On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Karmamatterz » Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:26 pm

Your regularly scheduled reminder that VAERS isn't "official figures".


Evil, you do know this right?
[url]"Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment."[/url]

How many parents in the USA do you think sit around and knowingly post false information into the database? Do you think it's common for moms and dads here in America to do so?
You actually think people want to be tracked down and prosecuted for that? Considering all the stress and anxiety going on being a parent right and trying to protect children do you really think people are such dumb asses they will do that? Maybe a few will, but statistically a blip on the screen.
Do you have your own children?

Even folks without children, you think they are deviously plotting to post to VAERS?

Do you realize MOST Americans don't know this database even exists? I had no idea it existed until all this bullshit and fucked up lies from big pharma, the government and shills like you have tried shoving this garbage into our brains via propaganda and literally jabbing our bodies with toxic shit that causes injuries and illness. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about stats comparing the "Covid" illnesses to the injuries from the "vaccines." You ever hear of "do no harm?"

What kind of sick and twisted world do all you live in that you think it's okay for the medical establishment to harm anybody?
How about don't release medical treatments until years of testing have proven they aren't dangerous.

Personally, and I state that because it's known to me and not something I read or heard third hand, I know just about as many people who have had bad reactions to the "vaccines" as I've heard people have gotten sick from Covid colds. For my own life decisions that is enough observation to realize something is seriously wrong.
User avatar
Karmamatterz
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Grizzly » Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:03 pm

Do you realize MOST Americans don't know this database even exists?


This.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby conniption » Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:34 pm

conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:10 pm

DrEvil » Sat Aug 07, 2021 4:24 pm wrote:Your regularly scheduled reminder that insinuating that someone is a disinfo agent is verboten and also a dick move.

I typed "INTERPRET AS YOU MAY DEEM FIT" prior to posting the content above. Did you miss that?


I didn't miss it, I just ignored it because it's a bullshit excuse to get away with posting something you know isn't accurate.


"accurate" is either a dishonest (incomplete, to be more charitable) or obtuse descriptor.

Was VAERS always inaccurate? Or only since 2020? What, exactly, is inaccurate about the data?

Is it that the reporting itself isn't accurate (and if so, why? Inadvertent inaccuracy or purposeful?), or that the correlation of death shortly after vaccination is inaccurate? Perhaps a combo of all, along with other unknowns?

Regardless, what is the margin of error/inaccuracy, and how was this result derived? In other words: cite your sources (cutscene: DrEvil performs a flurry of Google searches, relying wholly on the results. "Fact-checkers" to the rescue!).

Also, as I stated in the prior page:

Even if you reduce the totals to 50% below what VAERS is reporting they'd still be egregious, or at the very least, worthy of attention by all news media outlets.


In other words, yours is a non-argument. The best you can claim here is that VAERS reporting is subject to bias or error in reporting, or in other instances, the inability to verify, at the time of reporting, that a death is primarily due to a vaccine adverse reaction (although: the probability of death due directly to vaccination is higher if the victim is younger or otherwise was not in ill health at the time of vaccination, and death occurred within 48hrs or less, etc.). Again, even if HALF of the reports are inaccurate (which is not the case) the numbers remain damning.

And none of the above accounts for under-reporting.

From the CDC:

Reporting sensitivity

Like all passive surveillance systems, VAERS is subject to varying degrees of underreporting. The sensitivity of VAERS is affected by the likelihood that parents and/or vaccinees detect an AE; that parents and/or vaccinees bring the event to the attention of their healthcare provider(s); that parents and/or healthcare providers suspect an event is related to prior vaccination; that parents and/or healthcare providers are aware of VAERS; and that parents and/or healthcare providers report the event. The completeness of reporting of AEs associated with certain vaccines varies according to the severity of the event and the specificity of the clinical syndrome to the vaccine.[29,30] Reporting can also be stimulated by media attention on specific AEs.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv- ... vents.html

All this aside, vaccine proponents have yet to offer a remotely compelling retort to any of the following:

Belligerent Savant » Fri Aug 06, 2021 10:57 pm wrote:...

These shots are clearly demonstrating they do not provide immunity nor do they prevent transmission to others, as the CDC itself recently acknowledged. They never did.

As such:

There is no justification for mandating these shots.
There is no justification for vaccine passports or fucking 'health passes'.
There is no justification for coercing anyone to take these experimental shots to maintain employment, or as a prerequisite for travel.

But if one chooses to take it, by all fucking means. Take two of each if you'd like.

Choice --- quickly vanishing.

Soon enough, all those that lined up to take these shots will have to take periodic/recurring 'boosters', or otherwise be restricted from 'freedoms'.
Unfortunately, the same will apply to all those that refuse/resist.

All of this (ostensibly) for a virus with an actual IFR of 0.15% and a median IFR of 0.05% for people under 70.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf

This is the fucking tragic life in store for us, passively or actively promoted by those allowing these measures to push through without resistance.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Grizzly » Thu Aug 12, 2021 4:41 pm

https://rumble.com/vkrdx6-dr.-zelenko-speaks-to-a-rabbinical-court-in-jerusalem.html
Jaw-dropping testimony by Dr. Zelenko to the Jewish Court (Bet Din) in Jerusalem.



“I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.”

― Malcolm X

“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Harvey » Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:10 am

That is astonishing. Required viewing.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:37 am

September 2016: https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/mod ... tech-mrna/

The tone of the piece is skeptical, but Bancel is not wrong about his corporate culture - he reminds me of just about everyone I know in finance, all of whom understand that they need to work hard past normal human boundaries in order to distance themselves from tight competition. This is why Goldman is offering their new hires more compensation, rather than fewer demands, in the face of a PR backlash over recent suicides.

Nor is their shift to "less ambitious" projects like vaccines any indictment of the mRNA platform Bancel envisions: they were taking on massive debt so it makes sense to focus on money-making projects to be able to service those payments without having it put pressure on blue sky R&D.

