I appreciate your time spent on this. Until multiple researchers have dissected and reported on a study I take it all with a can of salt. It was not clear to me even at the beginning, just what these authors were trying to show. If they can't be concise and clear then it speaks of muddying the waters to me. I'm not sure about the "long covid" being an issue anyway - many viruses have long effects, we just never made a big deal of them.
A can of salt you say? Is that an older saying? It's a very small study so maybe the authors could get away with providing such limited data, but it also requires that people not take an author's word at whatever they report. I think people are inclined to look at an author's conclusion and look for evidence that validates their conclusion when there may not be any.
As to the whole idea of post-viral syndrome I do think there's a lot there that hasn't been researched. Although we have dealt with it as a population I'm sure there's many people who have dealt with long-term consequences from rather minor infections. Chronic fatigue syndrome is alleged to be related to infections likely from the HHV family and so for those individuals finding out why they are suffering should be the duty of public health officials. However, that doesn't mean that we stop living because for the most part we haven't stopped because of these things in the past.
Lot of essential analysis in that 'problem' of distinguishing between the injected and natural Spike...Thanks for that part!
I do believe that was the main purpose for that article, to say there is a natural Spike out there and it is the reason for 'long covid', another whitewash, not to mention the overall deception to continue calling covid shots 'vaccines', where in fact, they are not. That's the biggest deception of all, by the entire medical establishment.
The dashes are just spacers, yes. This is because when you are aligning natural sequences, sometimes a shared sequence has been deleted, or an insertion has taken place, either way you need to offset constantly to see where the shared genes really are aligned. Just like if you align SARS-CoV-2 at the FCS, your related batcov gene has to go "--"
ATT------------CA
ATTCTCCTCGGCGGGCA, this would look right in monospace
So because SARS-CoV-2 had an insertion at the FCS, you have to insert corresponding space into the comparison sequence.
This doesn't make any sense for aligning a clonal or "bespoke" sequence with a comparison to look for insertion or otherwise validate provenance. If there's gaps then it's not the same sequence.
I wouldn't really consider the spectrometry / protein portion of this study as so important as to bury the discussion of the flaws of the genetic part. If the point is simply to let readers know just how bad the study is overall, sure - but most readers want to know about the genetic part.
Yeah, I honestly should have pointed to the furin cleavage site as an example of the dashes to align the sequence, but yeah it doesn't make sense for a reference sequence to be "dashed" to such a degree. Also, looking at it more (and if I'm being cynical) it appears that the researchers just looked at the Pfizer sequence and looked for any place of alignment without realizing that they were aligning their amplicon with a sequence that they would not have amplified, which again doesn't make sense.
As to the mass spec part I included it more to say that the authors results would contradict one another. If the authors are willing to accept their sequence that lacks full homology then it we may infer that the spike protein being produced is likely to be of different molecular weight due to there being different bases in the sequence. So the authors are accepting both results leading to their conclusion when both results would contradict one another.
Dec 27, 2023·edited Dec 27, 2023Liked by Modern Discontent
There isn't really any relationship between the putative integration and the putative spike protein, on account of basic aspects of gene editing. Every cell has its own genome. You take a sample and sequence that, doesn't tell you what genes other cells have. For example with B cells, they have different genes for antibodies. So if you want to look at just one antibody you do FACS and then clone a single B cell of interest. Or in general maybe some PBMC are a lineage that has a dormant virus like HHV-5, the rest aren't. Same with a hypothetical transfection-integration. Every single integration is a different event in a different cell, so if one is jumbled then that doesn't mean that somewhere else, not even a blood cell maybe a liver cell or whatever, it is also jumbled, maybe it is perfectly integrated. So this study, not only is it throwing primers at heterogeneous cells, but the cells are only a tiny sample of all cells that would have been transfected. So any result from transfection, i.e. hypothetical integration, would be different in all sampled cells receiving the primers and all cells elsewhere in the body that were not sampled. And then you could say that hypothetical non-jumbled integration is a hypothetically rarer event, hence why spike protein itself was (putatively) found at a lower rate.
The point however is that finding a jumbled and off-target alignment isn't proof that a jumbled integration happened, it's not proof of anything except noise.
