Page 71 of Novavax's briefing notes: https://www.fda.gov/media/158914/download mentions: ". . . data received up to April 30, 2022. More than 740,000 doses of vaccine have been administered in Indonesia, Australia, EU, New Zealand and South Korea. The report included 35 spontaneous reports of suspected myocarditis or pericarditis, none of which met a definitive case definition. Ten reports met a probable case definition of pericarditis and 1 report met a probable case definition of myocarditis. All of the probable cases originated from Australia." . . . "Many of these reports are missing important information including diagnostic workup. Two cases appear to be duplicates reports which, if confirmed, will reduce the total number of probable pericarditis cases to 8." and "It is worth noting that there are currently a number of anomalies in the preliminary reporting of these cases. Most notably, all of the probable and possible cases that have been reported from Australia, a country that represents ~17% of the doses administered to date.".
Thanks Robin, you've provided a lot of information. I'll return later to comment on the first two posts since that will take some time to read. But yes, I have heard that a few people have had adverse reactions to Novavax in Australia. I believe a few subscribers here mentioned it. I'll include the information provided and I may look further into it later on.
Yes indeed your hypotheses are quite plausible. I don't know why on earth EVERYBODY (with power, that is) has forgotten we have an innate immune response! None of us were born immune to anything and considering that the overwhelming majority of people do not suffer from SCIDS we have managed to create an immune response to countless pathogens (or perhaps pollen or bee venom much to our chagrin). Sadly the vaccine does potentially seem to illicit more harm than good by by-passing our innate immune system. I think the majority of people would be able to fight off the disease before it got out of control as opposed to the vaccine where it seems like it could get out of control (in regards that there is uncontrolled cytotoxic spike protein production). And now seeing how many vaccinated people are contracting the disease it makes you wonder WHY was this even attempted in the first place.
It's either through pure serendipity that we have survived this long, or we have created an immune system that was curated over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years.
We have a generally unhealthy populace, and yet the response to our overall unhealthiness is to just provide immediate treatments. We're sacrificing our own bodies to modernity and then try to cure it with modernity. Rinse and repeat.
(2 of 2) That people were encouraged or forced to accept this type of treatment - AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson - without a decade or so of successful, non-problematic, testing, is a crime against humanity and a powerful reason for completely distrusting multinational pharma companies and the government bodies which regulate them and who create advisory and forceful government health policies.
4 - mRNA quasi-vaccines (mRQV), in which novel lipid nanoparticles are used to deliver mRNA to cells (as with AAVQVs) to any cell, anywhere, especially that, as with those AAVQVs) the injections were given without a requirement to aspirate the needle, so some people would have had the injected material go straight into their bloodstream, rather than lodge, as intended in local muscle. In any case, the lymphatic system and likely minor blood vessels causes some of the injected mRNA of AAVQV material to go into wide circulation.
The mRNA is built with pseudouridine rather than uridine bases (https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/when-is-mrna-not-really-mrna) to make it less likely to be degraded. (Cells normally rapidly degrade mRNA so that a constant supply of it is required from transcription in the nucleus, from the cell's DNA, in order to substantially alter the ribosomes' protein production.) This has all the problems of producing spike protein, as just mentioned as well as, just as with AAVQVs, the likelihood of spike proteins floating around in the bloodstream.
Furthermore, as with AAVQV, alterations to the mRNA (copied from AV DNA in the case of AAVQVs, or the just-replicated mRNA in these mRQVs) may be altered before it programs the ribosomes to produce spike proteins. mRNA editing is a pervasive and naturally healthy (in the case of normal mRNA, and perhaps even viral mRNA in order to disable it) process in all cells. The result would be altered spike protein structures, with different epitopes, and so the possibility that the immune system will develop antibodies for epitopes not found on the real SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins, and perhaps which exist on the body's own proteins.
For all four approaches (and there are no-doubt other techniques I have not listed, which are probably not in wide use) there are several fundamental problems:
A - It is well known that the narrow immunity induced by any such vaccination approach is both vulnerable to and in real life highly subject to being made of less value due to the rapid evolution of the coronaviruses. We have seen this with SARS-CoV-2 in general, but also at a completely unprecedented rate in which we are now on our 3rd or 4th generation of Omicron evolution to be more transmissible and/or to escape previous immunity, including from prior Omicron variants) and this is early June, just over 6 months after the Omicron viruses first became widespread in November last year.
B - In a highly "vaccine" treated population, this drives increased diversity in viral evolution, so encouraging the development of novel variants which not only escape "vaccine"-induced immunity, but which may have other features which make them intrinsically more virulent and/or transmissible.