That said, their success in 2012-16 should be considered against the backdrop of bigger industry trends, rather than taken to be a vindication of Moderna. The industry was in the same situation private equity is now; flush with cash, stalked by big money on every side, desperate to find the next big thing. Everyone was getting nine figure investments thrown at them, it was a hilarious time full of colorful characters and doomed companies.

(Also, I'd be a little worried about CEO's comparing their development system to Tesla.)

Ego, ambition, and turmoil: Inside one of biotech’s most secretive startups

At first glance, Moderna Therapeutics looks like the most enviable biotech startup in the world. It has smashed fundraising records and teamed up with pharmaceutical giants as it pursues a radical plan to revolutionize medicine by transforming human cells into drug factories.

But the reality is more complicated.

A STAT investigation found that the company’s caustic work environment has for years driven away top talent and that behind its obsession with secrecy, there are signs Moderna has run into roadblocks with its most ambitious projects.

At the center of it all is Stéphane Bancel, a first-time biotech CEO with an unwavering belief that Moderna’s science will work — and that employees who don’t “live the mission” have no place in the company. Confident and intense, Bancel told STAT that Moderna’s science is on track and, when it is finally made public, that it will meet the brash goal he himself has set: The new drugs will change the world.

But interviews with more than 20 current and former employees and associates suggest Bancel has hampered progress at Moderna because of his ego, his need to assert control and his impatience with the setbacks that are an inevitable part of science. Moderna is worth more than any other private biotech in the US, and former employees said they felt that Bancel prized the company’s ever-increasing valuation, now approaching $5 billion, over its science.

As he pursued a complex and risky strategy for drug development, Bancel built a culture of recrimination at Moderna, former employees said. Failed experiments have been met with reprimands and even on-the-spot firings. They recalled abusive emails, dressings down at company meetings, exceedingly long hours, and unexplained terminations.

At least a dozen highly placed executives have quit in the past four years, including heads of finance, technology, manufacturing, and science. In just the past 12 months, respected leaders of Moderna’s cancer and rare disease programs both resigned, even though the company’s remarkable fundraising had put ample resources at their disposal. Each had been at the company less than 18 months, and the positions have yet to be filled.

Lower-ranking employees, meanwhile, said they’ve been disappointed and confused by Moderna’s pivot to less ambitious — and less transformative — treatments. Moderna has pushed off projects meant to upend the drug industry to focus first on the less daunting (and most likely, far less lucrative) field of vaccines — though it is years behind competitors in that arena.

The company has published no data supporting its vaunted technology, and it’s so secretive that some job candidates have to sign nondisclosure agreements before they come in to interview. Outside venture capitalists said Moderna has so many investors clamoring to get in that it can afford to turn away any who ask too many questions. Some small players have been given only a peek at Moderna’s data before committing millions to the company, according to people familiar with the matter.

“It’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes,” said a former Moderna scientist. “They’re running an investment firm, and then hopefully it also develops a drug that’s successful.”

Like many employees and former employees, the scientist requested anonymity because of a nondisclosure agreement. Others would not permit their names to be published out of fear that speaking candidly about big players in the industry would hurt their job prospects down the road.

Moderna just moved its first two potential treatments — both vaccines — into human trials. In keeping with the culture of secrecy, though, executives won’t say which diseases the vaccines target, and they have not listed the studies on the public federal registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. Listing is optional for Phase 1 trials, which are meant to determine if a drug is safe, but most companies voluntarily disclose their work.

Investors say it’ll be worth the wait when the company finally lifts the veil.

“We think that when the world does get to see Moderna, they’re going to see something far larger in its scope than anybody’s seen before,” said Peter Kolchinsky, whose RA Capital Management owns a stake in the company.

Bancel, meanwhile, said he is aware of the criticism of him and has taken some steps to address it. After scathing anonymous comments about Moderna’s management began showing up online, Bancel went to Silicon Valley to get tips on employee retention from the human resources departments of Facebook, Google, and Netflix. But he makes no apologies for tumult past or present, pointing to the thousands of patients who might be saved by Moderna’s technology.

“You want to be the guy who’s going to fail them? I don’t,” he said in an interview from his glassy third-floor office. “So was it an intense place? It was. And do I feel sorry about it? No.”

An ambitious CEO dreams big

Bancel, 44, had no experience running a drug development operation when one of biotech’s most successful venture capitalists tapped him to lead Moderna. He’d spent most of his career in sales and operations, not science.

But he had made no secret of his ambition.

A native of France, Bancel earned a master’s in chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota and an MBA from Harvard in 2000. As Harvard Business School classmates rushed to cash in on the dot-com boom, Bancel laid out a plan to play “chess, not checkers.”

“I was always thinking, one day, somebody will have to make a decision about me getting a CEO job,” he told an audience at his alma mater in April. “… How do I make sure I’m not the bridesmaid? How do I make sure that I’m not always the person who’s almost selected but doesn’t get the role?”

He went into sales and rose through the operational ranks at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, eventually leading the company’s Belgian operation. And in 2007, at just 34, he achieved his goal, stepping in as CEO of the French diagnostics firm bioMérieux, which employs roughly 6,000 people.

The company improved its margins under Bancel’s tenure, and he developed a reputation as a stern manager who got results, according to an equities analyst who covered bioMérieux at the time.

“He doesn’t suffer fools lightly,” the analyst said, speaking on condition of anonymity to comply with company policy. “I think if you’re underperforming, you’ll probably find yourself looking for another job.”

Bancel’s rise caught the eye of the biotech investment firm Flagship Ventures, based here in Cambridge. Flagship CEO Noubar Afeyan repeatedly tried to entice him to take over one of the firm’s many startups, Bancel said. But he rejected one prospect after another because the startups seemed too narrow in scope.

Moderna was different.

The company’s core idea was seductively simple: cut out the middleman in biotech.

For decades, companies have endeavored to craft better and better protein therapies, leading to new treatments for cancer, autoimmune disorders, and rare diseases. Such therapies are costly to produce and have many limitations, but they’ve given rise to a multibillion-dollar industry. The anti-inflammatory Humira, the world’s top drug at $14 billion in sales a year, is a shining example of protein therapy.

