On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:07 am

.

I believe this merits a thread on its own, as this topic -- in the months/years ahead -- will cover areas above and beyond the near-term COVID-related hysterics.

As with anything, caveat lector.


A few relevant cross-posts and a primer:




Belligerent Savant » Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:20 am wrote:.

From the link shared by stickdog ... Re: mRNA vaccines:



...we’ve been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because “RNA doesn’t work that way.” Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, “RNA does work that way”. In my original article, I spelled out this exact molecular pathway.

Specifically, a new study by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA. (study linked below). This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome. They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.

And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized. It’s difficult for me to put a number on the probability due to data limitations present in the paper, but based on the frequency they were able to measure this phenomenon in both petri dishes and COVID patients, the probability is much greater than I initially anticipated. Due to this current research, I now place this risk as a more probable event than my original estimation.

To be fair, this study didn’t show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps.

That being said, this data can be used to make a conjecture as to whether the RNA present in an RNA vaccine could potentially alter human DNA. This is because an mRNA vaccine consists of snippets of the viral RNA from the genome of SARS-CoV-2; in particular, the current mRNA vaccines harbor stabilized mRNA which encodes the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which is the protein that enables the virus to bind to cell-surface receptors and infect our cells.

This was thought near impossible. Based on this ground-breaking study, I would hope that the highly presumptuous claim that such a scenario is impossible will find its way to the trash bin labeled: “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened”; although, I have a suspicious feeling that the importance of this study will be minimized in quick order with reports from experts who attempt to poke holes in their work. It’s important to add that this paper is a pre-print that is not peer-reviewed yet; but I went through all of the data, methods, and results, and I see very little wrong with the paper, and some gaps that need closing- but, at least from the standpoint of being able to answer the question: can RNA from the coronavirus use existing cellular pathways to integrate permanently into our DNA? From that perspective, their paper is rock-solid. Also, please take note that these are respected scientists from MIT and Harvard.

Quoting from their paper:

“In support of this hypothesis, we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral fused to cellular sequences in published data sets of SARS-CoV-2 infected cultured cells and primary cells of patients, consistent with the transcription of viral sequences integrated into the genome. To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. Human endogenous LINE-1 expression was induced upon SARS-CoV-2 infection or by cytokine exposure in cultured cells, suggesting a molecular mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 retro-integration in patients. This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication.”

Why did these researchers bother to investigate whether viral RNA could become hardwired into our genomic DNA? It turns out their motive had nothing to do with mRNA vaccines. The researchers were puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone. It was also shown that these people were not reinfected. The authors sought to answer how a PCR test is able to detect segments of viral RNA when the virus is presumably absent from a person’s body. They hypothesized that somehow segments of the viral RNA were being copied into DNA and then integrated permanently into the DNA of somatic cells. This would allow these cells to continuously churn out pieces of viral RNA that would be detected in a PCR test, even though no active infection existed. Through their experiments, they did not find full-length viral RNA integrated into genomic DNA; rather, they found smaller segments of the viral DNA, mostly representing the nucleocapsid (N) protein of the virus, although other viral segments were found integrated into human DNA at a lower frequency.

In this paper, they demonstrate that:

1) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA can become integrated into human genomic DNA.

2) This newly acquired viral sequence is not silent, meaning that these genetically modified regions of genomic DNA are transcriptionally active (DNA is being converted back into RNA).

3) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA retro-integrated into human genomic DNA in cell culture. This retro-integration into genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients is also implied indirectly from the detection of chimeric RNA transcripts in cells derived from COVID-19 patients. Although their RNAseq data suggests that genomic alteration is taking place in COVID-19 patients, to prove this point conclusively, PCR, DNA sequencing, or Southern Blot should be carried out on purified genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients to prove this point conclusively. This is a gap that needs to be closed in the research. The in vitro data in human cell lines, however, is air tight.

4) This viral retro-integration of RNA into DNA can be induced by endogenous LINE-1 retrotransposons, which produce an active reverse transcriptase (RT) that converts RNA into DNA. (All humans have multiple copies of LINE-1 retrotransposons residing in their genome.). The frequency of retro-integration of viral RNA into DNA is positively correlated with LINE-1 expression levels in the cell.

5) These LINE-1 retrotransposons can be activated by viral infection with SARS-CoV-2, or cytokine exposure to cells, and this increases the probability of retro-integration.


Instead of going through all of their results in detail (you can do that if you like by reading their paper linked below), I will answer the big question on everyone’s mind – If the virus is able to accomplish this, then why should I care if the vaccine does the same thing?

Well, first let’s just address the big elephant in the room first. First, you should care because, “THEY TOLD YOU THAT THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE AND TO JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE THE VACCINE.” These pathways that I hypothesized (and these researchers verified with their experiments) are not unknown to people who understand molecular biology at a deeper level. This is not hidden knowledge which is only available to the initiated. I can assure you that the people who are developing the vaccines are people who understand molecular biology at a very sophisticated level. So, why didn’t they discover this, or even ask this question, or even do some experiments to rule it out? Instead, they just used superficially simplistic biology 101 as a smoke screen to tell you that RNA doesn’t convert into DNA. This is utterly disingenuous, and this lack of candor is what motivated me to write my original article. They could have figured this out easily.

Second, there’s a big difference between the scenario where people randomly, and unwittingly, have their genetics monkeyed with because they were exposed to the coronavirus, and the scenario where we willfully vaccinate billions of people while telling them this isn’t happening. Wouldn’t you agree? What is the logic in saying, “Well, this bad thing may or may not happen to you, so we’re going to remove the mystery and ensure that it happens to everyone.”? In my best estimate, this is an ethical decision that you ought to make, not them.

Third, the RNA in the vaccine is a different animal than the RNA produced by the virus. The RNA in the vaccine is artificially engineered. First, it is engineered to stay around in your cells for a much longer time than usual (RNA is naturally unstable and degrades quickly in the cell). Second, it is engineered such that it is efficient at being translated into protein (they accomplish this by codon optimization). Increasing the stability of the RNA increases the probability that it will become integrated into your DNA; and, increasing the translation efficiency increases the amount of protein translated from the RNA if it does happen to become incorporated into your DNA in a transcriptionally active region of your genome. Theoretically, this means that whatever negative effects are associated with the natural process of viral RNA/DNA integration, these negative effects could be more frequent and more pronounced with the vaccine when compared to the natural virus.

As a side note, these researchers found that the genetic information for the nucleocapsid “N” protein was, by far, the largest culprit for being permanently integrated into human DNA (because this RNA is more abundant when the virus replicates in our cells). The vaccine, on the other hand, contains RNA that encodes the Spike (S) protein. Therefore, if the mRNA from the vaccine (or subsegments thereof) were to make its way into a transcriptionally-active region of our genome through a retro-integration process, it will cause our cells to produce an over-abundance of Spike protein, rather than N protein. Our immune system does make antibodies to both N and S proteins, but it is the Spike protein which is the prime target for our immune system because it exists on the outside of the virus. If our cells become permanent (rather than temporary) Spike Protein producing factories due to permanent alteration of our genomic DNA, this could lead to serious autoimmune problems. I would imagine that autoimmunity profiles arising from such a scenario would be differentiated based on order of events (i.e., whether or not someone is vaccinated before or after exposure to coronavirus).

Again, this is a theoretical exercise I am presenting for consideration. I am not making the claim that an mRNA vaccine will permanently alter your genomic DNA, and I didn’t make this claim in my first article, although it appears that troll sites made the fallacious claim that I did. I simply asked the question, and provided hypothetical, plausible molecular pathways by which such an event could occur. I believe this current research validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable. It most certainly deserves closer inspection and testing to rule this possibility out, and I would hope that a rigorous and comprehensive test program would be instituted with the same enthusiasm that propelled the vaccine haphazardly through the normal safety checkpoints.

Obviously, even given this information, people are still free to get vaccinated, and will do so according to the overall balance of risks and rewards that they perceive in their mind. The purpose of my article is to make sure you can make that assessment fairly by possessing all potential risks and rewards, rather than an incomplete set. For something as important as this, you should not be operating in the dark.




Belligerent Savant » Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:50 pm wrote:.

Breadcrumbs Re: vaccine ... --

Jay Hurst
@JayHurs70120732
·
1h
Replying to
@bridgietherease

A family member has just required open heart surgery for a blood clot days after being vaccinated. I can't honestly argue there is a causal relationship. The fact remains I decided long ago not to be vaccinated unnecessarily for a virus I've never been afraid of catching.


Thomas Hearns Says Marvin Hagler Was ‘In ICU Fighting The After Effects Of The Vaccine’

Boxing legend "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler died Saturday. No cause of death was immediately announced.


https://www.worldboxingnews.net/2021/03 ... s-vaccine/

Image

There's also Hank Aaron's recent death, shortly after taking the 'vaccine', but most mainstream press will be quick to dismiss any such connections.

