Coronavirus | Discussion

I did not expect a reply to 'my' daring hypothesis of consciousness being fundamental.
So I probably move it to an own thread with your reply.

Getting back to the related content here.
I am trying to get a bit of a structure of my reply. Although at the time now writing it I have no concrete idea...still.

You accept the existence of electrons, although the claim of a 'physical' existence is also not satisfied.

At MS you need to get a particle / particles actually being charged, either positive or negative, so that it at least carries one charge. Then you make them 'fly' through an electromagnetic field.
According to the laws of physics it undergoes deflection. The degree of deflection is proportional to the charge and the mass it has got. By that you can determine its mass.

MS is one of the few scientific methods that requires no relative measurement, relative to a standard.
A relative measurement is for instance length. How do you measure the length of something? You get a ruler and compare the sample to it. Then you determine how many of its units are 'taken in'.
If the ruler is faulty, your result is also.

You cannot measure a single particle, though. The response of a single particle would vanish behind the noise floor of the detector. But if there are enough particles of the same mass, you get a signal out of the noise floor showing up.
Tiny amounts of femtogram are sufficient, dependent on the kind of mass spectrometer. Such devices usually cost almost a million.

So what do you actually measure? Particles that have a certain mass and charge.
How do you then conclude it is ASA?
You apply chemistry. You know the structure of ASA and calculate its molar mass, plus a proton to include the charge for instance.

Is there certainty? Some. It behaves according to the theory.
How to get more certainty? You either stick to the same method and fragment the particle applying some electrical force. Then you measure the masses of the resulted fragments. If they still behave according to the theory you get more certainty.
OR:
You test the sample ALSO using complete other scientific methods. NMR spectroscopy for instance. And one more IR. Infrared spectroscopy. Melting point. Or you couple different methods. For instance LC-MS. Liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry.

So why have I chosen this approach of arguments?
Finally it's all about certainty and common agreement of science. To become a primary reference substance ASA, it has to undergo most of different scientific measurements to satisfy results according to the theory. In other words you characterize the substance.

One thing what we are doing as well. If you find an unknown substance for instance in a plant and we get an idea of its organic structure by even applying those different methods, we also synthesize the same molecule to get even more certainty that the structure is right.

Do we really know what ASA IS? Actually not. But this drifts into philosophical aspects.

So if your or somebody else's claim is an isolated virus must be mandatory in order to grant existence of it. It is a claim which obviously is not shared at established science.
There is nothing right or wrong about it, though.
But a fact is that there is virus and there is spike. Also in an amount that it gets physical appearance. You can even order it. Supplier such as Thermo Fisher do offer them.

It would be easily possible to make the spike protein itself instead of the mRNA blueprint. And out of it a vaccine using even that spike directly instead of the mRNA. A German researcher did that already BEFORE they got the mRNA vaccines.
His name is Winfried Stöcker. Maybe google him.
I posted that as a reply when somebody denied the existence of the virus itself:
https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/coronavirus-discussion.81224/page-164#post-1690983

If the latter is true, THEN the method is flawed. Easy.

It wouldn't be flawed IF the chosen characteristics are not present at a control. Only then we can speak of a foreign RNA or part of it.
Characteristics are: The sequence of the RNA bases themselves and the length of it between the 3' and 5' ends.

So what do you multiply? At best a RNA sequence (properly reverse transcribed to DNA) that is not found in human body elsewhere and which is a part of a complete RNA that would, if it is translated at a human ribosome, become that what we call a RNA virus.

Finally a reply to the Wuhan lab and their abilities.
Their papers, I guess I have posted some of those here somewhere, remarkably and shockingly demonstrate how they performed to attach modified spikes so that viruses can more easily attach to human receptors in order to enter / infect human cells.

This by the way was the first evidence scientists found, why the zoonosis hypothesis is flawed.

It would have to adapt naturally by mutations to human ACE2 over some time first if it would come from an animal.
But SARS-COV2 original wuhan-hu1 strain already had the greatest affinity to human ACE2, far more than to suspected animal hosts.