Moderna’s technology promised to subvert the whole field, creating therapeutic proteins inside the body instead of in manufacturing plants. The key: harnessing messenger RNA, or mRNA.

In nature, mRNA molecules function like recipe books, directing cellular machinery to make specific proteins. Moderna believes it can play that system to its advantage by using synthetic mRNA to compel cells to produce whichever proteins it chooses. In effect, the mRNA would turn cells into tiny drug factories.

It’s highly risky. Big pharma companies had tried similar work and abandoned it because it’s exceedingly hard to get RNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects. But if Moderna can get it to work, the process could be used to treat scores of diseases, including cancers and rare diseases that can be death sentences for children.

Bancel was intrigued. He knew it was a gamble, he told STAT, “but if I don’t do it, and it works, I’m just going to kick myself every morning.”

And so he became the company’s CEO — and soon developed an almost messianic reverence for the mRNA technology.

Despite having never worked with RNA before, Bancel said he sat around the table with his core team in the early days of the company, dreaming up experiments. As a result, he is listed as a co-inventor on more than 100 of Moderna’s early patent applications, unusual for a CEO who is not a PhD scientist.

Though he’s been here several years now, Bancel stands out in the freewheeling startup hub of Kendall Square. He prefers tailored suits over the industry’s fleece-heavy wardrobe, and he doesn’t shy away from sweeping promises that might trouble CEOs more concerned with managing expectations.

Under Bancel, Moderna has been loath to publish its work in Science or Nature, but enthusiastic to herald its potential on CNBC and CNN, taking part in segments on the world’s most disruptive companies and the potential “cure for cancer.”

Bancel lays out those grand ambitions in an accent that bends his own company’s name into something more akin to the Italian city. In conversation, Bancel has a salesman’s skill of making complex concepts seem simple, but with an earnestness that keeps his spiel from feeling like a con.

He peppers his speech with Silicon Valley buzzwords, many of which are scrawled on a giant whiteboard in his spacious office. Messenger RNA “is like software,” he explained: If it works in one disease, it should work for thousands.

Most biotech startups focus on one or two leading drug candidates at first, pushing them through human trials before turning to another target. Moderna, by contrast, has nearly 100 projects going at once. With mRNA, “you can just turn the crank and get a lot of products going into development,” Bancel explained, flashing a smile as though he himself was bemused by the idea’s simplicity.

Resignations, dismissals, and churn

From the beginning, Bancel made clear that Moderna’s science simply had to work. And that anyone who couldn’t make it work didn’t belong.

The early Moderna was a chaotic, unpredictable workplace, according to former employees. One recalls finding himself out of a job when a quick-turnaround experiment failed to pan out. Another helped train a group of new hires only to realize they were his replacements.

“There was a kind of Jack Welch-ian, ‘We fire the bottom 10 percent’ from the very beginning,” said a former Moderna manager. “That’s probably the biggest HR difference between Moderna and virtually any other biotech, where they talk so much about developing their people.”

Moderna went through two heads of chemistry in a single year, according to former employees, and its chief scientific officer and head of manufacturing left shortly thereafter. Those who fell out of favor with Bancel would find themselves excluded from key meetings, pushed aside until they resigned or ultimately got dismissed, employees said.

Most stunning to employees was the abrupt departure of Joseph Bolen, who came aboard in 2013 to lead Moderna’s R&D efforts.

Bolen was a big-name hire in biotech circles, an experienced chief scientific officer who had guided Millennium Pharmaceuticals to FDA approval for a blockbuster cancer drug. He’d been profiled in The Scientist, which dubbed him “the people’s CSO” for his ability to keep morale high and research focused. Landing him was a coup.

But two years into his tenure at Moderna, he abruptly stepped down last October, making no public statement save for changing his LinkedIn status to “resigned.”

“No scientist in his right mind would leave that job unless there was something wrong with the science or the personnel,” said a person close to the company at the time.

Insiders said Bancel had effectively pushed Bolen out, hiring parallel executives until Bolen was in charge of just “a postage stamp” worth of territory, as one former Moderna manager put it. Bolen declined to comment.

For his part, Bancel acknowledged the changes that limited Bolen’s power but insisted the parting was friendly. Bancel said he tried to convince Bolen to stay, but the scientist “voted himself off the island.”

Bolen wasn’t alone. Chief Information Officer John Reynders joined in 2013 to make Moderna what he called the world’s “first fully digital biotech,” only to step down a year later. Michael Morin, brought in to lead Moderna’s scientific efforts in cancer in 2014, lasted less than 18 months. As did Greg Licholai, hired in 2015 to direct the company’s projects in rare diseases. The latter two key leadership positions remain unfilled.

“You wonder,” influential biotech blogger Derek Lowe wrote last year, “if Moderna really is a rocket ship getting ready to launch and spray a formation of new drugs across the sky, then why are these people leaving?”

The company has a simple explanation: Moderna lives in dog years compared with other biotechs.

“We force everyone to grow with the company at unprecedented speed,” Moderna Chief Financial Officer Lorence Kim said. “Some people grow with the company; others don’t.”

Bancel is sprightly in describing the company’s future, but his tone hardens on the topic of its formative years — Moderna 1.0, as he calls it.

“The people in the 1.0 team who did not really live the mission ended up either leaving or being asked to leave because they were not accomplishing what we needed them to accomplish,” he said.

Moderna’s internal turmoil came spilling messily into public view starting in late 2012, as more than a dozen harsh critiques popped up on Glassdoor, a website that allows a company’s employees — or anyone, for that matter — to write anonymous reviews of management and workplace culture.

The posts, full of invective for company leaders, eventually came to the attention of the board. “And you’d be lying to say it didn’t affect you emotionally,” said the company’s president, Dr. Stephen Hoge, a former emergency medicine physician whose tendency for self-deprecation cuts a disarming contrast to Bancel’s intensity. “Like, what if my dad sees that?”