Many that blindly accept the official Covid death tallies will at the same time refuse to consider the timing of these recent deaths, occurring shortly after 'vaccination'. Will there be any sober assessment of deaths occurring shortly after inoculation? There will always be plausible deniability.

AND:

More European nations suspend use of AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine

More European countries have suspended the use of the Covid-19 vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and University of Oxford following reports of several suspected deaths from clotting after inoculation

More countries suspend AstraZeneca vaccinations over blood clot fears: What we know so far

Thailand on Friday became the first Asian country to halt the use of the jab over safety concerns, shortly after Denmark announced a two-week pause to its nationwide rollout after reports of blood clots and one death.

CNBC and Business Standard headlines.

...




Good links embedded (and at the bottom of the article) at this source:

https://auticulture.com/the-war-on-huma ... ugenocide/


The War on Human Sentience: 2021 ~ the Year Humanity Consented to Euthanized Eugenocide?

A friend of a friend recently took the Pfizer vaccine. When they were questioned on the wisdom of their decision, they replied that they felt they had made an intelligent, adult decision. Let’s see if that’s true.

From July, 2020:

From mRNA vaccines entering clinical trials, to peptide-based vaccines and using molecular farming to scale vaccine production, the COVID-19 pandemic is pushing new and emerging nanotechnologies into the frontlines and the headlines. . . . Steinmetz is leading a National Science Foundation-funded effort to develop – using a plant virus – a stable, easy to manufacture COVID-19 vaccine patch that can be shipped around the world and painlessly self-administered by patients. Both the vaccine itself and the microneedle patch delivery platform rely on nanotechnology. This vaccine falls into the peptide-based approach described below.

“From a vaccine technology development point of view, this is an exciting time and novel technologies and approaches are poised to make a clinical impact for the first time. For example, to date, no mRNA vaccine has been clinically approved, yet Moderna’s [an American pharmaceutical and biotechnology company] mRNA vaccine technology for COVID-19 is making headways and was the first vaccine to enter clinical testing in the US.”

As of June 1, there are 157 COVID-19 vaccine candidates in development, with 12 in clinical trials.

“. . . as devastating as COVID-19 is, it may serve as an impetus for the scientific community, funding bodies, and stakeholders to put more focused efforts toward development of platform technologies to prepare nations for readiness for future pandemics,” Steinmetz wrote.


As crisis looms, opportunity knocks for nanotechs. . . Flash-forward to November 9, 2020:

The pharma giant Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, announced in a company press release a Covid19 vaccine that was “90% effective.” The EU promptly announced it had purchased 300 million doses of the costly new vaccine. Meanwhile Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, sold 62% of his stock in Pfizer on the day the proposed vaccine trials were announced. He made millions on the deal, done via “a special option” in August to avoid charges of insider trading, and timed it just after the US elections and the mainstream media declared Joe Biden President-elect (i.e., during a media shitstorm when everyone was distracted).


As F.William Engdahl wrote in Nov, 2020:

Pfizer, famous for its Viagra and other drugs, has partnered with a small Mainz, Germany company, BioNTech, which has developed the radical mRNA technique used to produce the new corona vaccine. BioNTech was only founded in 2008. BioNTech signed an agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in September, 2019, just before announcement in Wuhan China of the Novel Coronavirus and just before BioNTech made its stock market debut. The agreement involved cooperation on developing new mRNA techniques to treat cancer and HIV. Curiously that press release, “The Gates Foundation sees BioNTech potential to ‘dramatically reduce global HIV and tuberculosis’” 05. September 2019, has now been deleted.

BioNTech also has an agreement with one of the largest drug producers in China, Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (“Fosun Pharma”) to develop a version of its mRNA vaccine for novel coronavirus for the Chinese market. . . . This means that the same German biotech company is behind the covid vaccines being rushed out in China as well as the USA and EU. . . . Both US and EU authorities and presumably also Chinese, waived the standard animal tests using ferrets or mice and have gone straight to human “guinea pigs.” Human tests began in late July and early August. Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the norm. . . . Vaccine makers all have legal indemnity, meaning they can’t be sued if people die or are maimed from the new vaccine. But the most alarming fact about the new Pfizer-BioNTech gene edited vaccine is that the gene edited mRNA for human vaccine application has never before been approved. Notably, two year peer reviewed tests with mice fed genetically modified corn sprayed with Monsanto glyphosate-rich Roundup first showed cancer tumors after nine months as well as liver and other organ damage. Earlier Monsanto company tests ended at three months and claimed no harm. A similar situation exists with the gene edited mRNA vaccines that are being rushed out after less than 90 days human tests.


Dr. Michael Yeadon (who has a degree in Biochemistry & Toxicology & a research-based PhD in pharmacology, spent 32 years working in pharmaceutical R&D, and was a VP at Pfizer) has stated, “If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent. This is because there are precisely zero human volunteers for . . . whom there could possibly be more than a few months past-dose safety information.”

Despite the fact the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is experimental and therefore guaranteed unsafe, it has at date of writing been given to over a hundred million humans, with hundreds of millions more due to receive the jab in the next few months.

F.William Engdahl continues:

The experimental technology is based on a rather new gene manipulation known as gene editing. In a major article in the 2018 New York Council on Foreign Relations magazine, Foreign Affairs, Bill Gates effusively promoted the novel gene editing CRISPR technology as being able to “transform global development.” He noted that his Gates Foundation had been financing gene editing developments for vaccines and other applications for a decade.


Dr. Romeo Quijano, retired professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, has warned of

the danger that the vaccine might actually “enhance” the pathogenicity of the virus, or make it more aggressive possibly due to antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), as what happened with previous studies on test vaccines in animals. If that should happen in a major human trial the outcome could be disastrous. This serious adverse effect may not even be detected by a clinical trial especially in highly biased clinical trials laden with conflicts of interest involving vaccine companies. Even when a serious adverse event is detected, this is usually swept under the rug.”

Quijano writes in the extensively documented article, “among other dangers, the virus-vectored vaccines could undergo recombination with naturally occurring viruses and produce hybrid viruses that could have undesirable properties affecting transmission or virulence. The . . . possible outcomes of recombination are practically impossible to quantify accurately given existing tools and knowledge. The risks, however, are real, as exemplified by the emergence of mutant types of viruses, enhanced pathogenicity and unexpected serious adverse events (including death) following haphazard mass vaccination campaigns and previous failed attempts to develop chimeric vaccines using genetic engineering technology.”

Source: https://journal-neo.org/2020/11/13/what ... s-vaccine/

Faith-Based Denials from the Science Alliance

December 2020:

Former Pfizer head of respiratory research, Dr. Michael Yeadon, and the former head of the public health department, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, have filed a petition for a stay of action asking the European Medicine Agency to suspend phase III of the clinical trials for Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and all other clinical trials. They cite “significant” safety concerns and request all trials are halted until specific criteria outlined in their stay action is met which will ensure efficiency and safety.

Yeadon and Wodarg claim that it’s not only possible the vaccine could provoke serious unwanted antibody and immune reactions, but it must be “absolutely ruled out” that the vaccine would not render women infertile by disrupting their placentas, should they become pregnant.

Source: https://www.blacklistednews.com/article ... cause.html

Snopes has of course denied this (though not that Yeadon said it). For every awkward fact presented around the untested nature (and hence lack of safety) of the Pfizer implant, there are a hundred denials. Yet no one can deny the fact that it has not been tested and hence is provably unsafe. The denials are faith- not fact-based, though it seems that many of the people who make them ~ those sincerely intended at least ~ are unaware that they are using religio-magical thinking (a.k.a. doublethink) to maintain their opinions. They sincerely believe they have corporate-medical science on their side. Unfounded and ideologically-driven opinion has truly trumped arguments, evidence, facts, and, the last and most critical casualty in this war on human sentience, truth.

In case anyone says this post isn’t presenting a balanced perspective, here’s Alliance for Science (Cornell), who are fighting on the front line of the pro-mRNA movement (Dec 2021, “Yes, some COVID vaccines use genetic engineering. Get over it“):

We’re going right to the heart of the matter. So no, COVID-19 vaccines aren’t delivery vehicles for government microchips. They aren’t tainted by material from aborted fetuses. And they won’t turn us into GMOs — though some of them do use genetic engineering, and all of them use genetics more broadly. We think this is way cool — something to celebrate, not shy away from. So, we’re doing the deep reveal on exactly how genetics and biotechnology have been a central component of the vaccine effort. Because we know the conspiracists don’t care about evidence, anyway. First up: mRNA. It won’t reprogram your brain. But it does reprogram some of your cells, in a manner of speaking. And that’s not a defect — it’s intentional.


January 2021:

Norway said Covid-19 vaccines may be too risky for the very old and terminally ill, the most cautious statement yet from a European health authority as countries assess the real-world side effects of the first shots to gain approval.

Norwegian officials said 23 people had died in the country a short time after receiving their first dose of the vaccine. Of those deaths, 13 have been autopsied, with the results suggesting that common side effects may have contributed to severe reactions in frail, elderly people, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency.

