodies
Funny. Seems to be reasonable and adequate when talking to and writing for the public. Good idea!
I am still in favor of "modRNA" when writing a bit more serious, because Pfizer-Biontech used this term in their original submission documents and it is in MODeRNA. Best references for this term!
Certainly, I refused always using "mRNA", because it is simply misleading.
I don't know if you had eyes on it yet ; but points 82 & following are addressing identification of process 2 recipients & differences in AEs among the trial participants / compared to post marketing studies.
Very well done indeed. Pfizer had different identifications for different lots, for the mRNA itself, for the lipid lots etc. It sometimes makes it very difficult to track. I was trying to do that to determine which of the original lots had more lipid adducts or late migrating species as this was a huge problem for both manufacturers at the beginning. Was this playing a role in the AEs? THanks, this is very helpful
Thanks, credit for the process 2 deep dive part is mainly owed to Josh,
It had an impact indeed :
Points 103 & 104 : +211.77% in AEs reported among non-obese male recipients when compared to trial process 1 (for what it's worth, given how flawed we know it to be).
Points 105 to 112 : Lymphadenopathy radically different rates between trial & post marketing.
Points 116 to 118 : Menorrhagia - same problem.
These are just examples, not an exhaustive list, but they are sufficient to neutralize any "Funk-like" shill arguing the two products were "perfectly similar".
Excellent write up to OpenVAET et al. I will need your long piece for tomorrow morning. After coffee. I can see I'm gonna need it! (thank you for your integrity and dedication...God's got your back, courageous ones!_
Maria, what have they done? Sigh.
How can they continue? Double sigh.
I agree, we must pray! Yes! I pray many come to know the joy of knowing Him to help through these perilous times.
I spent a decade looking at genetic inventions from a precautionary viewpoint, mostly GM crop (typically the consequences of DNA transfection though 'engineered' with a variety of outcomes including theoretical attempts at RNA silencing/siRNA), but occasionally I looked at medical/pharma attempts.
The whole DNA transfection regulatory claim is that one piece of transfected code makes one full-length protein. Specific antibodies are developed to identify that one protein, but they ALWAYS identify proteins of many lengths. When many PCR targets are used mRNA's of all different lengths are identified. It's a random mess of genetic products. I suspected people would be developing an antibody response to a whole range of novel proteins (lengths, sections, conformations), many of which could have homology to essential human proteins and consequent auto-immunity - it was an insane thing to do.
Regulation should have required huge proteomic boards from vaccinated people to see what they were actually producing.
When it comes to novel proteins it's hard to know how to search for them. I've read one paper where it was reported that people developed antibodies to TWO different proteins. But I'd have to search it out again.
Agreed. Why hasn't proteomics been done so far? Seriously?
We KNOW different proteins are being made due to the Western blot data and #blotgate plus the Mulroney paper on frameshifting. And the regulators knew from the very beginning.
THank you Madelaine. Your expertise is much appreciated.
Thanks Maria Science made accessible for the lay parson - me.
Ive been researching the NHS hospital admission data in UK and using Carlos Allegria's disability benefit payment analysis ( UK state benefit) and there is a close parallel between spikes in neurological conditions eg MS , cancers but also many others , and could this be due to the neurotoxic effects of endotoxins ? there are very specific spikes in coding's e.g. Multiple Sclerosis ,sub acute spinal cord deterioration etc
If that is the case it is a wholly separate problem of LPS adhesion and failure to filter, and tall clinical trials now use no cell culturing methods to produce results then switch to upscale cell cultured manufacture . LPS residue adhering to the LNP brings a whole new group of problems, but little attention is going to investigate this,
However, endotoxins could definitely be on the outside of the LNPs and that is NOT MEASURED presently. Regarding filtering, well that is a very astute observation. Moderna had lots of problems filtering the final drug product. Resulted in black particles etc.
But Moderna specifically had another problem. When they do the final filtration just before the vax is bottle, strange stuff happened. I'm telling you, those LNPs are weird and do not act like expected.
