Coronavirus | Discussion

Yea, well...I criticize posting MSM and now I did it anyway...

MSM is what people read most....MSM is either factually wrong / biased when it comes to proper science...or (here) shocking. They just point to an authorities' misbehavior...to use stuff without to have tested before.

BTW ATM I study this paper:
Detailed Dissection and Critical Evaluation of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA Vaccines - PMC (nih.gov)

For all who want to know about mRNA optimisations as a vaccine and what Pfizer and Moderna did different it's very interesting.
(You should have affinity to Biochemistry of RNA / DNA though...)

Edit:

I add here some basics of the process of RNA translation.
translation / RNA translation | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)
BTW..this is a good learning site generally.

 

I did more research.
Q3: The suspicious PRRA sequence appears in Wuhan Hu1 original virus AND consequently the Pfizer AND the Moderna vaccine.
What about OTHER variants....has it probably vanished due to natural mutations? There is a phenomenon from nature that artificial mutations are turning back after several generations..a force 'back to nature' can be observed.

What I did: I only compared 'core' variants.
Alpha B.1.1.7
Beta B.1.351
Gamma P.1
Delta B.1.617.2

Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5

Therefore I looked here: For instance this is a query for BA.1
NCBI Virus (nih.gov)

Then you click on accession and then at the side pop up on the sample number:
For instance Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolate SARS-CoV-2/hum - Nucleotide - NCBI (nih.gov)

So you have already the amino acid sequence when we search for "surface glycoprotein" this is the spike.
And then we look for "PRRA" (proline, arginine, arginine, alanine) if it's still there or mutated 'away'...

Guess what!!!

It has vanished BUT Beta B.1.351 carried IT!!!!! Alpha hasn't!

That's impressing.
Original Wuhan Virus AND Beta AND the original vaccines carry the suspicious sequence!!!!

Feel free to play.

@Palladin
I'll have a look at weekend.

 

I have read what Karl has posted there.
There is nothing wrong about.
To instruct human cells by injection to make an antigen is NEW GROUND.
Those vaccines are, per se, gene therapeutics.

To 'use' the / a pandemic to push them via mass vaccination was wrong. The reasonable approach would have been to develop 'common' vaccines, like the Chinese and India and other nations did. Also to re-purpose drugs.
We have a 'new' virus, a pandemic like never before and a new tech. This constellation MUST add risks to humanity. There are too many unknown variables. This is rational thinking.

A rational mind would have relied on what is either already there, and / or what is established already (tech.).
To develop a new tech such as vector virus vaccines and mRNA is subject of research 'in good times' following what humanity has achieved AKA proper science of 'how' we do it best to make new pharmaceuticals.

The future will tell us what we 'have done' by that....and what we are still doing.

Now being more specific....
I already posted the EUA is void in most vaccinated nations. The status of the vaccines is illegal now. They have to be withdrawn until a full approval has been done.

BA.5 vaccine update.
Actually you can update a vaccine without to do further testing at humans. It happens all the time with the flu vaccines. BUT there you have a common vaccine (used since 1942) where you PREDICT which flu strains would become a dominant one.
You administer parts of those predicted strains as an antigen directly. So they fail if other strains develop or are more or less good depending on how close the actual mutations still are.

At the BA.5 update it is the same.

EXCEPT:

We are just continuing with the same lack of safety we had when 'we' started with the mass vaccination.
The fault is not that it's only tested in 8 mice. The fault is that we STILL are applying a completely new tech without caring much about any safety related matters such as adverse event research, prospective studies etc.

We know what happens in 10 years after 10 years. Period. Flu vaccines are used since 1942. There are tons of still unresolved concerns. I posted a lot of them.

The BA.5 variant is a recent variant, not a future variant!

The severity of COVID has lessened since Omicron. To still apply such a new tech is not justifiable anymore. It is reckless.

Igor's newsletter:
The new vaccine still contains the old wuhan hu1 blueprint! This is scientifically seen a complete BS! (Besides of the fact that people still make that suspicious PRRA sequence then).

The inconsistency can be reasoned by a phenomenon called "Original Antigenic Sin".
There is a HUGE variance at the BA.5 titers! 75 times variation!!!! Which is no surprise.

Once you have trained your immune system against a specific variant human body creates MEMORY immune cells for that particular variant and by that human body occupies capacity.
So when you now give the bivalent vaccine, body knows the old one and wakes up those memory cells and makes antibody against it very quickly and consistent (as you can see at the graph).
This process is a energy demanding process and the AB producing process also has limited capacity.

Result: There is an inconsistent amount of capacity left for the AB production against BA.5.
Some individuals have 'invested' much energy in those memory cells, some rather not..it's individually different. (It's just like one person gets common cold every year multiple times, others don't have it got for years already)...
To have 'imprinted' the immune system with a former variant and the resulting negative events on reaction to new variants is called original antigenic sin, antigenic imprinting or Hoskins effect.
To avoid that effect an individual has to be exposed to (every) upcoming mutations which are from variant to variant LESSER than from wuhan to BA.5!

This is plain stupid!
I mean who ever would get wuhan and BA.5 together in real life?!?!?
But why could there still be a measurable positive effect anyway?

Because you ramp up the original AB titers against whuhan virus at first place and for instance BA.2.75 has some reversal mutations in it.
So the potential positive effects are purely coincidental. It's playing dice, no science.

 

I wondered why they (Igor's people) said ...73 times variance "we have no idea" and to me it was no surprise.
So I had a second look at it.