“For those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences,” the Norwegian Institute of Public Health said. “For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”


But don’t worry:

“the number of incidents so far is not alarming, and in line with expectations,” Pfizer said.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -childcare

Revenge of the Brain-Eaters

So who needs conspiracy-theorists when you have a growing number of alarmed medical, biological, and technical professionals vainly trying to sound the alarm? Not that it matters, since Science, big S, no longer cares about facts but only bottom dollar. This is British Columbia-based Chris Shaw, Ph.D, Specialist in Neuroplasticity and Neuropathology:

“The mRNA lipid-coated PEG-construct––by Moderna’s own study––does not stay localized but spreads throughout the body, including the brain. Found in animal studies in bone marrow, brain, lymph nodes, heart, kidneys liver, lungs, etc. Doctors are saying that the vaccine does not cross the blood-brain barrier, but that is not true. . . . If it reaches the brain, there will be an auto-immune response that will cause inflammation. What characterizes virtually all neuro-degenerative diseases is this misfolded protein that is characteristic to Lou Gerrig’s disease, to Alzheimer’s, to Parkinson’s to Huntington’s, etc. They are different proteins, but they tend to form these sheets of misfolded proteins called Beta Sheets. Now you are asking cells in various parts of the body––including the brain––to make a lot of these proteins and release them to the outside, and , are we sure that’s what it’s all doing? Are you getting clusters of misfolded proteins inside neurons? That would be a bad thing to do. So you’d like to know where it is, how much of it there is, and which groups of neuronal groups it’s targeted. And those are the kinds of questions you like the companies to have solved long before they got authorization and discovered, some years later, that they have a problem.”

“This is a vast experiment that should have been done in the lab on animals and now it is being done on people . . . The potential is that you are going to harm a lot of people while you do this experiment.”


From video interview at “NEUROSCIENTIST’S CONCERNS ABOUT COVID VACCINES” Also quoted in “Vaccine Diabolus and the Impending Wave of Rare Neurodegenerative Disorders.” [link at source]

Is it getting dark enough to see the light? Is it time to return to that transcript from a Rudolf Steiner lecture on “The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness,” from 1917?

The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present; for it makes no difference to their reality whether they are recognized or unrecognized. . . . I have told you that the spirits of darkness are going to inspire their human hosts in whom they will be dwelling to find a vaccine that will drive all inclination towards spirituality out of people’s souls when they are still very young, and this will happen in a roundabout way through the living body. . . . The whole trend goes in a direction where a way will finally be found to vaccinate bodies so that these bodies will not allow the inclination toward spiritual ideas to develop, and all their lives people will believe only in the physical world they perceive with the senses . . .


A Vast Experiment (& The Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation)

March 11, 2021:

A group of scientists and doctors has today issued an open letter calling on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to answer urgent safety questions regarding COVID-19 vaccines, or withdraw the vaccines’ authorisation.

The letter describes serious potential consequences of COVID-19 vaccine technology, warning of possible autoimmune reactions, blood clotting abnormalities, stroke and internal bleeding, “including in the brain, spinal cord and heart.”

The authors request evidence that each medical danger outlined “was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.”

“Should all such evidence not be available”, the authors write, “we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA.”

The letter is addressed to Emer Cooke, Executive Director of the EMA, and was sent on Monday 1 March 2021. The letter was copied to the President of the Council of Europe and the President of the European Commission.


It states that “the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute ‘human experimentation’, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.” It presents new data showing that “vaccine side effects are three times as common in those who have previously been infected with coronavirus.”

It aims to “enumerate and evaluate all deaths which have occurred within 28 days of vaccination, and to compare the clinical pictures with those who have not been vaccinated.”

Under Resolution 2361, member states must also inform citizens that vaccination is NOT mandatory and ensure that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to become vaccinated. States are further required to ensure that no one is discriminated against for not receiving the vaccine.

The letter comes as a petition against UK Government plans for vaccine passports passed 270,000 signatures, more than double that required to compel consideration for debate by MPs. The petition will be debated in the UK Parliament on 15th March 2021.


Render Not Lest Ye Be Rendered

Image

As I have spoken about on this week’s two podcasts, no decision that is the result of deception, coercion, implied threat of ostracization or loss of freedoms, and the sustained manipulation of fight-or flight reactions, can be seen as adult or intelligent, or in any way sensible.

The above data (with the assist of a reader who emailed me some of these links) has been gathered and presented within the space of a single morning and half an afternoon. It did not require enormous amounts of time, energy, or effort to see that something is deeply wrong around the technocratic spellcraft of the Pfizer nano-implant genetic experiment, or that a person would have to be be practicing less discernment than a five-year-old let loose in a candy store to have to submit to such a program. But sadly, when fear drives, the devil rides ~ anyone who bows down or bends over to be mounted.

However, the point I am making here is a subtler one. Regardless of the actual effects and consequences of this worldwide experimentation program (and that’s being charitable, since it far more closely resembles a carefully orchestrated program of eugenocide); and apart from from the social and political implications it has for every last soul on this planet; for individual human beings to consent to such a shadowy agenda, in so trusting, docile, and slavish a manner, presents the most damning evidence possible for the future of humanity.

If this is what is really happening, then humans are doing what lemmings were only rumored, falsely, to have done, and becoming the first species ever to commit mass-suicide.

In the New Order of the New Barbarians (recalled by Lawrence Dunegan from a 1969 talk he attended by Dr. Richard Day), Dunegan recalls:

Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn’t deserve to live very long. This was all presented as sort of a moral judgment about people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right are better people – are the kind you want to live longer.


I mention it now because it is hard, for me at least, not to agree with our social engineers on this point. If a person is too lazy to perform due diligence around the current sociopolitical, industrial-medical drive to submit to a grand “vaccination” program; if they are so out of tune with their own instincts and common-sensical distrust for the institutional powers that are serving us (up to the slaughter) ~ aren’t they getting exactly what they are asking for? This probably seems harsh, and maybe it is. But maybe less so if we consider that those who are complying with the forced vaccination eugenocidal agenda are themselves becoming foot soldiers in the war on human sentience. What they do to themselves, they do to us all.

Consider also that such people are, often enough, also arguing for the sanity and sanctity of the establishment solution, aren’t they thereby, implicitly or explicitly, also encouraging, even pressuring, others to go along with the diabolic drive? I can extend such souls my pity, but not my sympathy. At the same time, though such willful self-destructive action exhausts the reserves of my compassion (“Take my compassion, push it as far as it goes!“), I have no choice but to empathize, just as I have no choice but to empathize with sheep that are slaughtered. Because as one with the Human Energy Field, every last confused and lost soul is also my body and blood. And the latter may be nearing boiling point.

My point is that the manufactured mass consent to malevolent agendas and spiritual darkness under the guise of salvation (move one letter and you get slavation) is more deeply disturbing to me than the apparently eugenocidal program that is being consented to. Millions of people are currently making a life-defining decision that centers around a choice to live or die ~ literally to those who believe the Pfizer implant will save them, and others, from a “pandemic.” Their decision entails handing over their bodies, their health, their immune systems, their very DNA (ancestry and genealogy), allowing the surface of their skins to be penetrated by an unknown agent, manufactured by unknown intelligences, for undisclosed but provably unethical purposes, purely on “faith.”

Their faith is in Mammon, not in God. It is faith that the political and social forces have their interests at heart, and to believe this in 2021, with all the evidence amassed against it, is to go so fully and utterly against one’s own felt, intuitive, instinctive, and bodily sense of what is good and right, as to essentially align oneself with insentience and insensibility, in favor of and an abject dependence on the very forces that are oppressing us.

Isn’t this the programmed behavior of human livestock? Isn’t it time for the goats to separate themselves out from the sheep, and admit that we are better off without a shepherd?