C - It is also well-known that induced immune responses fade - and fade more rapidly than those produced by real infection.
D - All these four approaches to "vaccination", except to the limited extent that the fluid travels widely throughout the body, generates an immune response outside the nasal passages where we really want it to be developed for a respiratory virus. This lack of humoral immunity makes the induced immunity much less effective than that which is developed from natural infection. (Nasal spray "vaccines" are an attempt to solve this problem.)
E - The spike proteins which are introduced into the body (manufactured en-masse in the case of AAVQVs and mRQVs) are cytotoxic. They harm many people, probably in ways which are not currently understood and which have long-term consequences. They are now well known (I am not sure about the non-replicative virus vaccines causing harm, but surely they do - and it seems that Novavax does) to seriously and rapidly harm a significant number of people and to outright kill some of these.
It has always been reckless to use any of these treatments outside carefully monitored trials, in the absence of the typical 10 years of intensive research which is required to establish that even a conventional vaccine is (to some reasonable standard) safe and effective.
Now we can see (or at least those who are prepared to contemplate this) that the whole project has been doomed to failure from a physical and scientific perspective, and has been a monstrous crime against humanity, due to:
1 - The promotion and forcing of these "vaccines" on whole populations, with the excessive faith and hope in their effectiveness used to justify the withholding of early treatments and nutritional improvement.
2 - The effectiveness of the "vaccines" being far less than promised or reasonably expected regarding prevention of transmission and infection, and so of curtailing pandemic transmission.
3 - The waning protection against serious symptoms (in the absence of proper 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels).
4 - The outright harm and death caused by the "vaccines" themselves - with understanding of the full range of harms likely to emerge in the years to come.
5 - All the associated problems of false faith in "vaccines" leading to oppressive laws, "vaccine" mandates, excessive reliance on harmful and ineffective lockdowns, social distancing and masks, profits flowing to pharma companies, which also corrupts doctors and regulators.
This is a very brief and surely incomplete summary of the multiple entangled disasters which have been entirely man-made - even if the SARS-CoV-2 virus was natural, and it was surely man-made as well.
(1 of 2) Thanks for this article and for all your articles with such detailed, thoughtful and pertinent research!
This is (or would be, if everyone properly recognised all the problems) the final nail in the coffin of trying to use vaccines and quasi-vaccines to tackle COVID-19. Such "vaccines" invariably introduce spike proteins into the body, since the spike protein is the most important, highly accessible, protein the immune system should target. The spike protein is cytotoxic - so the treatments are unsafe and all-too-frequently cause suffering, lasting damage and death.
Even if these "vaccines" were highly effective, this would rule them out for general use. However, they are largely ineffective, except for a while in reducing severity in the large majority of people who are infected, and who have poor immune responses due, at least, to totally inadequate levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. See my Substack https://nutritionmatters.substack.com and the submission to a UK government enquiry from Patrick W. Chambers MD and myself: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/ . Proper 50ng/mL or more 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels would be far more protective against severe infection than the immunity induced by these "vaccines" for the great majority of people whose levels are 5 to 25 ng/mL.
To attain good levels all year round, in the absence of high, carcinogenic, levels of UV-B skin exposure, it is necessary to supplement about 70 to 100 IU of vitamin D3 per day per kilogram bodyweight. This is 0.125mg 5000 IU for typical average non-obese adult bodyweights such as 70kg 154 lb. (Those suffering from obesity need higher ratios - see: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#06-ratios.) 5000 IU sounds like a lot, but it is a gram every 22 years - and pharma-grade vitamin D3 costs USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory.
The COVID-19 vaccines in current widespread use are of these four types:
1 - Non-replicating virus: Chinese and I think some Russian and perhaps Indian.
2 - Virus-like lipid particles with synthetic spike proteins on the outside: Novavax. This is a novel kind of vaccine, but I think is properly referred to as a "vaccine" since it is functionally much like a non-replicating virus.
3 - Adenovirus vector quasi-vaccines (AAVQVs): infective but non-replicating DNA adenovirus programs the infected cell to produce spike protein according to its DNA instructions. So the spike is a somewhat modified version of the (in current production, 2020 model early SARS-CoV-2) viral spike protein. I recall the lower parts are altered, but that the top is reasonably authentic. This is produced inside the cell with the intention that it migrates to cell membrane, with the cell therefore being adorned with spike proteins for the immune system to recognise and produce antibodies to match one or more prominent epitopes of the protein, as it would for a SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The natural, healthy (if this was a virus), reaction of the immune system is then to destroy whatever has those spikes on it, in this case the infected cells, which are much larger and more complex than viruses. I think a natural, healthy (if this was a virus), reaction would be to learn about other epitopes of the cell - distinctive amino-acid sequences in prominent parts of proteins on the outside of the cell, and perhaps on the inside as it is broken up by macrophages. It would not be surprising if the immune system, in some cases, developed a strong antibody response to epitopes of these these proteins as well, with long-term bad consequences for other cells with the same proteins or other proteins which have these epitopes, at least on exterior membrane proteins.