The company sought to improve its workplace, and Hoge said the once-high turnover rate has fallen to within industry standards, though he declined to disclose specifics.

Moderna — which now offers Silicon Valley-style perks like a daily catered lunch and iPhones for all employees — has roughly doubled in size each year, meaning most of the company’s current workforce of about 450 has joined since 2013. They’re spread out among three locations, and many are siloed off from top executives. Survey data from such junior employees helped vault Moderna to Science magazine’s list of top employers of 2015.

Those who buy in are all in: Some employees speak with respect bordering on awe about Moderna’s promise, with one likening the technology to “magic.”

The two current employees put forward by the company to talk with STAT sounded a note of pride at Moderna’s reputation for driving its staff hard.

“In a way, it’s a blessing in disguise,” said Edward Miracco, a senior scientist who started at Moderna in 2014. “It separates the wheat from the chaff.”

Not everyone is cut out to work at Moderna, where “things change daily, hourly,” said Dan Brock, an associate director who joined the company in February. “Everyone who comes here already kind of gets it.”

But the recent departures and vacancies suggest that turmoil continues in the top ranks — those who most closely deal with upper management, including Bancel.

“He believes in a bigger stick than carrot,” a former manager said. “Moderna has some growing up to do, no question about it.”

A gold rush for Moderna

Hoge, who joined the company in 2012, describes the early days of Moderna as “when we were living in the caves.” The company often had only enough cash to keep the lights on for six months at a time, he said. “The strategy was just to survive.”

Moderna 1.0, and life in the caves, came to a close in 2013, according to company lore.

That’s when Moderna — which had just 25 employees — signed a staggering $240 million partnership with UK pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. It was the most money pharma had ever spent on drugs that had not yet been tested in humans.

The agreement is commemorated in one of Moderna’s offices by a framed clipping from the New York Times. Page B7 of the March 21, 2013 edition: “AstraZeneca Makes a Bet On an Untested Technique.”

For AstraZeneca, the unprecedented deal came at a time of uncertainty. A series of clinical failures had led the firm to fire its head of research and lay off 1,600 scientists. Pascal Soriot, just six months into his tenure as CEO, was under pressure from investors to chart a new course. And Moderna, with its brash ambition to bring 100 drugs to clinical trials within a decade, gave Soriot a way forward.

The rich deal started a gold rush for Moderna. Everyone, it seemed, wanted in.

Before the end of 2013, Moderna would turn heads again with a $110 million investment round, followed by a high-dollar partnership with biotech giant Alexion.

In early 2015, Moderna disclosed a $450 million financing round, the largest ever for a private biotech company. This month, the company broke its own record, raising another $474 million.

The run-up was “biotech fervor to the extreme,” according to a venture capitalist not involved with the company, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. While bigger investors got to see all the company’s data from animal experiments, some of Moderna’s smaller investors put in funds based on just a peek, according to people familiar with the process. Moderna’s fundraising success had created a seller’s market: Why deal with the questions of one potential investor when it had 10 more lined up?

Afeyan, Moderna’s chairman and cofounder, insists the company’s investors have done their homework. To say they bought in without due diligence “would be a bit of an insult to these people,” he said.

Though it has yet to reveal data from a single clinical trial, Moderna is now valued at $4.7 billion, according to Pitchbook.

That’s twice as much as Spark Therapeutics, the company widely expected to market the United States’s first gene therapy, which has shown signs in clinical trials that it can reverse blindness caused by a rare genetic disorder. Moderna is also worth billions more than Juno Therapeutics and Kite Pharma, startups developing novel treatments for cancer that have demonstrated promising results in early human trials.

Moderna has long shaken off rumors that it is soon to market its shares on Wall Street, with Hoge likening the company to a child star: “You don’t want to go through your adolescence publicly,” he told STAT.

But that’s about to change. Moderna’s next planned step is an initial public offering, according to a person close to the company. Bancel declined to say just when Moderna might go public, but the company has already prepared: In its latest filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Moderna changed its business structure from an LLC to a C corporation, completing a necessary step before mounting an IPO.

A strategic shift to less ambitious targets

With a public listing come required disclosures, and many are eager to see what Moderna’s been keeping under wraps all these years.

Outsiders and competitors, looking only at Moderna’s public statements, have noted a shift in strategy that might signal undisclosed setbacks.

From the start, Moderna heralded its ability to produce proteins within cells, which could open up a world of therapeutic targets unreachable by conventional drugs. The most revolutionary treatments, which could challenge the multibillion-dollar market for protein therapy, would involve repeated doses of mRNA over many years, so a patient’s body continued to produce proteins to keep disease at bay.

But Moderna’s first human trials aren’t so ambitious, focusing instead on the crowded field of vaccines, where the company has only been working since 2014.


First are the two vaccine trials for undisclosed infectious diseases. Coming next is a one-time treatment for heart failure, developed in partnership with AstraZeneca, followed by another experimental vaccine, for Zika virus, which several other pharma companies are also working to develop. And after that, Moderna is planning a human trial of a personalized cancer vaccine using mRNA, something it just came up with last year.

The choice to prioritize vaccines came as a disappointment to many in the company, according to a former manager. The plan had been to radically disrupt the biotech industry, the manager said, so “why would you start with a clinical program that has very limited upside and lots of competition?”

The answer could be the challenge of ensuring drug safety, outsiders said.

Delivery — actually getting RNA into cells — has long bedeviled the whole field. On their own, RNA molecules have a hard time reaching their targets. They work better if they’re wrapped up in a delivery mechanism, such as nanoparticles made of lipids. But those nanoparticles can lead to dangerous side effects, especially if a patient has to take repeated doses over months or years.

Novartis abandoned the related realm of RNA interference over concerns about toxicity, as did Merck and Roche.