In terms of world history, it is indecent for people to base their judgment on the very ideas which have led to present events, when those events clearly show them to have been wrong. Do people think they can cure the ills of the present time by applying the same principles which have brought them about? If so, they are utterly deceiving themselves.
~ Rudolf Steiner, 1917

Further resources:

US CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

Harvard Report on Vaccine Injuries

UK Covid Adverse Event Reporting System

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -reactions

VAERS Med Alerts

https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findf ... AX=COVID19

https://www.scribd.com/document/4923661 ... s-Form-pdf

24/1/21

Nuremberg Code is Your Vaccine Defence

Harvard Report on Vaccine Injuries

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand ... sAllowed=y
Articles:

Vaccine Technology:

7/3/21

Worrying Signs That New Covid Strains Are Mutating the Spike Protein to Defeat Existing Vaccines

https://scitechdaily.com/worrisome-new- ... -variants/

21/2/21

The AstraZeneca Vaccine DNA Plasmids Are Designed to Penetrate the Cell Nucleus – Get Over It ! But It Doesnt Alter Your Genome (Bwah ha ha )

https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/ ... t-over-it/

19/2/21

The Astra Zeneca Vax Uses Double Stranded DNA (NotMRNA) to Deliver Genetic Spike Protein Instructions, Doesnt Work, Countries Already Rejecting It

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... 3884a04510

17/2/21

How the Astra Zeneca Vax Works , Possible Future Developments

16/1/21

Why RNA Vaccines for Covid19 Raced to the Front of the Pack

https://scitechdaily.com/why-rna-vaccin ... he-pack-2/

15/1/21

Covid19 – How do Viral Vector Vaccines Work

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... cines-work

12/1/21

How the Oxford AstraZeneca Covid19 Vaccine Was Made

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86

8/1/21

How the Oxford AstraZeneca Vaccine Works

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... ccine.html

15/7/20

Nanotechnology Plays Major Role in Covid19 Vaccine Development

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200 ... pment.aspx

13/3/21

Thailand Halts AZ Vaccine

Thailand Halts AstraZeneca Vaccinations Following Concerns in Europe

12/3/21

Group of Scientists and Doctors Write to European Medicines Agency Seeking Urgent Clarification on Covid Vaccine Side Effects

Blood Clotting, Stroke and Internal Bleeding in Brain, Spinal Cord and Heart

12/3/21

Denmark Norway Iceland Join Austria to Suspend AZ Vaccine After Thromboembolic Blood Clotting Incidents

https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/ ... 57a03.html

7 countries plus Austria = 8 Have halted AZ

https://www.winterwatch.net/2021/03/7-e ... ood-clots/

10/3/21

One Nurse Dead and Another Injured as Austria Suspends AZ Covid Vax

etc.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby conniption » Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:45 pm

off-guardian
(embedded links)

The Curious Case of Geert Vanden Bossche His Open Letter, Video Interview and High-Profile Supporters

Rosemary Frei, via her website
Mar 16, 2021


Image

On March 6, an open letter by Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVM, and a video interview of him by Phillip McMillan, MD, from a company called Vejon Health, were posted online.

On the surface, Vanden Bossche appears to perhaps be addressing credible concerns about Covid.

He’s saying that the current crop of Covid vaccines will cause the novel coronavirus to mutate into a “super-infectious virus.” And therefore he’s calling for an immediate halt of the use of the current vaccines.


If humans are “committed to perpetuating our species, we have no choice but to eradicate these highly infectious viral variants” via “large vaccination campaigns,” Vanden Bossche claims at the conclusion of his open letter. But in contrast to the currently used Covid vaccines, these new vaccines must focus on stimulation of mass production of the component of the immune system known as natural killer cells, he asserts.

However, Vanden Bossche bases his views on unproven hypotheses. This is similar to, and builds on, high-profile modeling-paper authors who use theoretical frameworks to inflame fears about the supposed dangerousness of the new variants.

Despite this, Vanden Bossche’s views were very quickly and positively received by high-profile vaccine sceptics such as Dell Bigtree in his March 11 episode (starting at 57:25) and Vernon Coleman in his March 13 video and article.

Bigtree and Coleman virtually unquestioningly accept and amplify Vanden Bossche’s views. They strongly insinuate to their overwhelmingly credulous subscribers that there’s virtually no fact-checking or pause for sober second thought required.

But from my experience as a former long-time medical writer and journalist (1988-2016) — particularly a four-month stint with media-relations giant FleishmanHillard in 1994 (yes, I’ve worked for the dark side) — this has all the hallmarks of a drug-company astroturf campaign.

It’s another step in the decades-long erasure of the fact that our sophisticated and highly effective immune systems work well and don’t need any assistance from the biomedical/pharmaceutical industry.

There’s abundant evidence that Vanden Bossche has a not-so-hidden agenda. For example, just before the three-minute mark in the video interview of Vanden Bossche by McMillan, Vanden Bossche indicates he’s a long-time vaccine developer. He adds he’s now is focusing on vaccines that “educate the immune system in ways that are to some extent more efficient than we do right now with our conventional vaccines.”

Clearly he’s got significant conflicts of interest. Therefore he has zero credibility when it comes to advising the public about how to avoid negative effects of mass vaccination.

However, Bigtree, Coleman and others don’t point out these and other red flags. In fact these high-profile alternative-media figures don’t even do basic due diligence such as looking into McMillan, who’s the man who interviewed Vanden Bossche, or the company McMillan’s apparently affiliated with, Vejon Health. Bigtree, for example, relies heavily on the McMillan interview for the content of his March 11 segment.

As far as I know, McMillan and Vanden Bosch aren’t among the thousands of MDs, PhDs, and other people with graduate degrees or equivalent qualifications who have thoroughly debunked the official Covid narrative over the last 12 months. Rather, the pair suddenly popped out of the woodwork.

Also, McMillan isn’t anything close to an expert on vaccines. He describes himself as a “dementia authority.” The most recently published paper of his that I can find is from 2016 and is on Alzheimer’s in the journal Medical Hypotheses. (In that paper he and his co-author propose nutritional supplementation to lower the body’s burden of aluminum, a high level of which is linked to Alzheimer’s.)

In addition, when one clicks on http://www.vejonhealth.com one gets a message indicating the website isn’t in use. Indeed, Vejon appears to be a dormant company.

So I ignored McMillan’s interview and Vanden Bossche’s open letter when I first learned about them last week. But then on March 12 I was contacted by the producer of something called the Gary Null show on the ‘Progressive Radio Network.’ The producer, Richard Gale, asked me to be a guest. I agreed to do the interview on March 15.

About 1.5 hours before the interview was to start, I contacted Gale and asked what the interview would focus on. Gale told me Null wanted to discuss Bigtree’s segment on the Vanden Bossche letter and he sent me a link to the segment. So I quickly read the open letter and watched the full interview and Bigtree segment on it. A field of red flags popped up in my mind.

At the appointed interview start time of 12:30 pm on March 15, Null proceeded to read live to air, for about 12 minutes, some key points from the open letter. He told the audience to take them seriously. Then Null put me on the air.

But he wouldn’t let me talk about the letter.

Instead, he repeatedly interrupted my efforts to do so and insisted I only discuss the new variants. So I hung up. And I’ve been edited out of the archived broadcast of Null’s show.

I’m going to be interviewed live starting at 4:30 pm Eastern Standard Time today (March 16) by Ryan Cristián of The Last American Vagabond about the Vanden Bossche letter and McMillan interview. Apparently Ryan’s on the same page as me.

Meanwhile, my tweets about the open letter and the Null interview have gotten a lot of reaction. And, as it happens, since Sunday people have been emailing to encourage me to read Vanden Bossche’s letter and watch his interview. Many are swayed by his calling for an immediate half of the current crop of Covid vaccines and by the fact that people like Bigtree are propagating his messages.

So I decided to write this article to expose a few of the dozens of clues that this curious case is a continuation of the overall Covid deception.

Here are some more of those clues:

1. In his March 11 segment, Bigtree shows a slide with Vanden Bossche’s background. It indicates he’s affiliated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and other vaccine proponents. Dell dubs Vanden Bossche a “world-renowned vaccine creator.” Coleman calls him “a very eminent vaccine specialist.”

But, when combined with the contents of his open letter, it’s impossible to believe that he’s in fact an insider who’s now going against his very high-powered comrades. (More on this below.) It’s more likely that he’s their accomplice.

Another indication that the letter is designed to propagandize rather than to let objective evidence speak for itself is the wording Vanden Bossche uses. He writes, for example, that he was “racing against the clock” to write “this agonizing letter” in which he “put[s] all of my reputation and credibility at stake” to help “turn the tide” against this “irrepressible monster” that the virus could soon become unless we heed Vanden Bossche.

Image

2. In his open letter Vanden Bossche also writes, “I can assure you that each of the current vaccines have been designed, developed and manufactured by brilliant and competent scientists.” However, he doesn’t say a word about the massive adverse-event rate and very scant efficacy profile of the vaccines that were created by these “brilliant scientists.”

3. Vanden Bossche also asserts that there’s an “ever[-]increasing threat from rapidly spreading, highly infectious variants.” But, as I detailed in my February 3 article and accompanying video on the new variants, there is no proof that they are highly infectious or will be any time soon.

4. There is the possibility of viral resistance, as for example I note in my March 9, 2021, article and accompanying video. But it’s not the major threat Vanden Bossche attempts to scare us about by saying the virus is likely to mutate so much and so quickly because of the current mass vaccination campaigns that soon it could escape all current attempts to stop its spread.

Remember, for example, that yearly flu mass vaccination hasn’t caused influenza to spiral out of control and decimate the global population.

5. Vanden Bossche also writes that some antibodies are made by the innate immune system, but that these ‘natural’ antibodies are non-specific, have “suboptimal” “maturity, and are “rather limited and only short-lived.” He claims they are a very weak link in our immune reactions to pathogens such as the novel coronavirus — and that “the combination of viral infection on a background of suboptimal Ab [antibody] maturity and concentration enables the [novel corona]virus to select mutations allowing it to escape the immune pressure.”