 

My latest posts are about new scientific findings about the mRNA vaccines, else more general scientific contents. The only political statement I did is how I defined the conspiracy.
It can be summarized like:" The wuhan lab released the virus 'others' made sure that the mRNA vaccines can have success. They had no chance at 'ordinary' conditions to even pass Phase I as they never did before."

I reasoned why. People were held in an artificial and exaggerated fear state to get pushed to the vaccines. By that science was treated with contempt. Censorship. Things and knowledge which is usually taught at the few first semesters ignored, for instance that a vaccine that would be against a respiratory virus ever would protect against infection or even would make people getting sterilizing immunity!

-The definition of the term pandemic was changed.
-PCR positive was suddenly equal to sick by COVID
-a mRNA which IS scientifically categorized a gene therapeutic has been declared to BE excluded and categorized as vaccine. All to circumvent the very strict regulations of gene therapeutics.
-Efficacy which is usually and actually ALWAYS calculated as absolute at vaccines is suddenly calculated as relative! 95% efficacy sounds better than the real and meaningful absolute of 0.4%. I did that calculation somewhere here...

In other words: Science was bent by those who want to have those 'new' vaccines at any costs.

I quoted your bit, because it is absolutely wrong. It must be a leftover from even that conspiracy that still sits as truth in your mind.
I have already posted about Winfried Stöcker.

To make a particular part of the virus and using it as antigen is even more easy and AS fast AS to make mRNA or vector DNA blueprints. Both can be done by plasmids.
And you can adapt the antigens to new variants as fast as.

There is absolutely NO reason why we would have to use gene therapeutics as a vaccine. A tech which is old, which never had a chance due to massive issues and anyway new, new in that way that those all who got vaccinated by them took part at an human experiment.
An experiment that is still ongoing, because still people take the shot and those who have already are at the mercy of its and its impurity's biochemistry.

The plasmids finding is shocking! You would be also when knowing what plasmids are and what they could do!!!

Others who took the conventional route making conventional vaccines like the Chinese and India got accused to have weaker vaccines. An accusation without any scientific background.
Both vaccines are weak and that was expectable since it is a respiratory virus that mutates such like flu with one major exception.
We know how the conventional vaccines work due of decades of practical experience.

To push a new tech to humans at a newly defined pandemic is not only unreasonable, it is criminal.
Each reasonable person would go for conventional tech, all the more at a pandemic! The argument that it would take more time comes from those who wanted to push the gene therapeutics.

There is no truth behind it. Stöcker was faster (he used the RBD trimer protein as antigen and added an already approved adjuvant) the Chinese were faster. They used an attenuated virus and parts of it!!

 

YES, we have and yes, 'we' humans had realized them before the mRNA vaccines already!
The Chinese vaccine from Sinopharm is conventional and India's Covaxin IS as well!
I am speaking of plain facts, no assumptions we could have had.

We here had the Stöcker story and how he got silenced by officials pushing their genetic stuff...
Also at the beginning of this thread when I posted about vaccines I posted those are conventional!

At a conventional vaccine the only unknown part is the chosen antigen, at a completely new tech based on gene therapeutics there is a hell more. Also the ingredients just like LNP never have got an approval before. Furthermore ALC-0315, the one from Pfizer has been firstly declared as cancer suspect agent before used at Pfizer vaccine for instance. There's still screen shots of their supplier's site where the note was visible until at all of a sudden it vanished.

And also here they did it far better at conventional vaccines!
They did not choose the pathogenic whole spike alone of which nobody really knows how much and how long one is producing them through mRNA blueprint, they took a much broader range of epitopes.

So tell me, why not 'we' the Europeans and the US?!?!?

 

The conventional respiratory virus related vaccines are as weak as the mRNA vaccines and as weak as the flu vaccines.
The reason for that is that we are dealing with a respiratory related virus at both cases, you cannot fool virology. Both viruses enter body through the respiratory tract and therefore require IgA antibodies in order to have a chance.

I have reasoned that already, but even virologists who have actually learned that at their first semester of study should know that and have denied that due to 'religion' obeying MSM narratives.
The reason is simple. As soon as you inject the vaccine into a muscle you choose a different path of 'administering' the antigen. Only mimicking a similar path could change that for instance a nasal vaccine since it also would have to go the same airway as a natural infection!

Your arguing is seriously flawed.
I always said and I know that from my own profession:
An ordinary and reasonable development of a new drug takes 10-12 years. The shortest dev of a vaccine was 5 years. It could be as safe and effective as ....ONLY because we have experiences at conventional vaccines!
So at a pandemic where time is short either way, you seriously argue against conventional vaccines? IF shortening of dev time can be justified then ONLY at relying to conventional tech.

Trying to Introduce a new tech where time is short is pure madness! Its failure is a plain consequence of ignorance.

P.S.: I try to find new info about the Cuban vaccine since I am curious as well.

About new cases I don't know. Here it is quiet except the excess mortality in Europe, which correlates with the time of administering the mRNA mass campaign.

The 'game' is not over yet. It can easily turn out that the overall result is negative and the mRNA vaccines really caused more harm that good.

 

I am not against research.
But I think we should do that at 'quiet' times.

At a pandemic we should rely on what we have figured out already.
Conventional and already approved and established drugs and tech.

 

Yes, but not done. Started maybe....it never passed successfully a phase I study due to serious issues before the pandemic. BioNTech was close to become bankrupt.

So no wonder even Pfizer saying (Dr. Janssen): "We flew the plane while we were building it."
The speeding process mainly was ignoring proper pharmacovigliance, it was not about speeding up scientific research.
You cannot buy time. And therefore you cannot buy safety.

The mRNA tech actually was and still is not available to human use. Its proper place to be is clinical trial.....anything else is irresponsible.

 

This of course applies to any new development, not only mRNA vaccines.

Time was short, yes, and that always takes into account. You actually have no chance other than to shorten (pharmacoviglicance related) tests.
But what we should not do is to ignore that fact. We IMHO do ignore that by going for a tech where we know far less about rather than to go for a tech where we know much more about.

Back to the Cuban vaccine.
There is not much new info about. At least I didn't find some.
You mean Soberana, right?
https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/coronavirus-discussion.81224/page-205#post-1726244

There are 3 different ones.
According to wiki 2 have got EUA at some countries.
Soberana-2: Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico.
Soberana Plus: Cuba, Belarus, Mexico.

Soberana-1 seems to be abandoned.

Since those vaccines have been administered to far less people and there is no new info I cannot assess how they are.
At that old post I have posted what kind they are, though.
Soberana-2 is a conjugate. A recombinant protein (actually the antigen, they have chosen the RBD) to tetanus toxin.

To use a recombinant protein is established tech, a conjugate to tetanus toxin is new, though.
I suppose they use it as an adjuvant.
Soberana Plus then is the recombinant protein alone. (There the dimer of the RBD)

A vaccine basically consists of an antigen and an adjuvant which 'amplifies' the antigen by poking the immune system.
At mRNA it is special. You have not an antigen, but a blue print of it, the mRNA. By packing it into LNPs you transfect it into a human cell. There it should alert the immune system. THIS is the crux, though. You force human body to make foreign proteins and that not only at the injection site, anywhere at human body. LNPs do spread and that was predictable!

Short:
Soberana-2: Common antigen use, new attempt of an adjuvant (tetanus toxin)
Soberana Plus: Common antigen use.

Both: They use the RBD of the spike only. This is the ReceptorBindingDomain of the spike alone. The 'docking site' of the spike to human cells so to say. Since we know now the spike is pathogenic, this was probably a better approach.

If comparable at all Soberana is similar to the Novavax vaccine. They also use a recombinant protein, although the entire spike, and as adjuvant also a new one called Matrix-M, coming from a natural source, though. Saponins from Quillaja saponaria (Soapbark) tree.