Moderna’s most advanced competitors, CureVac and BioNTech, have acknowledged the same challenge with mRNA. Each is principally focused on vaccines for infectious disease and cancer, which the companies believe can be attacked with just a few doses of mRNA. And each has already tested its technology on hundreds of patients.

“I would say that mRNA is better suited for diseases where treatment for short duration is sufficiently curative, so the toxicities caused by delivery materials are less likely to occur,” said Katalin Karikó, a pioneer in the field who serves as a vice president at BioNTech.

That makes vaccines the lowest hanging fruit in mRNA, said Franz-Werner Haas, CureVac’s chief corporate officer. “From our point of view, it’s obvious why [Moderna] started there,” he said.

Moderna said it prioritized vaccines because they presented the fastest path to human trials, not because of setbacks with other projects. “The notion that [Moderna] ran into difficulties isn’t borne in reality,” said Afeyan.

But this is where Moderna’s secrecy comes into play: Until there’s published data, only the company and its partners know what the data show. Everyone outside is left guessing — and, in some cases, worrying that Moderna won’t live up to its hype.

“Frankly, I hope that there’s real substance and I hope they solve those challenges, because it’s not going to be good for the broader biotech industry in general if this thing implodes,” said one investor not involved with Moderna.


And it could still go either way, former employees said. If Moderna’s promises come to fruition, it could be a pillar of the biotech industry. If they don’t, it could find a place among a short list of companies that have cast a shadow over the entire industry and left investors disillusioned.

“Either we’ll be talking about it as the next Genentech,” a former Moderna manager said, “or we’ll think, ‘Well, back then, first there was Turing, then there was Valeant, and then there was Moderna.”

Enough cash to absorb some setbacks

Moderna’s management and its investors are keeping the faith, pointing to the company’s pipeline of 11 drug candidates and more than 90 preclinical projects.

And with Moderna’s huge cash reserves — estimated at $1.5 billion — it can afford a few setbacks, proponents said. The company said it’s pouring money into its manufacturing operation, planning to spend $100 million this year on a new plant. Moderna has pioneered an automated system modeled on the software Tesla uses to manage orders, Bancel said: Scientists simply enter the protein they want a cell to express, and testable mRNA arrives within weeks.

“If we have a bump in the road in the clinic, we will not have to wait years to go back to the drawing board,” Bancel said.

That has always been part of the plan, former employees said, pointing to Bancel’s fascination with the tech industry. Uber and Amazon were not the first to come up with their respective business ideas, but they were the ones that built enough scale to ward off competition. And Moderna is positioning itself to do the same in mRNA.

“Now, as we’re going to human [trials], it’s pretty clear no one else is going to catch us,” said Dr. Kenneth Chien, a professor at Karolinska Institutet working with Moderna and AstraZeneca.

Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer, promises that the company will soon break its silence on the publishing front. He said next year Moderna will disclose the animal data that helped get its two vaccines into the clinic. The company has also committed to publishing full results from all of its human trials, starting with the vaccine studies next year.

Moderna’s reticence to share data earlier is “not because we decided to be secret,” Zaks said. “This is the natural evolution of a platform. As we go into the clinic, we will be very transparent.”

For all the tumult at Moderna these past few years, Bancel said the company remains true to its mission statement: “Deliver on the promise of mRNA science to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients.”

The message, which adorns the walls of Moderna’s offices, was first to be printed on posters, but Bancel insisted it be inscribed in paint.

“Because that,” he said, pointing to the first word, “is not ever going to change.”
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:47 am

Yes, indeed. From page 1 of this thread:

Belligerent Savant » Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:42 pm wrote:.

Belligerent Savant » Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:36 pm wrote:
@commieleejones

2016: Nature Magazine criticizes Moderna for excessive secrecy in its research and data (we now know they were receiving DARPA funding for 5 years by that time, from when Bancel became CEO in 2011) and wonders “whether they can be trusted.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3488

@commieleejones
·
21h
Despite its secretive DARPA-funded research, Moderna received “$240 million upfront from AstraZeneca in 2013, $125 million from Alexion in 2014 and, just last month, $100 million and $20 million for vaccine deals with Merck and the Gates Foundation, respectively.

https://twitter.com/commieleejones/stat ... 77382?s=20


From 2016:

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/mod ... tech-mrna/

Ego, ambition, and turmoil: Inside one of biotech’s most secretive startups

At first glance, Moderna Therapeutics looks like the most enviable biotech startup in the world. It has smashed fundraising records and teamed up with pharmaceutical giants as it pursues a radical plan to revolutionize medicine by transforming human cells into drug factories.

But the reality is more complicated.

A STAT investigation found that the company’s caustic work environment has for years driven away top talent and that behind its obsession with secrecy, there are signs Moderna has run into roadblocks with its most ambitious projects.


[SNIP]

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Aug 16, 2021 3:31 pm

.


How remaining in the dark and turning in vicious circles inevitably leads to erroneous decisions

Conducting mass vaccination campaigns on a background of high infection rates generates optimal conditions for breeding even more infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants. The combination of massive, spike-directed immune pressure combined with high infectious pressure rapidly allows these variants to reproduce more effectively such as to outcompete previously circulating variants/ strains. Mass vaccination, therefore, promotes viral evolution towards more infectious variants. The resulting enhancement of viral infectious pressure makes it more likely for everyone, including healthy, unvaccinated people to come in contact with the virus, especially in times where infection prevention measures are loosened. To the extent that high infection rates cause people to become re-exposed shortly after a previous asymptomatic infection, their innate Sars-CoV-binding antibodies (Abs) will be suppressed by short-lived, poorly functional anti-spike Abs, known to not be responsible for preventing the infection from becoming symptomatic. It is precisely the suppression of these broadly protective innate Abs that makes previously asymptomatically infected individuals more susceptible to disease. It is also precisely this phenomenon that explains why a first wave of a natural pandemic is followed by a second wave in younger age groups. The even bigger amplitude of that second wave merely reflects the overwhelming contribution of a population’s innate immunity to its overall immune protective capacity. So, this is why we’re now seeing more and more disease in younger age groups, and even children, although they were perfectly protected during previous waves. Extending mass vaccination campaigns to these younger age groups is the most irresponsible public health proposal (decision?) ever as

1. It results in turning a huge cohort of naturally protected people into subjects who will soon become much more vulnerable because the virus is now becoming increasingly resistant to vaccinal Abs (which, despite poor functionality, are still able to suppress broadly protective innate Abs).