Unexpectedly, increasing the transmembrane pressure (TMP) from 2 to 20 psi provided more than a twofold increase in filter capacity. Also surprisingly, the effective resistance of the fouled filter decreased with increasing TMP
I am not as familiar with Spikevax as with Comirnaty. But yes, the most ill-defined based on
a. characterizing the mRNA, mRNA variants, poly (A) tails, process-related contaminants,etc
b. the LNPs because appropriate analytical techniques are not very good so you cant say how many LNPs in a dose nor how many mRNAs in an LNP
c. the in vitro expression of the spike protein. Errors with translation combined with errors of transcription....I'm trying to find out how much Moderna did in this area
d. Nanoparticles as nanoparticles, separately tested for risks as nanoparticles ie CARPA, reactogenicity, biocorona etc. (and not as novel excipients)
I've come to the point that there a still unknown unknowns, that is we dont know what we dont know about these products and they will continue to surprise us with new adverse events because we dont know how to measure it, nor with what analytical technique.
Spikevax is not as "ill-defined" as Moderna was more likely to make a reproducible vaccine. But, it had the very same issues for "biological characterization" as did BioNTechs, ie the reproducibility of the expressed spike protein
Also they had issues with endotoxin and their filters, black specks and stainless steel particles.
I also think their dsRNA contamination levels are a problem, and we know this is true because they invented a new T7 polymerase that isnt supposed to make as much. Also dsRNA maybe related to myocarditis.
More about Frame Shifting
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/frame-shifting-warning-in-2014-from
and CARPA
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/carpa-jab-anaphylaxis-caused-by-endotoxin
Thanks. oh they all knew. So did the regulators.
And this is NOT just regular pharma corruption and captured regulatory agencies.
I've been waiting all day to get home and read this article. Fantastic job...
I note you ask (although understand of course) "So we really need to understand transfection and provide a way of conveying this concept so everyone understands how DIFFERENT AND UNKNOWN this is. Anyone who can help in this endeavor? "
I think if people know how a normal vaccine works in one's body, versus the mRNA (and also DNA vector vaccine for that matter) which transfect healthy cells to make them behave abnormally maybe we'd get a foothold amongst those that think it's just another vaccine, which it definitely is not...
Anything that enters your cells to cause them to behave abnormally is a danger to your cell, and of course there's billions (or trillions) of these LNPs looking for cells to transfect...
(Actually if anyone has a handy reference to how many potential mRNA containing LNPs there are in a single shot, I'd love a source.)
Having a basic understanding of the importance of the health of mRNA expression in your cells, derived from nuclear origin, to determine cellular identity and function, might be the best way to show people new to this concept, just what is being risked by injecting this transfectable agent in your body... Like putting errant computer code into your system, interrupting very important
bodily processes at the base level?
It's basically a poison, with the potential to kill cells, cause tissue necrosis, the expression of foreign protein also means your body will target and kill cells, due to eventual IG4 expression foreign (and also faulty frameshifted) protein expression has the potential to carry on unabated (prions and also the nasty cytotoxic spike protein), cell dysfunction and/or even genome integration leading to cancer etc... due to this vaccine biodistribution all over the body, wherever an active LNP lands, there the damage will be... Hence the multitude of problems this vax can cause, and as long as promoters call it a vax and not a clever delayed poison, most are none the wiser...
Like the Jonestown trick, drink the Kool Aid, which was not Kool Aid...
I've tried communicating best I can to those that will listen... I dare say most are better at communicating than I am...
But I usually break it down to "Anything that enters your cells to cause them to behave abnormally is a danger to your cell" and as we are multicellular organisms, so this is a danger to us at our most foundational level, with the damage not likely noticed for a number of years...
A nice explanation. I am just concerned that this type of explanation can be applied to regular type medications as well (all drugs are poison), and many may just turn off at that point.
I do like the concept that the mRNA is like putting in errant computer code into your system. That might work. Gets at the subtle effect that programs may work a while but get steadily corrupted.
Absolutely, I see your point re regular medications, I think the idea of genetic process may be lost on most...
I used my old uni textbook, Raven and Johnson "Biology" (1989) which had some great colour diagrams around page 302, and that certainly convinced many people I knew not to touch the genetic vax...
Not sure that you could practically carry a copy of that around though...
The paragraph on page 309, which always helped me understand how it all fits together, may or may not be of use, but I figure once this is understood anyone would be be just as horrified as I was by the mere suggestion of putting"errant" man made mRNA into any cell:
"REGULATING GENE EXPRESSION
A CELL must know not only HOW to make a particular protein, but also WHEN. It is important for an organism to be able to CONTROL WHICH of its GENES ARE BEING TRANSCRIBED, AND WHEN.