The keyword for this phenomenon is in the headline AND bottom line
"Omicron BA.4/5 Monovalent and bivalent BOOSTERS in mice..."
"Mice preimmunized with 2 doses of BNT162b2;"

Boosters mean those mice have got an old vaccination two times BEFOREHAND. So they have immune memory against Wuhan already.
First (blue-green bar) just a third vaccination with the old one again. Consistent profile at BA.4/5
Middle: Omi BA.4/5 alone as booster: and right (purple bars) inconsistent profile for BA.4/5 anyway sole BA.4/5 vaxx bar is higher than at bivalent vaccine.

This actually proves original antigenic sin.

Firstly: What is an epitope? It's the part of an antigen that is recognized by the immune system, specifically by antibodies, B cells, or T cells.

Mono BA.4/5: The immune system recognizes BA.4/5 antigen 'there' where its epitopes are still the same as wuhan Hu and also at epitopes which are unique to BA.4/5

At the former, the immune system 'thinks' Wuhan hu1 has arrived again, it wakes up all it has got against Wuhan hu1, the memory cells. This costs energy and resources to make those 'old' ABs very quickly
Are new epitopes recognized the immune system has no corresponding B and T cells and also no memory for it yet. So body needs to create them first and by that 'learns'...this takes time.

So how is the ratio of epitopes that are still present at both (wuhan hu1 and BA.4/5) and those which are completely unique to BA.4/5?? I don't know but does not matter to reason it with antigenic sin.

What matters is the fact that BA.4/5 are similar enough that they share identical epitopes with the wuhan virus

The ratio at the the bivalent vaccine has to be greater in favour of those who are common, right?
(Pure BA.4/5 antigen versus mixture of wuhan AND BA.4/5 antigen. The mixture MUST have a greater amount of shared epitopes)

This would reason why the AB graph of pure Omicron vaccine is inconsistent too, but higher than at the bivalent vaccine.
It's plain stupid to still add wuhan hu1 antigen!
By that you 'tell' the immune system the memory cells against Wuhan hu1 are still even more relevant in a way and you preserve the original antigenic sin even more.

There is a phrase:"If you cannot reason it by rationality, try to reason it by capitalism."
I bet they have tons of the old mRNA on stock. So they mix it to the new vaccines as well, better than to pour it down the drain.

One experiment is still left, though.

If the hypothesis "original antigenic sin" should be further verified one has to give the monovalent and bivalent shots to Unvaxxed.
Both inconsistencies at BA.4/5 titers should NOT be present then, because there is no memory yet.

The problem what Igor found (the huge inconsistency) shouldn't be present in naive / unvaxxed people.
But those updated shots are supposed to be booster. And I agree, the inconsistencies might be a problem.

I hope my logic is reproducible...

 

The lab leak theory has most evidences, more than the theory of being a zoonosis at Wuhan market.
I would not say on purpose, rather accidentally.

It's known that the Wuhan lab had serious security issues before the pandemic already.
It's known that they researched on corona viruses. They especially modified the spike so that the virus then CAN bind to human ACE2.

Huang Yang Ling disappeared mysteriously.



I personally support the lab leak theory. The furin cleavage site (and the RBD at the spike) probably has been engineered. For instance PRRA.
I firstly denied the lab leak theory but I changed my mind after I have read more and more sources.

"Furin Cleavage Site Is Key to SARS-CoV-2 Pathogenesis"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457603/

Relationship of PRRA to proprietary sequence.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000240

Here you can see how they dump waste inside of Wuhan lab



Some additional sources...
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18787

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/

 

ATM my interests are more on the cause side, not effect... (and I wanted to know if I have got that damn PRRA sequence when I was infected with Omicron)...

I suggest to all people interested reading here watch this: (as long as it is available)
You'll learn a lot how it's started. Malone IS a part of the outbreak HISTORY.

If you want a candy first goto 22:14!!! Recall "Furin cleavage site (here AKA as PRRA)" AND through 26:14 and 27:46

SARS-COV-2 IS engineered. The tech comes from North Carolina, Ralph Baric and has been delivered to the 'bat lady' Shi Zhengli in Wuhan lab of virology.- 27:56

SARS-COV-2 is a product of gain of function research cooperation between the US and China and COVID-19 is a result of a lab escape in Wuhan.
The evidences are damning...

And the joke is: Even the 'new' vaccine from Pfizer is still translating to PRRA since it still contains the Wuhan-Hu1 spike mRNA!
Make your own opinion. Thank you!

 

Here I needed for sure....
All the more WHEN you have the evidences right before your eye the own 'high claim' is satisfied and has by that a high 'quality'.

It is as clear as 'you'll never find any plastics such as polycarbonate occurring naturally'

This is the first interview where somebody is saying (Malone) what happened when he got the phone call from Michael Callahan "DARPA's man in Wuhan" https://unlimitedhangout.com/2020/07/investigative-reports/darpas-man-in-wuhan/

My own analyses of the papers I also posted here already indicated that it's engineered.

I downloaded this YouTube video via offliberty to keep it personally saved.
And thank god we have the waybackmachine (proves the relationship of US AKA EcoHealth Alliance to the lab before the pandemic)
The U.S. Counselor visited Wuhan Institute of Virology, CAS----Wuhan Institute of Virology (archive.org)
Wayback Machine (archive.org) "Second China-U.S. Workshop on the Challenges of Emerging Infections, Laboratory Safety and Global Health Security May 17-19, 2017 Wuhan, China Meeting Report"

This applies to all scientists involved in the gain of function research.