2. It further augments pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., on spike protein, which happens to be the target of all C-19 vaccines!) and, therefore, will only contribute to expediting viral evolution towards enhanced infectiousness (and eventually full resistance to anti-S Abs). As already mentioned, the higher viral infectivity rates grow, the more the incredibly precious innate immune capacity of the population gets eroded and the faster vaccine-mediated protection will wane as a result of enhanced evolution of the virus towards S-Ab-directed resistance. In the meantime – and for as long the C-19 vaccines protect against disease – mass vaccination is turning healthy people into asymptomatic breeding grounds and spreaders of evolving, more infectious variants, which is quite the opposite effect of what mass vaccination was supposed to do (i.e., to generate herd immunity). We only begin to see the early consequences of waning vaccine protection, erosion of innate immunity and fulminant expansion of steadily evolving, more infectious variants.

This is to say that it is the complete lack of understanding of why morbidity rates are now increasing in younger age groups that now prompts short-sighted experts and politicians, who typically have no long-term antennae, to advocate for mass vaccination of younger age groups and children. As they obviously lack any kind of insight into the evolutionary dynamics of a pandemic and how those are driven by the interplay between viral infectious pressure and host immune pressure in the population, they don’t understand that mass vaccination of the younger age groups is only throwing fuel to the devastating fire of a self-amplifying vicious circle. I challenge any expert, regardless of reputation or qualifications, to invalidate or oppose my arguments in a public debate on a mainstream broadcasting channel. If that debate doesn’t take place, it should be very straightforward for youngsters, parents, guardians, or even the children themselves, to draw their own conclusions and decide what is best for themselves or the children.

If we could only have politicians and short-sighted ‘experts’ hanging this sheet over their bed, we might finally be in a position where we could start cleaning up some of the mess they have made and put an end to all of the completely unacceptable and needless animosity it caused between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Time has come to turn all this chaos into a constructive effort that is finally driven by ‘Science’ and ‘Solidarity’!


https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post ... -decisions
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby conniption » Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:11 am

MUST WATCH!!! Funeral Director John O'Looney Blows the Whistle on Covid

>>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/gigUyK3yLtMU/
39 min.

First published at 00:40 UTC on September 16th, 2021.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby conniption » Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:45 am

Guess I've seen it all now...

NHS JAB Propaganda Advert Analysis / CRAWL TO DADDY / Hugo Talks #lockdown
Video at Odysee >>> https://odysee.com/@hugotalks:8/NHS-JAB ... lockdown:2
(13:38 min.)
Hugo Talks
@hugotalks
July 3rd, 2021

_______

Also on Hugo Talks:
Watch Croatia PRESIDENT Say No More Jabs / Hugo Talks #lockdown
September 21st, 2021 >>> https://odysee.com/@hugotalks:8/Watch-C ... ockdown2:9
(2:27 min)
_______


p.s.
To our webmaster - Other websites are able to show the video when linking to odysee, like our youtube button can do.
So for Xmas this year can you make that possible here at RI? Thanks. (in advance).

p.p.s.s.
B.S. (heh. I bet you are sorry you chose that name. Did I ever tell you why I changed my name from terryIntacoma?)
Anyway, if you are unhappy with either of the last two videos, let me know and I'll move them to a different thread. ok? thx.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby conniption » Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:08 pm

conniption » Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:11 am wrote:MUST WATCH!!! Funeral Director John O'Looney Blows the Whistle on Covid

>>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/gigUyK3yLtMU/
39 min.

First published at 00:40 UTC on September 16th, 2021.
TheCrowhouse
Milton Keynes Family Funeral Services
https://www.mkffs.co.uk/
John O'Looney's direct email:
john@mkffs.co.uk
>snip<
The Crowhouse Community Forums:
https://thecrowhouse.community/


UPDATE FROM UK FUNERAL DIRECTOR ON VAX DEATHS 72777 BANNED ON YOUTUBE

Watch: https://www.bitchute.com/video/NlyFalElo2JA/

First published at 16:10 UTC on October 10th, 2021.
AgentOfChange
agentsofchange@protonmail.com
1019 subscribers

"we've been tricked into playing Russian Roulette with a 'vaccine' injection...this INJECTION is killing people on a massive scale"

Whistle-blower English funeral director, John O’Looney.
People are dying from the INJECTION, not a so-called "virus"..
.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:36 pm

.

I've avoided updates to this thread as it's become largely redundant with the General COVID thread, but a couple datapoints worth adding here.

First, while it's generally acknowledged that, for the majority, near-term adverse events to mRNA shots are generally benign, it remains the case adverse events are statistically significant, and so far -- less than a year into the "vaccine campaigns" -- orders of magnitude more voluminous than any historical vaccines (regardless of total vaccines administered, the adverse events per 100K are unprecedented). Extensive data exists to minimally halt current distributions, at least until further testing/trials are completed.

We all know that won't happen anytime soon, which should raise all manner of alarm bells.

Instead, many continue to rely on faith. Faith in institutions that should be scrutinized by default given their checkered history.