There is, for example, little point for a cell to produce an enzyme when the enzyme's substrate, the target of its activity, is not present in the cell.
Much energy can be saved if the enzyme is not produced very much until the appropriate substrate is encountered and the enzyme's activity will be of use to the cell.
👉From a broader perspective, the growth and development of multicellular organisms entails a long series of biochemical reactions, each DELICATELY TUNED to achieve a precise effect. Specific enzyme activities are called into play and bring about a particular change. Once this change has occurred, those particular enzyme activities cease, lest they disrupt other activities that follow.
👉👉During development, GENES ARE TRANSCRIBED in a CAREFULLY PRESCRIBED ORDER, each gene for a SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME.
(*Love this bit 👉) The hereditary message is played like a piece of music on a grand organ in which particular proteins are the notes and the hereditary information which regulates their expression is the score.
Organisms control the expression of their genes largely by controlling WHEN the transcription of individual genes begins (Figure 15-15). Most genes possess special nucleotide sequences called regulatory sites, which act as points of control. These nucleotide sequences are recognized by specific regulatory proteins within the cell which bind to the sites."
Okay, might not be helpful, but I find emphasis on the words capitalised above, plus the bit about the music on a grand organ, the fact it is all delicately timed, for a specified time, when the conditions are just right, when the right substrates are present... To interfere in this delicate process (at any time) with inserting man made mRNA code could (and does) cause catastrophic events within the cell leading to overall collapse of the multicellular organism...
It is a tough one to communicate to others for sure... Maybe errant code is the simplest analogy!
old textbooks were so much better.
💯 for sure!
This is a great summary. I find part of the problem communicating to people is that if they have already taken the spike we have nothing to offer them in terms of solutions to try and undo the damage. Therefore even for a lot of people who do get it, they prefer to keep their heads in the sand because the damage is already done, so it’s easier to try and ignore it. If and when we can offer a solution, it may be easier to convince people. I mean nobody is really taking boosters anymore so most people on at least some level do know. I do suggest various supplement regimes, including one to try to dissolve spike protein, but the evidence is still lacking so it requires a leap of faith, time and quite a lot of money!
For me terms like “reproducible”, “reliable”, “well-defined” or similar are missing, particularly from and in a pharmacist’s viewpoint.
Maybe these terms address problems that might go too far beyond a reasonably short article. Hence: Please consider these important issues for a subsequent article.
One single dose of Comirnaty might contain about 10 trillions of modRNA threads. Is it thinkable that 10 trillion threads artificially manufactured in bioreactors are always identical?
Without any in-process problem caused by the unnatural, biologically suboptimal ligand/substrate N1-methylpseudouridin?
How could they identify minimally shifted nucleotide sequences? Among 10 trillion threads?
Even if identified: How could they eliminate the wrong sequences?
What might a minimally shifted sequence cause in terms of peptides?
Some may argue that this would be quantitatively irrelevant. Isn’t it that VAERS is telling a different story here?
Although not fully consistent with the issue of reliability raised above: How long does Mr Smith, once vaccinated, produce the intended “spikeproteins”? And how long does Ms Miller, once vaccinated, produce these things? Ever convincingly clarified?
As to my opinion: These products were the most ill-defined pharmaceutical products ever licensed for wide use.
Yes. the most ill-defined licensed products ever.
I try to get at that reproducible, reliable concept by the Process is the Product and that Process 1 vs Process 2 and also Process 3 is a new drug under regulatory guidance. And also a biologic making a biologic is very bad news in that respect. But maybe using reliable and reproducible more is a very good idea. Thanks.
Funnily enough, talking to my pharmacists colleagues about this in the first year and they would furrow their brow and say oh that is not good. Then they went for the booster.
Maybe you consider this*:
A AAA UCU CGU GCU GAU AUA etc. , to
B AAA UCU CUG GCU GAU AUA etc.
Do you see the tiny difference?
By which method you could ever detect this?
Not any impact on the structures of the peptides imaginable?
* taken from Chapter 9.3 of
Expert opinion on benefits and risks of Comirnaty® the modRNA COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer-Biontech
https://kremer.tentary.com/p/GNV9M3
Oh. Please forgive me. I'm so dumb. It is you who wrote that great report. I have sent it to a bunch of lawyers, but it is hard for them to consider because they are stuck, as many doctors are, on antibodies, schmantibodies
Thank you very much!
What are "schmantibodies"?
my sarcastic term for antibodies. I use it because the focus on antibodies, obscures the real issues with these jabs that you point out.
I have that report. It's well done. Another pharmacist BTW
"Plastic RNA"!
Funny. Seems to be reasonable and adequate when talking to and writing for the public. Good idea!
I am still in favor of "modRNA" when writing a bit more serious, because Pfizer-Biontech used this term in their original submission documents and it is in MODeRNA. Best references for this term!
Certainly, I refused always using "mRNA", because it is simply misleading.
I wrote about most of it months ago
modRNA or engineered RNA or my favorite “plastic RNA” instead of mRNA
https://drbine.substack.com/p/ugurs-grenzdebile-schwachsinnsideen-d4a
https://drbine.substack.com/p/haben-wir-es-teilweise-vielleicht
https://drbine.substack.com/p/ugurs-grenzdebile-schwachsinnsideen-56a
transfection
https://drbine.substack.com/p/integriert-die-plorre-nun-oder-nicht
shedding
https://drbine.substack.com/p/was-wusste-biontech-daruber-dass
https://drbine.substack.com/p/mogliche-biochemische-wege-zu-shedden
CARPA
https://drbine.substack.com/p/kationische-nanolipide-was-die-hersteller
https://drbine.substack.com/p/die-kurios-verquere-gedankenwelt-cc2
https://drbine.substack.com/p/was-moderna-wusste
https://drbine.substack.com/p/die-plorre-ist-wohl-innen-flussig
the process is the product
https://drbine.substack.com/p/ugurs-grenzdebile-schwachsinnsideen-b2b
Love it! Great work Sabine.
I love plastic mRNA as well. Great minds think alike, lol.
I didn't call it plastic DNA, but it was REALLY stupid to use these nucleotides from the pont of view of a protein engineer.
Great work Maria, thanks.
I don't know if you had eyes on it yet ; but points 82 & following are addressing identification of process 2 recipients & differences in AEs among the trial participants / compared to post marketing studies.
https://openvaet.substack.com/p/pfizerbiontech-c4591001-trial-audit
Very well done indeed. Pfizer had different identifications for different lots, for the mRNA itself, for the lipid lots etc. It sometimes makes it very difficult to track. I was trying to do that to determine which of the original lots had more lipid adducts or late migrating species as this was a huge problem for both manufacturers at the beginning. Was this playing a role in the AEs? THanks, this is very helpful
Thanks, credit for the process 2 deep dive part is mainly owed to Josh,
It had an impact indeed :
Points 103 & 104 : +211.77% in AEs reported among non-obese male recipients when compared to trial process 1 (for what it's worth, given how flawed we know it to be).
Points 105 to 112 : Lymphadenopathy radically different rates between trial & post marketing.
Points 116 to 118 : Menorrhagia - same problem.
These are just examples, not an exhaustive list, but they are sufficient to neutralize any "Funk-like" shill arguing the two products were "perfectly similar".
Excellent write up to OpenVAET et al. I will need your long piece for tomorrow morning. After coffee. I can see I'm gonna need it! (thank you for your integrity and dedication...God's got your back, courageous ones!_
Maria, what have they done? Sigh.
How can they continue? Double sigh.
I agree, we must pray! Yes! I pray many come to know the joy of knowing Him to help through these perilous times.
Adding: Multiple protein products of the ModmRNA
I spent a decade looking at genetic inventions from a precautionary viewpoint, mostly GM crop (typically the consequences of DNA transfection though 'engineered' with a variety of outcomes including theoretical attempts at RNA silencing/siRNA), but occasionally I looked at medical/pharma attempts.
The whole DNA transfection regulatory claim is that one piece of transfected code makes one full-length protein. Specific antibodies are developed to identify that one protein, but they ALWAYS identify proteins of many lengths. When many PCR targets are used mRNA's of all different lengths are identified. It's a random mess of genetic products. I suspected people would be developing an antibody response to a whole range of novel proteins (lengths, sections, conformations), many of which could have homology to essential human proteins and consequent auto-immunity - it was an insane thing to do.
Regulation should have required huge proteomic boards from vaccinated people to see what they were actually producing.
When it comes to novel proteins it's hard to know how to search for them. I've read one paper where it was reported that people developed antibodies to TWO different proteins. But I'd have to search it out again.
Agreed. Why hasn't proteomics been done so far? Seriously?
We KNOW different proteins are being made due to the Western blot data and #blotgate plus the Mulroney paper on frameshifting. And the regulators knew from the very beginning.
THank you Madelaine. Your expertise is much appreciated.
So who were the regulators? What are their names? Has anyone asked them these questions?
Thanks Maria Science made accessible for the lay parson - me.
Ive been researching the NHS hospital admission data in UK and using Carlos Allegria's disability benefit payment analysis ( UK state benefit) and there is a close parallel between spikes in neurological conditions eg MS , cancers but also many others , and could this be due to the neurotoxic effects of endotoxins ? there are very specific spikes in coding's e.g. Multiple Sclerosis ,sub acute spinal cord deterioration etc
If that is the case it is a wholly separate problem of LPS adhesion and failure to filter, and tall clinical trials now use no cell culturing methods to produce results then switch to upscale cell cultured manufacture . LPS residue adhering to the LNP brings a whole new group of problems, but little attention is going to investigate this,
Well Geoff Pain is the expert on endotoxins.
However, endotoxins could definitely be on the outside of the LNPs and that is NOT MEASURED presently. Regarding filtering, well that is a very astute observation. Moderna had lots of problems filtering the final drug product. Resulted in black particles etc.
Read this, especially the final section re Moderna. https://mariagutschi.substack.com/p/modernas-issues-with-particulates?utm_source=publication-search
Fabulous piece—thank you.
Canning
As I recall they also changed LNP buffers Tris and PBS midstream in the manufacturing process
Yes
But Moderna specifically had another problem. When they do the final filtration just before the vax is bottle, strange stuff happened. I'm telling you, those LNPs are weird and do not act like expected.
Unexpectedly, increasing the transmembrane pressure (TMP) from 2 to 20 psi provided more than a twofold increase in filter capacity. Also surprisingly, the effective resistance of the fouled filter decreased with increasing TMP
Seriously, how does that work?
https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bit.28200 (just the abstract sorry)
Dear Maria,
Currently I am working on an expert opinion on Benefit-Risk of Spikevax, mainly form a clinical point of view..
I am going to cite your statement:
"Yes. the most ill-defined licensed products ever."
I guess, you would agree, at least for Comirnaty. Also for Spikevax?
For citing I would like to know your nationality. What shall I write?
Hi HaJo
I am not as familiar with Spikevax as with Comirnaty. But yes, the most ill-defined based on
a. characterizing the mRNA, mRNA variants, poly (A) tails, process-related contaminants,etc
b. the LNPs because appropriate analytical techniques are not very good so you cant say how many LNPs in a dose nor how many mRNAs in an LNP
c. the in vitro expression of the spike protein. Errors with translation combined with errors of transcription....I'm trying to find out how much Moderna did in this area
d. Nanoparticles as nanoparticles, separately tested for risks as nanoparticles ie CARPA, reactogenicity, biocorona etc. (and not as novel excipients)
I've come to the point that there a still unknown unknowns, that is we dont know what we dont know about these products and they will continue to surprise us with new adverse events because we dont know how to measure it, nor with what analytical technique.
Spikevax is not as "ill-defined" as Moderna was more likely to make a reproducible vaccine. But, it had the very same issues for "biological characterization" as did BioNTechs, ie the reproducibility of the expressed spike protein
Also they had issues with endotoxin and their filters, black specks and stainless steel particles.
I also think their dsRNA contamination levels are a problem, and we know this is true because they invented a new T7 polymerase that isnt supposed to make as much. Also dsRNA maybe related to myocarditis.
Oh, I am Canadian
With Italian or Austrian or Südtiroler roots?
Please could you follow-me back on X
done!
"ie the reproducibility of the expressed spike protein"
I totally agree!
My question: Did you have got data meanwhile?
CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST
DR CHRISTINA PARKS SHEDDING TO US
BACTERIAL PLASMID (IN THE COVID JABS) EXPLAINED.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kGc4gUS8XnXs/