However, this is on very shaky ground. Because, among other things:

* Neither in the original March 6 piece nor his March 13 follow-up does Vanden Bossche back this up with any direct, non-theoretical evidence that this is happening;

* The ‘natural’ antibodies that are produced after encountering a pathogen are only a small part of a quick, effective and broad-based first-line immune-system defense – known as ‘innate’ or ‘passive’ immunity – which in fact largely comprises other components;

* Vanden Bossche downplays the effectiveness of the antibodies our bodies naturally produce as part of the second- line (‘adaptive’) part of the immune system that also has served us extremely well for millennia.

A March 11 commentary by Michael Yeadon and Marc Girardot has similar information to my points 3, 4 and 5. However the pair present it in a way that’s very pro-mRNA-vaccine and pro- much of the official-Covid-narrative — neither of which I endorse.

6. Vanden Bossche also has no references in that original document. He does include some in his follow-up, March 13, document posted on his website. But that March 13 document, like the March 6 one, hasn’t been posted on the website of a journal, never mind a peer-reviewed one, nor reviewed in any more serious manner.

And in an unusual approach, he doesn’t attach each reference to a particular statement in his document; rather, he lists the references at the end of the article under categories such as ‘Natural antibodies.’

7. Vanden Bossche drives at the need for “large vaccination campaigns.” These, he writes, should be for “NK [natural-killer]-cell–based vaccines” that “will primarily enable our natural immunity to be better prepared … and to induce herd immunity.”

But it’s not very logical to believe that the only solution to the theoretical possibility of immune escape, as espoused by someone who’s got a long and strong focus on vaccination as opposed to other ways to improve health, is yet more mass vaccination.

Not to mention that the concept of herd immunity is contrived – after all, if your immune system is protecting you against a pathogen it doesn’t matter whether someone else’s is or not.

I do agree we should stop the use of the current vaccines – plus we need to stop production and use of antivirals and antibodies and other parts of the Covid-industrial complex.

But we should also not add more treatments. Covid has an extremely high survival rate. So why develop yet another expensive, invasive and experimental solution to a problem that barely exists, if it does at all?

It’s all very curious.
_______

Don’t miss Rosemary’s interview on The Last American Vagabond, live at 16.30 EST/21.30 GMT.

Rosemary Frei has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years and now is an independent investigative journalist. You can watch her June 15 interview on The Corbett Report, read her otherOff-Guardian articles follow her on Twitter and read her website here.


comments


_______

Why aren't the 2 images in the above article appearing? Anyone?

_______

and... I really like this person... you know... WhatsHerFace..


Your Science is Bought and Paid For

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSWI6ebdUfQ
•Jan 14, 2021
WhatsHerFace
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby DrEvil » Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:05 am

Why aren't the 2 images in the above article appearing? Anyone?


Off-Guardian doesn't allow it. Normally you can right-click on the word 'image' and chose 'view image', but in this case it got me this:

The owner of this website (off-guardian.org) does not allow hotlinking to that resource (/wp-content/medialibrary/vanden-bossche-resume.jpg).
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:24 pm

Nice find, conniption. while I posted the Vanden Bossche letter on a thread here, I felt many of the same alarm bells going off while reading it in full. It's both a muddying of the waters with a set of scary sounding yet not particularly well-founded speculations as well as a pre-fabricated excuse for the (perhaps intended) consequence of our current batch of vaccines to promote more deadly future COVID variants that can only be prevented by even more vaccination efforts.

Unfortunately, this article about chicken vaccination has me worried that it may be those of us informed enough not to get vaccinated who are the actual target of this huge human experiment.

I mean, when even Paul "give me a million vaccines this instant" Offit expresses his concerns about the potential deleterious effects of mass experimental vaccination campaign, perhaps we should slow the roll?

****

Dr. Offit: Most people who will eventually be getting a vaccine are healthy and young and unlikely to die from this virus. What we can say now is at least in tens of thousands of people, there have been no uncommon serious side effects within 2 months of getting the dose. But there are serious side effects to vaccines, and they occur within 6 weeks. Yellow fever caused yellow fever in one in a million people after they’d received the vaccine. People may have allergic reactions to gelatin or latex in vaccines, or intussusception (a twisted intestine, in an early rotavirus vaccine). And oral polio vaccine was a rare cause of polio in one in 1.4 million doses.

We are testing these vaccines with one foot in the water. We’ll have tens of millions of people, more than that, getting vaccine before the general population gets it. That will build a bigger safety profile.

The vaccine data so far are the tip of the iceberg. We still have to look at the base to see if anything is cracking and whether the tip is true. That being said, 20,000 people receiving a vaccine isn’t the same as 20 million. We will only find out the rare adverse events after approval of the vaccines. Another side to this is the choice not to get vaccinated, but that choice is not risk-free. It is taking a different risk.

In the medical world, safety means benefits outweigh the risks, but not absolute safety. We have to be open-minded to the fact that serous adverse events might happen.


Dr. Bauchner: The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA; all the others you mention are more traditional, with the virus manipulated in some way, inactivated or attenuated. Does the fact that these first two vaccines are mRNA make you more or less concerned?

Dr. Offit: More concerned. We have no commercial experience with them. The vaccines are naked pieces of mRNA encapsulated in a complex lipid delivery system that enables the cell to take it up. If you injected the mRNA straight, ribonucleases (enzymes that dismantle RNA) would dissolve it. Once in the cell, the mRNA begins self-reproducing. It’s now making the coronavirus spike protein, which, for the most part, gets inserted into the cell membrane and to a lesser extent into the circulation.

The foreign proteins will be broken up into 15 to 20 “mers” (pieces) and placed on the cell so helper and cytotoxic T cells see them. The mers are also on antigen-presenting cells (which alert the immune system), and myocytes (muscle cells) too, perhaps just the ones that are damaged from the injection. We don’t know exactly.

What turns it off? In mice it goes on for 10 days. In humans, I don’t know. We’ll find that out.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:19 pm

.



...

The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response.

Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.

Interestingly, Moderna describes its technology as the “software of life,” not a vaccine.


Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.”

In the trial literature these endpoints are described by both companies as non-severe cold/flu SYMPTOMS coupled with a positive PCR.

Pfizer has reported:

For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was the presence of at least one of the following symptoms and a positive SARS-CoV-2 NAAT within 4 days of the symptomatic period: Fever; New or increased cough; New or increased shortness of breath; Chills; New or increased muscle pain; New loss of taste or smell; Sore throat; Diarrhea; Vomiting.”


Moderna reported in likeness:

For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was defined as: At least TWO of the following systemic symptoms: Fever (≥38ºC), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s), OR At least ONE of the following respiratory signs/ symptoms: cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, OR clinical or radiographical evidence of pneumonia; and NP swab, nasal swab, or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if hospitalized) positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.”


To reiterate, in both trials, once one/two symptoms appeared in a participant, it was designated a “case” or “event” when coupled with a positive PCR “test”. Once 170 “cases” occurred in Pfizer/BioNtech trial, and 196 “cases” occurred in Moderna trial, this data was used to calculate efficacy. Shockingly, only under 200 cases for a novel therapy which is being deployed/subjected on millions of people around the world.

Furthermore, people are not being informed that “95%” or so efficacy, is calculated based on a useless metric of relative efficacy and is therefore very misleading.

Eg.Pfizer/BioNtech:

8 “cases” in vaccine group
162 “cases” in placebo group

8/162 = 5%
100%-5%= 95%

Therefore, they are claiming that the synthetic gene therapy injections are 95% efficacious. What they are not factoring in is the size of the denominator. If it is large, then with 8 vs 162, the difference becomes less significant. It matters how many people were in each group, for example, whether this be 200, 2,000, or 20,000.

This is the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer/BioNtech, each group had over 18,000 people!

Injection Group: 8/18,198 = 0.04%
Placebo Group: 162/18,325= 0.88%

Therefore, the absolute risk reduction for Primary Efficacy Endpoint is 0.84%. (ie. 0.88-0.04)

This means, that someone who takes the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, has less than 1% chance of reducing at least one symptom of non-severe “Covid” for a period of 2 months. This means that someone who takes this injection has over 99% chance that it won’t work, regarding the efficacy. Over 100 people have to be injected for it to “work” in one person.

Image
The actual efficacy of Pfizer/BioNtech Synthetic Gene Therapy

Image
The actual efficacy of Moderna Synthetic Gene Therapy

There are many issues with the trial data, and design. It must be noted that PCR tests are not fit for purpose and without Sanger sequencing we have no idea how many of these people actually had “Covid” vs another respiratory virus or something else. This is a preeminent reason why Dr Yeadon and Dr Wodarg filed a Stay of Action on the vaccine trials.

As Dr Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of BMJ highlighted, access to the raw data is required to further elucidate the areas of concern:

With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.”


Approximately 5-6 symptoms listed as “side effects” are the same as Covid symptoms. Pfizer/BioNtech only started counting “cases” one week after the second dose, and Moderna, 2 weeks after the second dose. Therefore, if these side effects were labelled as “Covid” symptoms instead, even the paltry efficacy of about 1% would be relegated into the negative integers.