Eventually, we'll get there. But at what cost until then?


https://osf.io/bcsa6/

Differences in Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Replication Derived mRNA: Implications for Cell Biology and Future Disease

AUTHORS
Kevin McKernan
Anthony M. Kyriakopoulos
Peter A. McCullough

Abstract

Codon optimization describes the process used to increase protein production by use of alternative but synonymous codon changes. InSARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines codon optimizations can result in differential secondary conformations that inevitably affect a protein’s function with significant consequences to the cell. Importantly, when codon optimization increases the GC content of synthetic mRNAs, there can be an inevitable enrichment of G-quartets which potentially form G-quadruplex structures. The emerging G-quadruplexes are favorable binding sites of RNA binding proteins like helicases that inevitably affect epigenetic reprogramming of the cell by altering transcription, translation and replication. In this study, we performed a RNA fold analysis to investigate alterations in secondary structures of mRNAs in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines due to codon optimization. We show a significant increase in the GC content of mRNAs in vaccines as compared to native SARS-CoV-2 RNA sequences encoding the spike protein. As the GC enrichment leads to more G-quadruplex structure formations, these may contribute to potential pathological processes initiated by SARS-CoV-2 molecular vaccination.

...

Conclusions

The argument that the spike proteins synthesized by codon optimized mRNAs are identical to spike protein from the virus should be cautiously examined. There are several arguments that challenge this dogma. First, the biodistribution of non-specific LNP transfection of mRNAs does not discriminate towards ACE2 or CD147 expressing cell lines as seen with the virus. Second, the mRNA that encodes spike protein is known to be different in several regards. The mRNAs are known to have a 2 Proline substitution(K986P and V987P)(Department of Health and Human Services Patent US 10,960,070B2) altering the proteins conformation. The mRNAs are known to be codon optimized thus altering their secondary structure and their quadruplex G density in the spike protein mRNA. The mRNAs are known to have N1-methylpseudourine substitutions that alter translation fidelity and Toll Like Receptor recognition. Additionally, the expression levels and duration of these mRNAs maybe longer and of higher copy number in many tissues that never experience natural virus infection. Finally, the pharmacokinetics of injection are different than infection. 60ug-200ug of Spike mRNA equates to26 Trillion to 80 Trillion mRNA molecules injected in a few seconds. The pharmacokinetics of this bolus injection differs from that of viral replication that occurs over the course of a few days. If each of these mRNAs can produce 10-100 spike proteins and you have 30-40 Trillion cells, there may be a far greater systemic quantity and a much longer duration of spike protein exposure through the vaccination route than natural infection. Boosters given more frequently than a year will lead to total body accumulation of spike protein and further heighten the risk of disease in organs such as the brain, heart, bone marrow, and immune cells and tissues. This false equivalency may lead to an under appreciation of the symptomatology of vaccine based adverse events

...

More than 20months into this pandemic and we have millions of SARs-CoV-2 genomes sequenced. Lot to lot sequencing of the vaccines is non-existent. To this date, no raw reads for these vaccines exist in NCBI despite over a billion liability-free vaccinations. To fully understand RNA synthesis substitution errors, fragmentation errors or strandedness errors in the mRNA synthesis process, robust lot to lot sequencing should be performed and published. Given these mRNAs are prodrugs which code for a desired protein, where is the evidence that the conversion of this prodrug into a drug is of high fidelity? This seems to have been assumed as opposed to documented.

This work suggests this assumption should be questioned. Public and transparent quality control of these often-mandated injections are required. This should include sequence verification and quality control of the various lots and evidence of the proteins these mRNA express in patients


AND:

https://www.covidkidfacts.ca/

[embedded links at source]

Do You Have ALL THE INFORMATION
You Need To Give Informed Consent?


Healthy children are at minimal risk of severe outcomes like hospitalizations from COVID-19

The risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 is less than that of influenza during the last 3 years

Your child is 10 times more likely to die of a motor vehicle accident than COVID-19; and 2-3 times more likely to die from drowning than from COVID-19

Once recovered from COVID-19, children have long lasting, robust immunity against future infection

More than 50% of kids have already had COVID-19 and about 40% of those were asymptomatic

Getting the vaccine after COVID-19 infection increases the risk of side effects, including severe and potentially life-threatening side-effects, from the vaccine

Fully vaccinated children can transmit COVID-19 and infect others as well as unvaccinated children

The mRNA technology in COVID-19 vaccines in Canada has never been used clinically in humans before

The Moderna vaccine uses the same mRNA technology as Pfizer - and has been suspended for use in children and young people in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Germany and France

COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis is only one of many potential adverse effects. It is not a “mild” disease. In many children, it can cause long term disability and some children may die of vaccine-induced myocarditis

Signed by 14 Canadian Physicians - including 2 Pediatricians, other specialists and family doctors; and more than 100 nurses from across Canada, including pediatric nurses.

We will remain anonymous for now, since Medical and Nursing Licensing Bodies and Health Authorities have been persecuting physicians and nurses for speaking the truth. Our practices, livelihoods, and licenses have been threatened simply for giving information to parents and children. This is providing informed consent, and we are bound by oath to do this.
We will most certainly reveal our identities at the appropriate time, most likely before the courts, when public health authorities, regional/provincial health authorities and licensing bodies are brought to justice.

Our statement is also endorsed by several leading Canadian scientists, Immunologists and vaccine specialists including:

Dr. Bonnie Mallard Ph.D. – Professor of Immunology and Immunogenetics,
University of Guelph. Winner of Governor General’s award for Innovations in Immunogenetics in 2017 and the NSERC Synergy Prize in the area of Immunogenetics 2021.

Dr Byram Bridle Ph.D. - Associate Professor of Viral Immunology and Vaccine Specialist, University of Guelph

Dr. Neil Karrow Ph.D. - Professor of Immunogenetics and Immunotoxicity, University of Guelph

Dr. Steve Pelech Ph.D. - Professor, Dept of Medicine, University of British Columbia
President and Chief Scientific Officer Kinexus Bioinformatics Corporation
Vice-President and Chair, Scientific and Advisory Committee of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance

Dr. Paul Alexander Ph.D. - Expert in evidence-based medicine; Health Epidemiologist. Has worked for WHO, Health Canada and the USA COVID-19 Taskforce.Please see Dr. Alexander’s urgent article for parents:
https://brownstone.org/articles/dear-pf ... ren-alone/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:05 am

.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/is-i ... ource=copy

is it vaccines or is it covid causing athletes to collapse on the field?

a little crowd sourced homework project.

it has become manifestly clear that we’re seeing an extreme outcome in athletes and heart conditions. something is very much amiss.