This is, of course, a really unwise - to the point of reckless stupidity - thing to do to any living creature. It is not surprising that all sorts of bad things happen, such as just described, or the immune system attacking the non-replicating adenovirus on the initial and especially subsequent injections.
Also, the modified adenovirus can cause trouble in itself, with such a large number instantly introduced, rather than growing incrementally as in a natural adenovirus infection. Furthermore, it would not be surprising if some people already had immune responses to the novel synthetic adenovirus which caused trouble and/or reduced its ability to program cells for the intended purpose.
Another potential problem is that if the infected cell may be also infected with a related adenovirus, then through recombination (normally happens in DNA replication, but I guess it can occur with replicated RNA as well) a new virus might be assembled - even just one of them - which contains genetic material from the natural virus now spliced into the synthetic virus' genome in a way which supplies all the genes which were edited out of the vaccine virus to stop it replicating. Then we might have a novel, infectious, adenovirus which replicates and spreads to other people and non-human animals, which is firstly intrinsically bad and secondly is bad in that the new virus presumably programs infected cells to create spike proteins. This is a current hypothesis regarding the global wave of pediatric hepatitis, perhaps with the novel adenovirus interacting with prior immunity or co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 or some other pathogen.
Is there a technical reason all of the vaccines key on the Spike protein? Wouldn't it make sense for each vaccine to target a different part of the virus?
Clarisse answered it below, so I'll just comment that of all the antigens of SARS-COV2 that one can target the best choice would have been the spike protein. It was the ideal protein because it is involved in receptor binding and is presented on the outside of the virion. The main problem is that, because the spike is also cytotoxic, it just leads to a predicament that creation of the spike whether through the vaccine or the virus will lead to the same cytotoxic effects.
I would guess that since the spike is on the surface of the virus the thought would be that the vaccine-induced antibodies would bind to the virus (block all the spike proteins preventing it from binding to the ACEII receptors on our cells) before it could gain entry into our cells and proliferate and cause cold-like symptoms. It does appear that the N protein is quite immunogeneic (capable of inducing immune response). I suppose that wasn't attempted as the N protein probably isn't "seen" until cells are already infected.
Very interesting article! I think there are a few things worth pointing out.
The codon optimization is really interesting. Based on the articles you cited it appears that Comirnaty uses codon optimization while the vaccines under EUA approval do not? That may be a big issue. I don't know much about codon optimization, but it's assumed that although different codons code for the same amino acid some act as stall regions. In essence, certain codons slow down the translation of the protein, and there's a belief that doing so aids in the proper folding of the protein. In codon optimization these stall codons are swapped for codons that are translated quicker, and so there is a concern that this may actually lead to a misfolding of the protein. As such, there is a worry that codon optimization within the vaccines may lead to a structure that is not similar to the actual spike. What that means as of now is uncertain, it could mean that people are producing antibodies that are not targeting the proper protein, it could mean that the cytotoxic effects of the spike may either be exacerbated or attenuated. I don't think many studies have actually isolated the crystal structure of the vaccine-produced spike, let alone conducted any isolation of antibodies from vaccinated individuals to compare to those with natural immunity.
For the trimeric structure, the spike protein is a homotrimer- it looks kind of like a clover in essence. I'm not sure whether the vaccine produces the trimeric structure- I generally assumed it only produced the monomeric subunits, but I haven't looked into that aspect too deeply.
Keep in mind that nearly all coronaviruses share the trimeric structure, and so a patent from years ago is likely to be part of the continuous search for a coronavirus vaccine that has never come to fruition due to things such as ADE in animal trials.
Personally for me, the association between the proline residue and any suggestion of snake venom is one that I would be very hesitant to make. In general, any association to snake venom as suggested by Dr. Ardis I find to be heavily unsubstantiated. Keep in mind that proline residues are found in many of our own proteins, so the fact that the proline was swapped does not correlate to snake proteins from that alone.
I haven't read the article, but I glanced it a bit and it references toxic shock syndrome. I'm assuming the association between snake venom and the spike is due to the toxic shock syndrome being synonymized with MIS, which again would be something I would hesitate to argue as toxic shock syndrome can have many causes and not just snake venom. The fact that snake venom can cause toxic shock syndrome does not immediately conclude that the spike is snake venom in nature.
That's a few things so far based on my quick reading. It is really interesting with the whole situation with Comirnaty. I may look into it further but the whole "similar, not the same" issue is something really fascinating.
"COMIRNATY and BNT162b2 (V8) have identical amino acid sequences of the encoded antigens but COMIRNATY includes the presence of optimized codons to improve antigen expression."
Since this sentence would suggest that Comirnaty is codon optimized yet BNT is not. At least that's how I interpreted. However, I do believe BNT is codon-optimized so I am actually confused what they are alluding to here.
Exactly! It's so be design - BioNTech can always claim they meant something different from what jumps immediately to mind on the first reading. Unless you have reasons to interpret differently. The cunning deception.
As to the venoms, it's seems as an unnecessary and counterproductive sensatialization, unless supported by some sort of concrete arguments why this is the case.
We are so focused on myocarditis and not all the other horrible side effects such as the blood clotting and neurological disorders. I'm still going to bet that Novavax fares better on these fronts. It has a set amount of spike protein, and your body won't be producing spike indefinitely. Does that mean everyone needs to run out and get Novavax? No, but I have loved ones who are being really pressured and/or already taking damaging mRNA shots so I am still hoping Novavax fares better overall.
I'm inclined to agree with you Stephanie. In the world of vaccine adverse reactions, the Novavax ones may be the less toxic. A weird string of words to put together to be quite honest. Years ago I probably wouldn't have considered such an idea.
Like you stated, the number of spike protein produced is finite. It also doesn't rely on your own cells which is quite honestly a plus as well.
The suppressed letter read, in part: “We have voluntarily collected information on 1,000 plus cases, including vaccine takers, time and location of vaccination, pre-vaccination health status, post-vaccination symptoms, type of leukemia, and courses of treatment. These detailed data and information are of certain statistical significance.”.
It's unfortunate we don't have much information on Sinovax. Of all the vaccines, this one should have had the longest R&D and would take years to develop. The leukemia is interesting. I do wonder if this is due to some additive or if it could be due to the reduced immune function within the first few weeks of injection that could lead to an emergence in certain groups where leukemia would be kept in check albeit very precariously.
All becomes clear if one views it from the perspective that the shots are only about causing harm. Is that a correct view? I don't know, but it sure clarifies a number of things, and leads to other interesting possibilities.
Well that begs the question as to whether what we are seeing is due to malice or incompetence. Like I stated, I think they were wholly ignorant to the actual cytotoxic effects of the spike until after the vaccines were already well-along into the clinical trials. Also, there really is no other antigen to utilize if you wanted to try to neutralize the virus. The only problem is the cytotoxicity.
It's kind of a cliffhanger, this story. But when something goes this badly, I run various scenarios in my mind, including ones where the outcome was the goal.
It's definitely understandable. I think many people have rightfully become more skeptical of many institutions that we would have otherwise never doubted. One of my concerns, though, is that there may be a reaction to the other side, such that now everything the CDC or FDA says is done with malice. Science is always growing, and things that were once considered helpful may eventually be proven to either not work or actually be harmful. I think the main problem is that in this scenario there doesn't appear to be the type of reflection and transparency we should have expected. It's one of the reasons why the whole heart inflammation scenario is so dumbfounding because they're acting like they aren't really sure what's causing it, when at this point all the evidence is starting to converge.
all vaccines create an immune response. NVAX vaccine is no different. But its not likely spike protein that causes the myocarditis in NVAX case - its most likely Ab's to the spike that are across reacting with myocardial cells.
Its not real hard - the spike is attracted to ACE binding sites, Ab's that form to the spike may be attracted as well, ACE binding sites in cardiac muscle ...
(3) The Epoch Times is reporting the FDA's concern: https://www.theepochtimes.com/fda-flags-heart-inflammation-risk-over-covid-19-vaccine_4510371.html .
AN FDA briefing document with the Novavax myocarditis/pericarditis case details (page 45 onwards - 7 cases): https://www.fda.gov/media/158912/download .
Page 71 of Novavax's briefing notes: https://www.fda.gov/media/158914/download mentions: ". . . data received up to April 30, 2022. More than 740,000 doses of vaccine have been administered in Indonesia, Australia, EU, New Zealand and South Korea. The report included 35 spontaneous reports of suspected myocarditis or pericarditis, none of which met a definitive case definition. Ten reports met a probable case definition of pericarditis and 1 report met a probable case definition of myocarditis. All of the probable cases originated from Australia." . . . "Many of these reports are missing important information including diagnostic workup. Two cases appear to be duplicates reports which, if confirmed, will reduce the total number of probable pericarditis cases to 8." and "It is worth noting that there are currently a number of anomalies in the preliminary reporting of these cases. Most notably, all of the probable and possible cases that have been reported from Australia, a country that represents ~17% of the doses administered to date.".