In others words, the injected group may have been sicker with “Covid” more than the placebo group.

...

To convey informed consent, the side effect profile must also be considered. Up to 80% of injected trial recipients experienced side effects, in a setting for a nebulous syndrome where 80% of people are asymptomatic.

The incidences of immediate side effects in both trials were significant and dwarfed the absolute risk reduction in both the primary efficacy endpoints, as well as for “severe” Covid.

For example, for Moderna 81.9% experienced any systemic reaction. Grade 3 reactions (considered severe) were experienced by 17.4%. This is 79X more likely than the incidence of severe Covid in the Moderna group. (17.4/.22=79X) Based on preliminary reports of adverse events [emphasis added]:

This is an injury rate of 1 in every 40 jabs. This means that the 150 shots necessary to avert one mild case of COVID will cause serious injury to at least three people.“


The safety data for both companies is approximately only two months before receiving emergency use authorization status. Therefore, there is no data for mid-long term side effects, as the trials are ongoing.

The estimated completion date for Pfizer/BioNtech trials is Jan 31, 2023. The estimate completion date for Moderna trials is October 27, 2022.

According to the data, and elaborated by Tal Zaks (CMO of Moderna) the trials are not designed to demonstrate a reduction in transmission, due to “operational realities”. It is therefore baffling how medical doctors and public health officials are proclaiming these SGTs will promote herd immunity.

The manufacturers have also made it clear that efficacy beyond 2 months or so is unknown. Therefore, the 1% absolute risk reduction in mild/moderate, cold/flu symptoms may not last more than a few months.

Tragically, there is no pervasive data-centred discourse, only excessive fear-mongering. Without addressing the data people cannot make an informed choice about experimental SGTs.

Many are not aware any SGT recipient who participates in this therapy is now a part of an unprecedented experiment. When Health Canada shockingly agreed to interim authorization of the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, it came alongside a caveat: The company must submit 6 months of trial data when it is available.

To underscore: Health Canada approved this experimental SGT on the populace without even 6 months of trial data.

It is difficult to embark on a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis, as there is no safety data beyond a couple of months. New vaccines typically take about 7 to 20 years of research and trials before going to market. Pfizer/Moderna ran all of their trials simultaneously, including their animal trials, instead of sequentially. As retired Health Canada research scientist Dr Qureshi elaborated, it is during proper animal trials that meaningful toxicology data is obtained.

The anaphylactic reactions observed in some people is also worrisome, worthy of analysis. Children’s Health Defense submitted a request to the FDA to address PEG allergies, as up to 70% of the populace has antibodies to these compounds. PEG has never been a component in a vaccine before.

It must also be noted that according to an internal Health Human Services and Harvard study, less than 1% of vaccine side effects are reported. At this juncture, based on: paltry efficacy, issues with data transparency and trial design, high level of immediate side effects, and low IFR for Covid, there is already enough reason for concern.

Yet, the more disconcerting side effects are the potential mid-long term effects.

Many doctors and researchers around the world have promulgated concerns about the well-documented phenomena referred to as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) seen in some viruses such as coronaviruses.

In previous SARS, MERS, Dengue fever and RSV virus vaccine trials the exposure of wild viruses to vaccine recipients resulted in severe disease, cytokine storms, and deaths in some animal and human trials. The phenomenon of ADE did not present initially in vaccine recipients, rather it presented after vaccine recipients were exposed to wild viruses.

This is the reason we do not have a vaccine for the common cold, MERS and SARS which is 78% homologous with SarsCov2 (based on analysis of the digital genome). Immunology Professor Dolores Cahill warned that this disease enhancement may cause many vaccine recipients to die months or years down the road. Esteemed German infectious disease specialist, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi opined:

This vaccine will lead you to your doom.”


Researchers in The International Journal of Clinical Practice stated:

The absence of ADE evidence in COVID-19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non-theoretical risk to the subjects. Unfortunately, no vaccines for any of the known human CoVs have been licensed, although several potential SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccines have advanced into human clinical trials for years, suggesting the development of effective vaccines against human CoVs has always been challenging.”


Traditional vaccines involve injection of the pathogen/toxin in whole/part to elicit an immune reaction. For the first time in history, the recipients’ cells will manufacture the pathogen, the S1 spike protein of SarsCov2 virus.

In a presentation for Emergency Use Authorization to the FDA, Moderna reps explained that the mRNA stays in the cytoplasm of the cells, manufactures the S1 Spike Protein and then is destroyed. As Dr Sucharit Bhakdi and others have queried:

Where else do these packages go?”


Also, based on a couple of months of safety data, we do not know that these mRNAs last long enough to manufacture the protein but not long enough to exert deleterious effects. This nascent technology is risky.

Firstly, the RNA sequences are synthetic. Therefore, we do not know how long they will last in the cells. Dr Judy Mikovits has expressed concerns in that they may not be degraded immediately, and perhaps linger for days, months, years.


More at link: https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/22/syn ... -analysis/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:57 pm

.
Cross-post.

Belligerent Savant » Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:00 am wrote:.

I understand the premise, and broadly, appreciate the approach given consensus views on vaccines. My own views on vaccines have shifted over the past year, taking into account data points since this propaganda campaign started.

But we have to remind ourselves (a challenge, given the persistent messaging otherwise out there right now), that COVID is simply a low-likelihood death cause, even for the elderly: ~94.6% survival rate for those over 70. There are myriad other ailments or causes of death markedly more common for that age group.

Further, these current crop of 'vaccines' should not be placed in the same category of prior historical vaccines for the following reasons:

1. They are currently being administered as EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), with initial trials to continue until 2023 at the earliest before they can be considered for FDA approval;
2. Unprecedented rollout for 'vaccines' on the population that have less than 1 year of trials (the average is 7 - 10 yrs); the fact is no one knows long-term side effects; humans are being used as experimental subjects;
3. Unprecedented use of mRNA on humans for the first time.

While I can understand (regardless of my disagreement) why someone over 70 may gamble with their livelihood by taking these shots in the near-term, I see no explicable reason for anyone outside the outlier risk groups to take these vaccines, at least not for another ~2+ years, at which point we will likely have a better sense of the extent of long-term side effects.

Only conditioning mechanisms (applied over many years) would inspire the healthy and young to line up for this. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FOLLOWING STATS:

According to the CDC, the survival from Covid (with inflated stats) is as follows: (under 20) 99.997%, (29-49) 99.98%, (50-69) 99.5% and (over 70), 94.6%.


If this was a 'vaccine' like all prior vaccines with 7+ years of trials and FDA approval, I'd understand the interest in getting a shot. But it's not. Not even close.

It's quite surreal to observe.

Most major media outlets don't even mention herd immunity, let alone any vaccine side effects. Unfortunately, the same applies for certain social media savvy MDs, though there remain those that reference herd immunity as contributing factors to drops in spread.


Keep in mind, the below figures display only near-term reporting. Long-term stats remain pending; these stats wouldn't include unreported scenarios, of course.

https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findf ... AX=COVID19

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:46 pm

.

We still don't know the results of sequencing the Pfizer/Moderna 'vaccines', the results of which may well have legal implications.


Image
Image

https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies ... 3.docx.pdf
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:42 am

Image
https://twitter.com/cordeliers/status/1 ... 21152?s=20


Worth reproducing in full. Plenty of embedded links at source:

18 Reasons I Won't Be Getting a Covid Vaccine

A few friends have asked my thoughts on the covid jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic.

All my friends had not heard most of the details I shared, so I figured you might appreciate hearing some of what I told them.

Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else, but I feel like the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.

As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and non-hysterical.

I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I've read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can't make sense of these covid vaccines.

THREE GROUND RULES FOR DISCUSSION

If you care to engage on this topic with me, excellent.

Here are the rules...

I am more than happy to correspond with you if...

1. You are respectful and treat me the way you would want to be treated.

2. You ask genuinely thoughtful questions about what makes sense to you.

3. You make your points using sound logic and don't hide behind links or the word "science."


If you do respond, and you break any of those rules, your comments will be ignored/deleted.

With that out of the way, let me say this...

I don't know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below.

So here are the reasons I'm opting out of the covid vaccine.

#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY

The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products, are vaccine makers.

First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and reinforced by the PREP Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent.

The covid-vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.

If a company is not willing to stand behind their product as safe, especially one they rushed to market and skipped animal trials on, I am not willing to take a chance on their product.

No liability. No trust.

Here's why...

#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES

The four major companies who are making these covid vaccines are/have either:

Never brought a vaccine to market before covid (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).

Are serial felons (Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca).

Are both (Johnson & Johnson).


Moderna had been trying to "Modernize our RNA" (thus the company name)--for years, but had never successfully brought ANY product to market--how nice for them to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.

In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when then knew those product would cause injuries and death--see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide, and Opioids as a few examples.

If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability?

In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate...3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.