Image

there is quite a lot of evidence that this seems to be a vaccine effect (https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/athl ... s-and-life). but, predictably, the chorus from team mask up, lock down, and vax, vax, vax, vax, vax is taking the other side of this argument and claiming it’s covid.

predictably, there is not a shred of supporting data, just supposition and appeals to ever more tatterdemalion authority.

Image

there are a number of reasons that i find this argument uncompelling, but there is an aspect of it that i find quite revelatory as well:

they have stopped denying that it’s happening.

it has become sufficiently common and sufficiently obvious that they can no longer ignore it and must address it instead and offer up an explanation.

as i will lay out below, this poses a serious problem for them because now we have a testable hypothesis.

if we agree that athletes are, indeed having an extremely disproportionate number of heart issues of late, then the “why” can be assessed by timing.

- if it’s covid causing this issue, it should have been present last year as well.
- if it’s the vaccines, this issue should have emerged in 2021 but not in 2020.


we have a strong base prior for this effect from these vaccines. they have been shown to accumulate in heart tissue and to elicit a FAR stronger antibody response than just having had covid. this is due to the larger dose of S-1 protein. (it also appears to confer no clinical benefit whatsoever as natural recovery is far more potent and more sterilizing than vaxxed)

so, it’s quite reasonable to presume more heart risk. there has been almost none in the young from covid. 2020 a 2019. but look what happened in 2021 after vaccination.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2782900

Image

this is very much the opposite of what one would expect were this caused by covid but exactly what one would expect if it were caused by vaccine.

and a lot of people are starting to notice.

numerous EU countries have discontinued used of these mRNA vaccines in the young over adverse events risk (particularly heart risk) swamping benefit.

and the data on this keeps getting worse. (though any such reporting in the US is conspicuously absent)

@FZores

For men under 30
2nd dose of pfizer vaccine associated with an OR of hospitalization for myocarditis of 10,9.
1 hospitalization for 37.500 shots
2nd dose of moderna vaccine associated with an OR of hospitalization for myocarditis of 79.
1 hospitalization for 7.600 shots

Image


unfortunately, a lot of people, especially in the US, are determined to suppress such findings. “hey, those vaccines we approved without sound trials, won’t give you the data on, mandated and hectored over, and pushed on your kids while absolving the pharma companies from any liability whatsoever, yeah, sorry, it was really unsafe” is not a great look.

@GBNEWS

'They aren't going to publish their findings, they are concerned about losing research money'

Dr Aseem Malhotra reveals a cardiology researcher found similar results to a new report showing an increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA COVID vaccine.


this sort of suppression is literally the opposite of public health. how can people make sound choices in the absence of sound data?

so here’s a little crowd sourced homework assignment:

i recall basically no athletes collapsing from heart issues in 2020. this looks to me to have started in the spring of 2021 when vaccinations ramped up.

but it’s possible i’m wrong or suffering from confirmation bias in perception. it looks like a validated rise, but perhaps it’s not.

so let’s validate or refute it. see what you can find. let’s compile something like a list, see how good a data set can be assembled, and see what the data looks like.

this is the sort of capability the modern info-sphere provides us with.

if “authorities” will not collect good data, then let’s collect our own.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby stickdog99 » Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:22 pm

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/P ... ty-pdf.pdf

(excerpt)

Activation of Previously Dormant or Controlled Pathogens?

Are there recent studies addressing the clinical effects of receiving the COVID injections on people's broad immunity? There are a few. This study titled, "Hepatitis C Virus Reactivation Following COVID-19 Vaccination - A Case Report," deserved to be quoted in detail:

"Materials and methods: Here, we report a case of an 82-year old patient with dementia who was admitted to a nursing home in the Netherlands. After vaccination with COVID-19 vaccination, physical examinations and lab tests were performed.

Results: She had a reactivation of hepatitis C infection after vaccination with the mRNA-based Pzer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. This reactivation manifested with jaundice, loss of consciousness, hepatic coma and death.

Conclusion: This reactivation of hepatitis C virus after vaccination with the Pzer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine suggests a need for critical consideration of individuals with prior HCV infection and considered for COVID-19 vaccination."


In other words, she passed away as a result of a hepatitis C infection that, according to the researchers, activated after she received the injection. While she luckily lived a long life and passed away at 82, no one knows how long she would have lived if she didn't get the injection. It's as simple as nobody knows, and it doesn't look like our leaders care to make sure that this is studied thoroughly before mandating the product on everyone.

Another study titled, "Varicella zoster virus reactivation and mRNA vaccines as a trigger" talks about the reactivation of the zoster virus following the mRNA vaccines. It states the following:

"The suggested pathogenic mechanism was induced lymphopenia and the functional impairment of lymphocytes, particularly CD8+ T cells and natural killer cells.

With regard to COVID-19 vaccines, it is postulated that, as a product of a massive shifting of naïve CD8+ cells, VZV-specic CD8+ cells are not temporarily capable of controlling VZV. The question of why VZV reactivation occurs almost exclusively with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and not with viral vector or inactivated COVID-19 vaccines remains to be answered." [emphasis mine]


And finally, in this extremely informative interview on The Highwire, Dr. Ryan Cole provides a good explanation of the potential mechanisms of immunosuppression as a result of COVID injections. He also mentions his observations regarding an alarming trend of previously-under-control cancers going out of remission after the administration of COVID injections.

In another talk, Dr. Cole goes further into what he believes to be a great uptick in cancers post-vaccination, based on the results that he is seeing in his labs.

Conclusion: Unfortunately, it looks like COVID injections could be compromising our broad-spectrum innate immunity at least to some degree — and I wish somebody with a conscience had looked into it very thoroughly before injecting the product into billions of bodies. Why? Because despite what the proponents of the Fourth Industrial Revolution think of us, we are human beings, not commercial platforms.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belligerent Savant and 43 guests