Thanks Robin, you've provided a lot of information. I'll return later to comment on the first two posts since that will take some time to read. But yes, I have heard that a few people have had adverse reactions to Novavax in Australia. I believe a few subscribers here mentioned it. I'll include the information provided and I may look further into it later on.
Yes indeed your hypotheses are quite plausible. I don't know why on earth EVERYBODY (with power, that is) has forgotten we have an innate immune response! None of us were born immune to anything and considering that the overwhelming majority of people do not suffer from SCIDS we have managed to create an immune response to countless pathogens (or perhaps pollen or bee venom much to our chagrin). Sadly the vaccine does potentially seem to illicit more harm than good by by-passing our innate immune system. I think the majority of people would be able to fight off the disease before it got out of control as opposed to the vaccine where it seems like it could get out of control (in regards that there is uncontrolled cytotoxic spike protein production). And now seeing how many vaccinated people are contracting the disease it makes you wonder WHY was this even attempted in the first place.
It's either through pure serendipity that we have survived this long, or we have created an immune system that was curated over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years.
We have a generally unhealthy populace, and yet the response to our overall unhealthiness is to just provide immediate treatments. We're sacrificing our own bodies to modernity and then try to cure it with modernity. Rinse and repeat.
I was at a recent music jam, none of us jabbed. As we went around hugging each other, the phrase "No spikes here" elicited knowing chuckles...
Should I expect a remix of I've Got no Strings but Strings replaced with Spike?
I've got no spikes to hold me up....
Pinocchio I'm not! But I like reworking songs so I'll think about it!
(2 of 2) That people were encouraged or forced to accept this type of treatment - AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson - without a decade or so of successful, non-problematic, testing, is a crime against humanity and a powerful reason for completely distrusting multinational pharma companies and the government bodies which regulate them and who create advisory and forceful government health policies.
4 - mRNA quasi-vaccines (mRQV), in which novel lipid nanoparticles are used to deliver mRNA to cells (as with AAVQVs) to any cell, anywhere, especially that, as with those AAVQVs) the injections were given without a requirement to aspirate the needle, so some people would have had the injected material go straight into their bloodstream, rather than lodge, as intended in local muscle. In any case, the lymphatic system and likely minor blood vessels causes some of the injected mRNA of AAVQV material to go into wide circulation.
The mRNA is built with pseudouridine rather than uridine bases (https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/when-is-mrna-not-really-mrna) to make it less likely to be degraded. (Cells normally rapidly degrade mRNA so that a constant supply of it is required from transcription in the nucleus, from the cell's DNA, in order to substantially alter the ribosomes' protein production.) This has all the problems of producing spike protein, as just mentioned as well as, just as with AAVQVs, the likelihood of spike proteins floating around in the bloodstream.
Furthermore, as with AAVQV, alterations to the mRNA (copied from AV DNA in the case of AAVQVs, or the just-replicated mRNA in these mRQVs) may be altered before it programs the ribosomes to produce spike proteins. mRNA editing is a pervasive and naturally healthy (in the case of normal mRNA, and perhaps even viral mRNA in order to disable it) process in all cells. The result would be altered spike protein structures, with different epitopes, and so the possibility that the immune system will develop antibodies for epitopes not found on the real SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins, and perhaps which exist on the body's own proteins.
For all four approaches (and there are no-doubt other techniques I have not listed, which are probably not in wide use) there are several fundamental problems:
A - It is well known that the narrow immunity induced by any such vaccination approach is both vulnerable to and in real life highly subject to being made of less value due to the rapid evolution of the coronaviruses. We have seen this with SARS-CoV-2 in general, but also at a completely unprecedented rate in which we are now on our 3rd or 4th generation of Omicron evolution to be more transmissible and/or to escape previous immunity, including from prior Omicron variants) and this is early June, just over 6 months after the Omicron viruses first became widespread in November last year.
B - In a highly "vaccine" treated population, this drives increased diversity in viral evolution, so encouraging the development of novel variants which not only escape "vaccine"-induced immunity, but which may have other features which make them intrinsically more virulent and/or transmissible.
C - It is also well-known that induced immune responses fade - and fade more rapidly than those produced by real infection.
D - All these four approaches to "vaccination", except to the limited extent that the fluid travels widely throughout the body, generates an immune response outside the nasal passages where we really want it to be developed for a respiratory virus. This lack of humoral immunity makes the induced immunity much less effective than that which is developed from natural infection. (Nasal spray "vaccines" are an attempt to solve this problem.)
E - The spike proteins which are introduced into the body (manufactured en-masse in the case of AAVQVs and mRQVs) are cytotoxic. They harm many people, probably in ways which are not currently understood and which have long-term consequences. They are now well known (I am not sure about the non-replicative virus vaccines causing harm, but surely they do - and it seems that Novavax does) to seriously and rapidly harm a significant number of people and to outright kill some of these.
It has always been reckless to use any of these treatments outside carefully monitored trials, in the absence of the typical 10 years of intensive research which is required to establish that even a conventional vaccine is (to some reasonable standard) safe and effective.
Now we can see (or at least those who are prepared to contemplate this) that the whole project has been doomed to failure from a physical and scientific perspective, and has been a monstrous crime against humanity, due to:
1 - The promotion and forcing of these "vaccines" on whole populations, with the excessive faith and hope in their effectiveness used to justify the withholding of early treatments and nutritional improvement.
2 - The effectiveness of the "vaccines" being far less than promised or reasonably expected regarding prevention of transmission and infection, and so of curtailing pandemic transmission.
3 - The waning protection against serious symptoms (in the absence of proper 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels).
4 - The outright harm and death caused by the "vaccines" themselves - with understanding of the full range of harms likely to emerge in the years to come.
5 - All the associated problems of false faith in "vaccines" leading to oppressive laws, "vaccine" mandates, excessive reliance on harmful and ineffective lockdowns, social distancing and masks, profits flowing to pharma companies, which also corrupts doctors and regulators.
This is a very brief and surely incomplete summary of the multiple entangled disasters which have been entirely man-made - even if the SARS-CoV-2 virus was natural, and it was surely man-made as well.
(1 of 2) Thanks for this article and for all your articles with such detailed, thoughtful and pertinent research!
This is (or would be, if everyone properly recognised all the problems) the final nail in the coffin of trying to use vaccines and quasi-vaccines to tackle COVID-19. Such "vaccines" invariably introduce spike proteins into the body, since the spike protein is the most important, highly accessible, protein the immune system should target. The spike protein is cytotoxic - so the treatments are unsafe and all-too-frequently cause suffering, lasting damage and death.
Even if these "vaccines" were highly effective, this would rule them out for general use. However, they are largely ineffective, except for a while in reducing severity in the large majority of people who are infected, and who have poor immune responses due, at least, to totally inadequate levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. See my Substack https://nutritionmatters.substack.com and the submission to a UK government enquiry from Patrick W. Chambers MD and myself: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/ . Proper 50ng/mL or more 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels would be far more protective against severe infection than the immunity induced by these "vaccines" for the great majority of people whose levels are 5 to 25 ng/mL.
To attain good levels all year round, in the absence of high, carcinogenic, levels of UV-B skin exposure, it is necessary to supplement about 70 to 100 IU of vitamin D3 per day per kilogram bodyweight. This is 0.125mg 5000 IU for typical average non-obese adult bodyweights such as 70kg 154 lb. (Those suffering from obesity need higher ratios - see: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#06-ratios.) 5000 IU sounds like a lot, but it is a gram every 22 years - and pharma-grade vitamin D3 costs USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory.
The COVID-19 vaccines in current widespread use are of these four types:
1 - Non-replicating virus: Chinese and I think some Russian and perhaps Indian.
2 - Virus-like lipid particles with synthetic spike proteins on the outside: Novavax. This is a novel kind of vaccine, but I think is properly referred to as a "vaccine" since it is functionally much like a non-replicating virus.
3 - Adenovirus vector quasi-vaccines (AAVQVs): infective but non-replicating DNA adenovirus programs the infected cell to produce spike protein according to its DNA instructions. So the spike is a somewhat modified version of the (in current production, 2020 model early SARS-CoV-2) viral spike protein. I recall the lower parts are altered, but that the top is reasonably authentic. This is produced inside the cell with the intention that it migrates to cell membrane, with the cell therefore being adorned with spike proteins for the immune system to recognise and produce antibodies to match one or more prominent epitopes of the protein, as it would for a SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The natural, healthy (if this was a virus), reaction of the immune system is then to destroy whatever has those spikes on it, in this case the infected cells, which are much larger and more complex than viruses. I think a natural, healthy (if this was a virus), reaction would be to learn about other epitopes of the cell - distinctive amino-acid sequences in prominent parts of proteins on the outside of the cell, and perhaps on the inside as it is broken up by macrophages. It would not be surprising if the immune system, in some cases, developed a strong antibody response to epitopes of these these proteins as well, with long-term bad consequences for other cells with the same proteins or other proteins which have these epitopes, at least on exterior membrane proteins.
This is, of course, a really unwise - to the point of reckless stupidity - thing to do to any living creature. It is not surprising that all sorts of bad things happen, such as just described, or the immune system attacking the non-replicating adenovirus on the initial and especially subsequent injections.
Also, the modified adenovirus can cause trouble in itself, with such a large number instantly introduced, rather than growing incrementally as in a natural adenovirus infection. Furthermore, it would not be surprising if some people already had immune responses to the novel synthetic adenovirus which caused trouble and/or reduced its ability to program cells for the intended purpose.
Another potential problem is that if the infected cell may be also infected with a related adenovirus, then through recombination (normally happens in DNA replication, but I guess it can occur with replicated RNA as well) a new virus might be assembled - even just one of them - which contains genetic material from the natural virus now spliced into the synthetic virus' genome in a way which supplies all the genes which were edited out of the vaccine virus to stop it replicating. Then we might have a novel, infectious, adenovirus which replicates and spreads to other people and non-human animals, which is firstly intrinsically bad and secondly is bad in that the new virus presumably programs infected cells to create spike proteins. This is a current hypothesis regarding the global wave of pediatric hepatitis, perhaps with the novel adenovirus interacting with prior immunity or co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 or some other pathogen.
Is there a technical reason all of the vaccines key on the Spike protein? Wouldn't it make sense for each vaccine to target a different part of the virus?
Clarisse answered it below, so I'll just comment that of all the antigens of SARS-COV2 that one can target the best choice would have been the spike protein. It was the ideal protein because it is involved in receptor binding and is presented on the outside of the virion. The main problem is that, because the spike is also cytotoxic, it just leads to a predicament that creation of the spike whether through the vaccine or the virus will lead to the same cytotoxic effects.
I would guess that since the spike is on the surface of the virus the thought would be that the vaccine-induced antibodies would bind to the virus (block all the spike proteins preventing it from binding to the ACEII receptors on our cells) before it could gain entry into our cells and proliferate and cause cold-like symptoms. It does appear that the N protein is quite immunogeneic (capable of inducing immune response). I suppose that wasn't attempted as the N protein probably isn't "seen" until cells are already infected.
Great recap! Could you please second-opinion this post of mine as Igor Chudov suggests?
https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/mrna-jabs-you-havent-seen-nothing
Very interesting article! I think there are a few things worth pointing out.
The codon optimization is really interesting. Based on the articles you cited it appears that Comirnaty uses codon optimization while the vaccines under EUA approval do not? That may be a big issue. I don't know much about codon optimization, but it's assumed that although different codons code for the same amino acid some act as stall regions. In essence, certain codons slow down the translation of the protein, and there's a belief that doing so aids in the proper folding of the protein. In codon optimization these stall codons are swapped for codons that are translated quicker, and so there is a concern that this may actually lead to a misfolding of the protein. As such, there is a worry that codon optimization within the vaccines may lead to a structure that is not similar to the actual spike. What that means as of now is uncertain, it could mean that people are producing antibodies that are not targeting the proper protein, it could mean that the cytotoxic effects of the spike may either be exacerbated or attenuated. I don't think many studies have actually isolated the crystal structure of the vaccine-produced spike, let alone conducted any isolation of antibodies from vaccinated individuals to compare to those with natural immunity.
For the trimeric structure, the spike protein is a homotrimer- it looks kind of like a clover in essence. I'm not sure whether the vaccine produces the trimeric structure- I generally assumed it only produced the monomeric subunits, but I haven't looked into that aspect too deeply.
Keep in mind that nearly all coronaviruses share the trimeric structure, and so a patent from years ago is likely to be part of the continuous search for a coronavirus vaccine that has never come to fruition due to things such as ADE in animal trials.
Personally for me, the association between the proline residue and any suggestion of snake venom is one that I would be very hesitant to make. In general, any association to snake venom as suggested by Dr. Ardis I find to be heavily unsubstantiated. Keep in mind that proline residues are found in many of our own proteins, so the fact that the proline was swapped does not correlate to snake proteins from that alone.
I haven't read the article, but I glanced it a bit and it references toxic shock syndrome. I'm assuming the association between snake venom and the spike is due to the toxic shock syndrome being synonymized with MIS, which again would be something I would hesitate to argue as toxic shock syndrome can have many causes and not just snake venom. The fact that snake venom can cause toxic shock syndrome does not immediately conclude that the spike is snake venom in nature.