- Johnson & Johnson has lost major lawsuits in 1995, 1996, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2016, 2019 (For what it's worth, J&J's vaccine also contains tissues from aborted fetal cells, perhaps a topic for another discussion)

- Pfizer has the distinction of the biggest criminal payout in history. They have lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. You can check out their rap sheet here. Maybe that's why they are demanding that countries where they don't have liability protection put up collateral to cover vaccine-injury lawsuits.

- Astra Zeneca has similarly lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. Here's one. Here's another...you get the point. And in case you missed it, the company had their covid vaccine suspended in at least 18 countries over concerns of blood clots, and they completely botched their meeting with the FDA with numbers from their study that didn't match.

- Oh, and apparently J&J (whose vaccine is approved for "Emergency Use" in the US) and Astrazenca (whose vaccine is not approved for "Emergency Use" in the US), had a little mix up in their ingredients...in 15 million doses.

Let me reiterate this point:

Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?

Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?

To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive, unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person.

No. I don't trust them.

No liability. No trust.

Here's another reason why I don't trust them.

#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES

There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.

In the 1960's, scientists attempted to make an RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) vaccine for infants.

In that study, they skipped animal trials because they weren't necessary back then.

In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization, and two of them died.

After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines.

For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960's.

You can read a summary of this history/science here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 02991/full

Or if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:

- In 2004 attempted vaccine produced hepatitis in ferrets

- In 2005 mice and civets we're became sick and more susceptible to coronaviruses after being vaccinated

- In 2012 the ferrets became sick and died. And in this study mice and ferrets developed lung disease.

- In 2016 this study also produce lung disease in mice.

The typical pattern in the studies mentioned above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated.

The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot.

The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.

When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) occurred where the immune system produced a "cytokine storm" (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died.

Here's the lingering issue...

The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem.

In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA "vaccines" been safely brought to market, but hey, since they had billions of dollars in government funding, I'm sure they figured that out.

Except they don't know if they have...

#4: THE "DATA GAPS" SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS

When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many "Data Gaps" they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of Vaccine Enhanced Disease.

They simply don't know--i.e. they have no idea if the vaccines they've made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.

As Joseph Mercola points out:
"Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?"


If that's not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data--i.e. there is no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:

- Anyone younger than age 18 or older than age 55

- Pregnant or lactating mothers

- Auto-immune conditions

- Immunocompromised individuals

- No data on transmission of covid

- No data on preventing mortality from covid

- No data on duration of protection from covid

Hard to believe right?

In case you think I'm making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.

For now let's turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization.

#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS

Would you like to see the raw data that produced the "90% and 95% effective" claims touted in the news?

Me too...

But they won't let us see that data.

As pointed out in the BMJ, something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny.

There were “3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”


Wait...what?

Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable?

Could they not test those "suspected but unconfirmed" cases to find out if they had covid?

Apparently not.

Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy?

Can we only guess they didn't test because it would mess up their "90-95% effective" claims?

Where's the FDA?

Would it not be prudent for the FDA, to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have "covid-like symptoms," and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?

I mean it's only every citizen of the world we're trying to get to take these experimental products...

Why did the FDA not require that? Isn't that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway?

Good question.

Foxes guarding the hen house?

Seems like it.

No liability. No trust.

#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING

Obviously, with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data.

In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now--for ANY population.

Given all the risks above (risks that ALL pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?

Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky "data gaps" before we try to give this to every man, woman, and child on the planet?

Well...that would make sense, but to have that data, they need to test it on people, which leads me to my next point.

#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT

What most who are taking the vaccine don't know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial.

They are part of the experiment.

Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group.

Time will tell how this experiment works out.

But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn't we be seeing that all over the news?

Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution?

Well, if the adverse events reporting system was working, maybe things would be different.

#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH

According to a study done by Harvard (at the commission of our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the National Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS) - read page 6 at the link above.

While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC), at the time of this writing VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current covid vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.

"VAERS data released today showed 50,861 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 2,249 deaths and 7,726 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 26, 2021."


And those numbers don't include (what is currently) 578 cases of Bell's Palsy.

If those numbers are still only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or .8 to 2% of what this study published recently in the JAMA found), you can do the math, but that equates to somewhere around 110,00 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.

Bet you didn't see that on the news.

That death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also don't hear about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet.

If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS reporting system, you can check this out, or check this out.

But then there's my next point, which could be argued makes these covid vaccines seem pointless.

#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION

Wait, what?

Aren't these vaccines supposed to be what we've been waiting for to "go back to normal"?

Nope.

Why do you think we're getting all these conflicting messages about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks AFTER we get a vaccine?

The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission OR infection.

If you don't believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked to above.

The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.

Sounds like just about every other drug on the market right?

That's it...lowering your symptoms is the big payoff we've been waiting for.

Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?


1. It can't stop us from spreading the virus.

2. It can't stop the virus from infecting us once we have it.

3. To get the vaccine is to accept all the risk of these experimental products and the best it might do is lower symptoms?

Heck, there are plenty of other things I can do to lower my symptoms that don't involve taking what appears to be a really risky product.

Now for the next logical question:

If we're worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread?


If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right?

For what it's worth, I've heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching covid.

I can't make sense of that either.

Take the risk.

Get no protection.

Suffer through the vaccine side-effects.

Keep wearing your mask and social distancing...

And continue to be able to spread the virus.

What?

It gets worse.

#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED

Talk about a bummer.

You get vaccinated and you still catch covid.

It's happening in Washington State

It's happening in New York

It's happening in Michigan

It's happening in Hawaii

It's happening in several other states too.

It happened to 80% of 35 nuns who got the vaccine in Kentucky. Two of them died by the way.

In reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the ones making the news now.

Given the reasons above (and what's below), maybe this doesn't surprise you, but bummer if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe.

It's not.

That was never the point.

If 66% of healthcare workers in L.A. are going to delay or skip the vaccine...maybe they aren't wowed by the rushed science either.

Maybe they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported.

#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID

According to the CDC's own numbers, covid has a 99.74% survival rate.

Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn't stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me--actually in my age range is has about a .1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let's not split hairs here.

With a bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year...i.e. forever.

But wait, what about the 500,000 plus deaths, that's alarming right?

I'm glad you asked.

#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS

Something smells really funny about this one.

Never before in the history of death certificates has our own government changed how deaths are reported.

Why now, are we reporting everyone who dies with covid in their body, as having died of covid, rather than the co-morbidities that actually took their life?

Until covid, all coronaviruses (common colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, auto-immune conditions, or any other major co-morbidity.

The disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or pneumonia was listed on a separate line.

To bloat the number even more, both the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. changed their guidelines such that those who are suspected or probable (but were never confirmed) of having died of covid, are also included in the death numbers.

Seriously?

If we are going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death rates?

According to the CDCs own numbers, (scroll down to the section "Comorbidities and other conditions") only 6% of the deaths being attributed to covid are instances where covid seems to be the only issue at hand.

In other words, reduce the death numbers you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of deaths from just covid.

Even if the former CDC director is correct and covid-19 was a lab-enhanced virus (see Reason #14 below), a .26% death rate is still in line with the viral death rate that circles the planet ever year.

Then there's this Fauci guy.

I'd really love to trust him, but besides the fact that he hasn't treated one covid patient...you should probably know.

#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE

Thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act, government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using tax payer funding.

Tony Fauci owns over 1,000 patents (see this video for more details), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine...which he approved government funding for.

In fact, the NIH (which NIAID is part of) claims joint ownership of Moderna's vaccine.

Does anyone else see this as a MAJOR conflict of interest, or criminal even?

I say criminal because there's also this pesky problem that makes me even more distrustful of Fauci, NIAD, and the NIH in general.

#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

What is "Gain-of-Function" research?

It's where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions--i.e. make them more transmissible and deadlier.

Sounds at least a touch unethical, right?

How could that possibly be helpful?

Our government agreed, and banned the practice.

So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do?

They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research (in coronaviruses no less) to China--to the tune of a $600K grant.

You can see more details, including the important timeline of these events in this fantastically well-researched documentary.

Mr. Fauci, you have some explaining to do...and I hope the cameras are recording when you have to defend your actions.

For now, let's turn our attention back to the virus.

#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE

Not only does the virus (like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine developer Geert Vanden Bossche (who you'll meet below if you don't know him) it's mutating about every 10 hours.

How in the world are we going to keep creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation?

We're not.


Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch covid?

Why, given that natural immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it?

Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what you find above, will my thoughts be deleted from all major social media platforms?

That brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines.

#16: CENSORSHIP...AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

I can't help but get snarky here, so humor me.

How did you enjoy all those nationally and globally-televised, robust debates put on by public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news station?

Wasn't it great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology, economics, and vaccinology from all over the world as they vigorously and respectfully debated things like:

- Lockdowns

- Mask wearing

- Social-distancing

- Vaccine efficacy and safety trials

- How to screen for susceptibility to vaccine injury

- Therapeutics, (i.e. non-vaccine treatment options)


Wasn't it great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with covid) have their "science" questioned.

Wasn't it great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have no liability?