Secondly, as far as protein and genetic portions of the paper having no relationship due to basic aspects of gene editing, ok say this liver cell somewhere else has a perfect, un-jumbled spike protein gene, just assuming with no real basis. Is it going to express it so that you see it in the blood? Probably not. Genes for proteins need regulatory apparatus in place in order to be expressed as mRNA. This is so unlikely to happen that even if there is spike protein in the blood *after theoretical perfect integration*, same spike protein is probably just from leftover, non-integrated vaccine mRNA.
Yeah I should have been more careful in my wording. I saw a lot of people get tripped up with the mention of leukocytes as if maybe this means immune cells are being transfected, when instead the reference to leukocytes is due to the fact that blood was drawn- the cell type is relative to the sample taken. So yeah it would mean that the two results would not inherently be related, although I could also argue that the author's language seems to infer as much, or would at least ask readers to draw such a conclusion.
I'll add a correction to this post and the one from today to include this comment.
I'm curious what your thoughts in the whole integration is. I suppose from my perspective the integration of anything jarbled would be deleterious to the cell, in which case it's not a likely phenomenon to occur, although some people inferring integration may suggesting that this is one method of forming cancer. 🤷♂️
To that, how likely do you think that jumbled integration is occurring or if it's likely that some off-sequence was amplified?
I'm indifferent to the DNA integration possibility, and the likely DNA contamination issue. As soon as we have more than one cell we no longer have one single "genome" that can be edited. Every cell / lineage is a separate genome. Of course it's usually all the same because errors are corrected etc., but that doesn't mean there is any single genome that you can edit. If you transfect a single cell with integration, you haven't done anything to the other trillions of cells. So it's not that interesting, because we already know that the cell in question is transfected and already know that we don't know whether that alone can mess with this cell in some way (e.g. cancer). What if it's a germ cell? Well, it's still just 1 (or n) germ cells, and only if that 1 (or n) germ cell survives and fuses does now this integrated bit of nucleotides become part of a whole human. And then, well, who knows. But since I'm skeptical that integration is happening very much and that transfected cells are surviving immune surveillance very much, I doubt this is something to worry about.
This study, I don't think it's showing anything except random human genes.
I think that's a fair assessment. I'm not really sure where I stand on a lot of these ideas, but I find that the more attention some of these ideas get the more wary I am of their actual truthfulness. I guess that's me being more disagreeable, but cases such as this study and other ones that aren't very robust tend to get a ton of attention and stir up people more than any careful, nuanced assessment.
It sort of feels like we aren't really closer to anything, but even then there's still plenty of money being made on both sides and so I can't help but think that this acts as a driving force for which ideas get the spotlight and become part of "the movement".
It's also the only thing left. Can't talk about "immune escape variants" any more because that obviously didn't happen in a way that was related to vaccination at all.
But if integration was actually shown to be happening, it would stop being an attention-getter immediately. It would be just like mRNA persistence in lymph nodes - no one cares anymore about that, because the headline is cold. But it's much harder to convincingly show integration, again because of the problems of finding (hypothetical) integrated cells and then cloning them so you have confidence in whatever sequences you are generating (the second thing being impossible if you can't do the first). So it's the perfect controversy.
I received an alert for this post from the Substack app this morning, but it mysteriously disappeared from my inbox before I could look at it. (I would have dug it out from your archive, but a certain cat had an appointment at the vet.) Later the post reappeared. I wonder what that's about?
Isn't it interesting how what there is to know about life appears to be bottomless. It leads some people to wonder whether scientific claims about the origin of life might be entirely specious. But "trust the science", while wounded a bit, still holds sway in the minds of many when it comes to more fundamental questions. Wouldn't it be great to take a closer look at some of _those_ claims.
I wonder if it's because my article went over the email length? Not sure.
I saw Jessica Rose's piece on Sunday I believe. She points out similar issues, although I think she should be far more critical of the Sanger sequence because there's a ton of stuff in there that doesn't make any sense. I may write a post today adding further clarification for my stance.
I appreciate your time spent on this. Until multiple researchers have dissected and reported on a study I take it all with a can of salt. It was not clear to me even at the beginning, just what these authors were trying to show. If they can't be concise and clear then it speaks of muddying the waters to me. I'm not sure about the "long covid" being an issue anyway - many viruses have long effects, we just never made a big deal of them.
A can of salt you say? Is that an older saying? It's a very small study so maybe the authors could get away with providing such limited data, but it also requires that people not take an author's word at whatever they report. I think people are inclined to look at an author's conclusion and look for evidence that validates their conclusion when there may not be any.
As to the whole idea of post-viral syndrome I do think there's a lot there that hasn't been researched. Although we have dealt with it as a population I'm sure there's many people who have dealt with long-term consequences from rather minor infections. Chronic fatigue syndrome is alleged to be related to infections likely from the HHV family and so for those individuals finding out why they are suffering should be the duty of public health officials. However, that doesn't mean that we stop living because for the most part we haven't stopped because of these things in the past.
Exactly.... it's not that effects don't linger with any virus or trauma but that it's treated like a scary new thing brought to us by sarscov2.
Best to read the methods first and then check if their conclusions are in line with what they're claiming.... IMO.
Lot of essential analysis in that 'problem' of distinguishing between the injected and natural Spike...Thanks for that part!
I do believe that was the main purpose for that article, to say there is a natural Spike out there and it is the reason for 'long covid', another whitewash, not to mention the overall deception to continue calling covid shots 'vaccines', where in fact, they are not. That's the biggest deception of all, by the entire medical establishment.
The dashes are just spacers, yes. This is because when you are aligning natural sequences, sometimes a shared sequence has been deleted, or an insertion has taken place, either way you need to offset constantly to see where the shared genes really are aligned. Just like if you align SARS-CoV-2 at the FCS, your related batcov gene has to go "--"
ATT------------CA
ATTCTCCTCGGCGGGCA, this would look right in monospace
So because SARS-CoV-2 had an insertion at the FCS, you have to insert corresponding space into the comparison sequence.
This doesn't make any sense for aligning a clonal or "bespoke" sequence with a comparison to look for insertion or otherwise validate provenance. If there's gaps then it's not the same sequence.
I wouldn't really consider the spectrometry / protein portion of this study as so important as to bury the discussion of the flaws of the genetic part. If the point is simply to let readers know just how bad the study is overall, sure - but most readers want to know about the genetic part.
Yeah, I honestly should have pointed to the furin cleavage site as an example of the dashes to align the sequence, but yeah it doesn't make sense for a reference sequence to be "dashed" to such a degree. Also, looking at it more (and if I'm being cynical) it appears that the researchers just looked at the Pfizer sequence and looked for any place of alignment without realizing that they were aligning their amplicon with a sequence that they would not have amplified, which again doesn't make sense.
As to the mass spec part I included it more to say that the authors results would contradict one another. If the authors are willing to accept their sequence that lacks full homology then it we may infer that the spike protein being produced is likely to be of different molecular weight due to there being different bases in the sequence. So the authors are accepting both results leading to their conclusion when both results would contradict one another.
There isn't really any relationship between the putative integration and the putative spike protein, on account of basic aspects of gene editing. Every cell has its own genome. You take a sample and sequence that, doesn't tell you what genes other cells have. For example with B cells, they have different genes for antibodies. So if you want to look at just one antibody you do FACS and then clone a single B cell of interest. Or in general maybe some PBMC are a lineage that has a dormant virus like HHV-5, the rest aren't. Same with a hypothetical transfection-integration. Every single integration is a different event in a different cell, so if one is jumbled then that doesn't mean that somewhere else, not even a blood cell maybe a liver cell or whatever, it is also jumbled, maybe it is perfectly integrated. So this study, not only is it throwing primers at heterogeneous cells, but the cells are only a tiny sample of all cells that would have been transfected. So any result from transfection, i.e. hypothetical integration, would be different in all sampled cells receiving the primers and all cells elsewhere in the body that were not sampled. And then you could say that hypothetical non-jumbled integration is a hypothetically rarer event, hence why spike protein itself was (putatively) found at a lower rate.
The point however is that finding a jumbled and off-target alignment isn't proof that a jumbled integration happened, it's not proof of anything except noise.
Secondly, as far as protein and genetic portions of the paper having no relationship due to basic aspects of gene editing, ok say this liver cell somewhere else has a perfect, un-jumbled spike protein gene, just assuming with no real basis. Is it going to express it so that you see it in the blood? Probably not. Genes for proteins need regulatory apparatus in place in order to be expressed as mRNA. This is so unlikely to happen that even if there is spike protein in the blood *after theoretical perfect integration*, same spike protein is probably just from leftover, non-integrated vaccine mRNA.
Yeah I should have been more careful in my wording. I saw a lot of people get tripped up with the mention of leukocytes as if maybe this means immune cells are being transfected, when instead the reference to leukocytes is due to the fact that blood was drawn- the cell type is relative to the sample taken. So yeah it would mean that the two results would not inherently be related, although I could also argue that the author's language seems to infer as much, or would at least ask readers to draw such a conclusion.
I'll add a correction to this post and the one from today to include this comment.
I'm curious what your thoughts in the whole integration is. I suppose from my perspective the integration of anything jarbled would be deleterious to the cell, in which case it's not a likely phenomenon to occur, although some people inferring integration may suggesting that this is one method of forming cancer. 🤷♂️
To that, how likely do you think that jumbled integration is occurring or if it's likely that some off-sequence was amplified?
I'm indifferent to the DNA integration possibility, and the likely DNA contamination issue. As soon as we have more than one cell we no longer have one single "genome" that can be edited. Every cell / lineage is a separate genome. Of course it's usually all the same because errors are corrected etc., but that doesn't mean there is any single genome that you can edit. If you transfect a single cell with integration, you haven't done anything to the other trillions of cells. So it's not that interesting, because we already know that the cell in question is transfected and already know that we don't know whether that alone can mess with this cell in some way (e.g. cancer). What if it's a germ cell? Well, it's still just 1 (or n) germ cells, and only if that 1 (or n) germ cell survives and fuses does now this integrated bit of nucleotides become part of a whole human. And then, well, who knows. But since I'm skeptical that integration is happening very much and that transfected cells are surviving immune surveillance very much, I doubt this is something to worry about.
This study, I don't think it's showing anything except random human genes.
I think that's a fair assessment. I'm not really sure where I stand on a lot of these ideas, but I find that the more attention some of these ideas get the more wary I am of their actual truthfulness. I guess that's me being more disagreeable, but cases such as this study and other ones that aren't very robust tend to get a ton of attention and stir up people more than any careful, nuanced assessment.
It sort of feels like we aren't really closer to anything, but even then there's still plenty of money being made on both sides and so I can't help but think that this acts as a driving force for which ideas get the spotlight and become part of "the movement".
It's also the only thing left. Can't talk about "immune escape variants" any more because that obviously didn't happen in a way that was related to vaccination at all.
But if integration was actually shown to be happening, it would stop being an attention-getter immediately. It would be just like mRNA persistence in lymph nodes - no one cares anymore about that, because the headline is cold. But it's much harder to convincingly show integration, again because of the problems of finding (hypothetical) integrated cells and then cloning them so you have confidence in whatever sequences you are generating (the second thing being impossible if you can't do the first). So it's the perfect controversy.
I'm glad that Modern Discontent processed this article and took it apart.
This is one that I had concluded was not ready for prime time, even with my less than current knowledge of some analytical techniques.
You'll learn a lot when you read this analysis!
I received an alert for this post from the Substack app this morning, but it mysteriously disappeared from my inbox before I could look at it. (I would have dug it out from your archive, but a certain cat had an appointment at the vet.) Later the post reappeared. I wonder what that's about?
Here's another take; similar conclusions.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jessicar/p/integration-of-codon-optimized-modified
Isn't it interesting how what there is to know about life appears to be bottomless. It leads some people to wonder whether scientific claims about the origin of life might be entirely specious. But "trust the science", while wounded a bit, still holds sway in the minds of many when it comes to more fundamental questions. Wouldn't it be great to take a closer look at some of _those_ claims.
I wonder if it's because my article went over the email length? Not sure.
I saw Jessica Rose's piece on Sunday I believe. She points out similar issues, although I think she should be far more critical of the Sanger sequence because there's a ton of stuff in there that doesn't make any sense. I may write a post today adding further clarification for my stance.
But anyways hope the cat is doing fine!