That's a few things so far based on my quick reading. It is really interesting with the whole situation with Comirnaty. I may look into it further but the whole "similar, not the same" issue is something really fascinating.
No, it's on top of codon optimization. Both are codon-optimized for the translation throughput.
I guess this sentence is throwing me off then:
"COMIRNATY and BNT162b2 (V8) have identical amino acid sequences of the encoded antigens but COMIRNATY includes the presence of optimized codons to improve antigen expression."
Since this sentence would suggest that Comirnaty is codon optimized yet BNT is not. At least that's how I interpreted. However, I do believe BNT is codon-optimized so I am actually confused what they are alluding to here.
I believe the exact term is "gaslighting".
Exactly! It's so be design - BioNTech can always claim they meant something different from what jumps immediately to mind on the first reading. Unless you have reasons to interpret differently. The cunning deception.
"but" "Optimized codons to improve antigen expression". So, the difference is NOT in the translation throughput, as they could have said instead.
Thanks for your feedback and insights!
As to the venoms, it's seems as an unnecessary and counterproductive sensatialization, unless supported by some sort of concrete arguments why this is the case.
We are so focused on myocarditis and not all the other horrible side effects such as the blood clotting and neurological disorders. I'm still going to bet that Novavax fares better on these fronts. It has a set amount of spike protein, and your body won't be producing spike indefinitely. Does that mean everyone needs to run out and get Novavax? No, but I have loved ones who are being really pressured and/or already taking damaging mRNA shots so I am still hoping Novavax fares better overall.
I'm inclined to agree with you Stephanie. In the world of vaccine adverse reactions, the Novavax ones may be the less toxic. A weird string of words to put together to be quite honest. Years ago I probably wouldn't have considered such an idea.
Like you stated, the number of spike protein produced is finite. It also doesn't rely on your own cells which is quite honestly a plus as well.
(4) I have not read, or tried to find, reports on adverse affects of the Sinovax non-reproducing COVID-19 vaccine in China, but this turned up today:
The anti Chinese Communist Party news outfit "Epoch Times", who always refer to COIVID-19 as "the CCP virus" reports that the Sinovax vaccine, very widely used in China, is raising concerns about sudden onset leukemia: https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-made-covid-vaccines-likely-to-contribute-to-leukaemia-growing-victims-say_4505251.html .
The suppressed letter read, in part: “We have voluntarily collected information on 1,000 plus cases, including vaccine takers, time and location of vaccination, pre-vaccination health status, post-vaccination symptoms, type of leukemia, and courses of treatment. These detailed data and information are of certain statistical significance.”.
It's unfortunate we don't have much information on Sinovax. Of all the vaccines, this one should have had the longest R&D and would take years to develop. The leukemia is interesting. I do wonder if this is due to some additive or if it could be due to the reduced immune function within the first few weeks of injection that could lead to an emergence in certain groups where leukemia would be kept in check albeit very precariously.
All becomes clear if one views it from the perspective that the shots are only about causing harm. Is that a correct view? I don't know, but it sure clarifies a number of things, and leads to other interesting possibilities.
Well that begs the question as to whether what we are seeing is due to malice or incompetence. Like I stated, I think they were wholly ignorant to the actual cytotoxic effects of the spike until after the vaccines were already well-along into the clinical trials. Also, there really is no other antigen to utilize if you wanted to try to neutralize the virus. The only problem is the cytotoxicity.
It's kind of a cliffhanger, this story. But when something goes this badly, I run various scenarios in my mind, including ones where the outcome was the goal.
It's definitely understandable. I think many people have rightfully become more skeptical of many institutions that we would have otherwise never doubted. One of my concerns, though, is that there may be a reaction to the other side, such that now everything the CDC or FDA says is done with malice. Science is always growing, and things that were once considered helpful may eventually be proven to either not work or actually be harmful. I think the main problem is that in this scenario there doesn't appear to be the type of reflection and transparency we should have expected. It's one of the reasons why the whole heart inflammation scenario is so dumbfounding because they're acting like they aren't really sure what's causing it, when at this point all the evidence is starting to converge.
all vaccines create an immune response. NVAX vaccine is no different. But its not likely spike protein that causes the myocarditis in NVAX case - its most likely Ab's to the spike that are across reacting with myocardial cells.
Its not real hard - the spike is attracted to ACE binding sites, Ab's that form to the spike may be attracted as well, ACE binding sites in cardiac muscle ...