Oh, wait...you didn't see those debates?

No, you didn't...because they never happened.

What happened instead was heavy-handed censorship of all but one narrative.

Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety, but I can't?

Hypocrite?

When did the first amendment become a suggestion?

It's the FIRST amendment Mark--the one our founders thought was most important.

With so much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative...shouldn't many perspectives be heard and professionally debated?

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SCIENCE?

What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions?

What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society?

Why did anyone who disagrees with the WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?

Is the science of public health a religion now, or is science supposed to be about debate?

If someone says "the science is settled" that's how I know I'm dealing with someone who is closed minded.

By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled.

If it was, it would be dogma, not science.

OK, before I get too worked up, let me say this:

I WANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN

I really do.

If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home.

If masks work, I want to wear them.

If social distancing is effective, I want to comply.

But, if there is evidence they don't, I want to hear that evidence too.

If highly-credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think.

I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind.

I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think.

Maybe I'm weird, but if someone is censored, then I REALLY want to hear what they think.

Don't you?

To all my friends who don't have a problem with censorship, will you have the same opinion when what you think is censored?

Is censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants, and greedy, power-hungry people?

Is it not a sign that those who are doing the censoring know it's the only way they can win?

What if a man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the covid vaccines because of problems with the science?

What if he pleaded for an open-scientific debate on a global stage?

Would you want to hear what he has to say?

Would you want to see the debate he's asking for?

#17: THE WORLD'S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM.

Here is what may be the biggest reason this covid vaccine doesn't make sense to me.

When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.

In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining:

1. Why the covid vaccine may be putting so much pressure on the virus that we are accelerating it's ability to mutate and become more deadly.

2. Why the covid vaccines may be creating vaccine-resistant viruses (similar to anti-biotic resistant bacteria).

3. Why, because of previous problems with Antibody Dependent Enhancement, we may be looking at a mass casualty event in the next few months/years.

If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... cinations/

If half of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all time.

If you don't like his science, take it up with him.

I'm just the messenger.

But I can also speak to covid personally.

#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID

I didn't enjoy it.

It was a nasty cold for two days:

- Unrelenting butt/low-back aches

- Very low energy.

- Low-grade fever.

It was weird not being able to smell anything for a couple days.

A week later, coffee still tasted a little "off."

But I survived.

Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, life-long immunity...

...not something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine.

In my body, and my household, covid is over.

In fact, now that I've had it, there is evidence the covid vaccine might actually be more dangerous for me.

That is not a risk I'm willing to take.

IN SUMMARY

The above are just my reasons for not wanting the vaccine.

Maybe my reasons make sense to you, maybe they don't.

Whatever does makes sense to you, hopefully we can still be friends.

I for one think there's a lot more that we have in common than what separates us.

- We all want to live in a world of freedom.

- We all want to do our part to help others and to live well.

- We all want the right to express our opinions without fearing we'll be censored or viciously attacked.

- We all deserve to have the access to the facts so we can make informed decisions.

Agree or disagree with me; I'll treat you no differently.

You're a human just as worthy of love and respect as anyone else.

For that I salute you, and I truly wish you all the best.

I hope you found this helpful.

If so, feel free to share.

If not, feel free to (kindly) let me know what didn't make sense to you and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts too.

Stay curious and stay humble.


https://www.deconstructingconventional. ... id-vaccine
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:58 pm

.

These anecdotes are not uncommon postings on social media.

Lining up for experimental treatments with ZERO info on long-term side-effects (not to mention the possibility for near-term death). Anyone taking these shots right now are participating in experimental trials.

Meanwhile, there ARE viable alternative treatments (with markedly less side-effects, based on case studies performed to date) available that have been suppressed.

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:15 pm

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:42 pm

.

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.

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.

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

Former Moderna scientist


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.

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.

“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.”


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.


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
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:09 pm

.

And yet, the lemmings continue to line up for them:


There are so many reports of “adverse reactions” to the COVID jabs that VAERS is “overwhelmed” and “hard functioning”

@AlexBerenson
·
Apr 15

I have now heard from multiple people that VAERS (the vaccine side effect reporting system) is - to be polite - overwhelmed, behind on reports, and hardly functioning.

If the elite media were not desperate to push vaccines this would be a helluva story.

I wish I had a newsroom.



https://markcrispinmiller.com/2021/04/t ... nctioning/

And:

Joseph Billings wrote this excellent letter to Lisa M. Krieger, the Mercury News reporter who churned out that propaganda puff-piece about Stanford’s experimental mRNA “vaccination” of babies and young children.

There should be many more such letters sent to more such “journalists,” and they too should be widely shared.

Dear Lisa,

I have a few questions concerning your April 15th article describing Stanford University’s recent Pfizer mRNA injection experiments on children.

Isn’t there compelling research demonstrating that children very rarely die from exposure to the virus, which the Pfizer mRNA injection is ostensibly aimed at attacking? And doesn’t some of this research include the very studies which, according to your article, Dr. Maldonado now claims are somehow obsolete or in need of broader understanding? After reading your rather casual report of Dr. Maldonado’s suddenly new opinions, I am inclined to ask, did you submit Dr. Maldonado’s claims to any other experts (including medical ethics experts) before writing your article concerning Stanford’s experiments? I ask because you certainly made no attempt at all in the article itself to explore the details of any study that Dr. Maldonado might be relying upon to justify the Stanford experiments or, worse, to explore the ethics of conducting medical experiments on children for any reason. I would have thought that the obvious moral implications of conducting medical experiments on children would have alone caused you to take a very hard look at Dr. Maldonado’s opinions.

Also, I would be grateful if you would explain how you justify referring so cynically and euphemistically to the most vulnerable and defenseless members of our human community (children) as “the littlest volunteers.” In what sense do you claim, for example, that the apparently frightened, masked young boy in the disturbing photograph linked with your article is a volunteer? For the moment, I am inclined to think that you have actually revealed a case that calls for independent child advocate counsel to be appointed for young Andel Good and any other child who finds himself targeted for medical experimentation. It’s a little chilling to me that you can so thoughtlessly refer to a three-year-old child as a “volunteer” for a medical experiment. Should we hire clowns to recruit such volunteers? Indeed, it appears from the article-related photograph that someone found it helpful for some reason to dance a stuffed animal before the child.

I never would have thought in several lifetimes that I would see the day that we would need to explain the Nuremberg Code to American doctors and journalists –especially in defense of children. Surely you are at least aware that a range of crimes in every state of the union is based upon the principle that children are incapable of consenting to acts (even with parental approval) that we otherwise leave to the discretion of adults in light of the possible serious consequences of the act. And even in the case of adults, an act will not be judged “voluntary” unless consent is based upon accurate and adequate information (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth). Based upon your research into your article, do you think that three-year-old Andel had this truth at his disposal, studied the risks of the mRNA experiment, and then offered his informed “consent”? Do you have solid grounds (evidence) to believe that even his parents had such information?

What exactly was the aim of your April 15th piece? Because it lacks the rudiments of responsible journalism (e.g. juxtaposition of divergent expert opinions), I hardly know how to categorize it. Certainly, consultation with the Children’s Health Defense, for example, would have improved the balance of your article immeasurably. But frankly, I worry that you intended propaganda rather than responsible journalism.

I would be grateful if you would share with me any peer reviewed research that you might have studied before you repeated Dr. Maldonado’s claims in support of Stanford’s child experiments. Did you make any effort at all to critically evaluate those claims? If you consulted other experts concerning Dr. Maldonado’s opinions and justification for conducting mRNA injection experiments on children before you wrote your article (an elementary rule in responsible journalism), would you be good enough to share with me the names of the experts whom you consulted? I would like to know who they were, what you asked them, and what they told you. And I would like to see that as a responsible journalist you obtained and evaluated any evidence in support of what you were told.

I worry that you have written a piece of highly irresponsible journalism (maybe even reckless and shameful propaganda), but I would like to get the facts clear before I reach any conclusions.

Regards,
Joseph Billings





https://markcrispinmiller.com/2021/04/a ... -children/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby DrEvil » Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:18 am

Your annual reminder that the VAERS database isn't a database of adverse reactions to vaccines, but a database of medical issues that cropped up in a certain time interval after getting a vaccine, regardless of whether it was caused by the vaccine or not.

The numbers aren't an accurate accounting of direct effects from vaccines, and they aren't meant to be. If someone dies from unrelated causes a week after getting a jab it gets reported to VAERS (it should be at least, by law), and since they vaccinated almost the entire elderly population in a short time frame there's going to be a lot of deaths that just happen to occur shortly after getting a vaccine because, plot twist, old people often die of old age.

And before the usual suspects go into hysterics, no, I'm not saying there are no adverse effects, just that the VAERS numbers aren't accurate.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: On mRNA/Gene Therapy

Postby dada » Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:56 am

Picture of the medieval tapestry upthread reminds me of hermes throwing his rod between the two snakes, which they wrap around. So there's a kind of medical symbology at work under the apocalyptic theme, I think.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests