denis bider

Various thoughts

List newer posts

Brain teaser: Spike protein

Posted Jul 24, 2022 at 02:29 by denisbider

Last edited Aug 2, 2022 at 01:39 by denisbider

Comments

covid-19 health science vaccines

I'm trying to come up with something people can read quickly to make them go "Huh." Try #1:

The documented toxic component of SARS-CoV-2 is the spike protein.
An infection with SARS-CoV-2 exposes the body to some spike protein.
We vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 by either:
1. directly injecting a large amount of spike protein (AZ, JJ, Novavax);
2. injecting mRNA instructions enveloped in lipid nanoparticles which go everywhere in the body (they accumulate in ovaries and cross the brain-blood barrier), creating unpredictable amounts of spike protein.
There are other proteins the vaccines could target instead of the spike protein. The spike protein is a particularly toxic choice.
Exposure to spike protein from vaccines is up to 5 million times more than exposure from infection.
In January this year, Current Issues in Molecular Biology published a Swedish study by Alden, Falla, De Marinis, et al. This study shows:
BNT162b2 mRNA readily enters Huh7 cells at a concentration (0.5 mcg/mL) corresponding to 0.5% of the local injection site concentration, induce changes in LINE-1 gene and protein expression, and within 6 h, reverse transcription of BNT162b2 can be detected.
Reverse transcription means the instructions to create spike protein get incorporated into DNA of at least some recipient cells. This means that potentially, the body is made to manufacture spike protein indefinitely. We would expect this effect to increase with each subsequent injection.

Bottom line:

You seek to avoid harm such as Long Covid caused by spike protein.
So, why are you injecting spike protein?

List older posts

Showing 1 out of 1 comments, oldest first:

Comment on Aug 2, 2022 at 00:50 by denisbider

Last edited Aug 2, 2022 at 00:57 by denisbider

On July 26, Modern Discontent published a post arguing "the spike protein is THE antigen to target."

In a few days, I ran into Mike Yeadon on Joel Smalley's post. I raised this with him and he replied:

https://metatron.substack.com/p/scientific-proof-that-the-mrna-causes/comment/8097429

I reproduce Dr. Yeadon's comment (fixes in square brackets are my own):

"I didn’t read every word as I’m knackered and awake at 4am, but the argument made that antigen can only be spike protein “because it’s the point of attachment” is bogus.
1. It’s not the case that vaccines have to prevent the first step in infection in order to work. In fact, that can’t be right. Your immune response only begins once you’ve been infected, albeit at sub clinical levels (that is, before you’ve been made sick). Infected cells register that fact by displaying on their surfaces pieces of that with which they’ve become infected & this triggers memory (if you’ve immunity).
2. Unless the vaccines induce mucosal immunity, you still couldn’t prevent infection, even with spike as antigen. Mucosal immunity includes secretory IgA. I don’t believe that’s even been looked for in the clinical trials. If correct, why didn’t they look? It’s probably because injected vaccines aren’t a good way to induce mucosal immunity.
3. Once cells are infected by viruses, so goes the narrative adjacent cells can become infected by lateral spreading, and antibodies are far too large to be present in this anatomical location. Alternatively, if infection proceeds by [lytic] destruction of infected cells in the airway, again, circulating IgG antibodies aren’t in airway surface liquid to mop up released pathogen.
4. Apparent immune memory against infection does yield apparent immune responses against spike protein but these are the minority. In aggregate, spike antigens are overwhelmed by numbers of responses to non-spike antigens.
5. If the only potentially viable design of a vaccine was spike, that ends the project. It’s way too dangerous. Those who argue “vaccination with spike protein antigen is the same as infection” are mistaken. Natural infection doesn’t result in persistent circulation of spike protein whereas injecting someone with an uncontrolled gene sequence encoding spike definitely does & was always going to do that. Not faintly similar. An honest research scientist at the point would have argued against proceeding with this project as its fatally flawed. That wouldn’t be a particularly surprising or unusual opinion. We were our own best critics & a large proportion of early ideas were stopped for exactly this kind of reason: we didn’t think we could safely “reduce to practise”.
To the point of dismissing my decades of relevant experience by pretending that vaccine developers understand this & I don’t, is fatuous.
No, this isn’t how ANY previous vaccine works. Therefore, it’s the vaccine designers who are way out on thin ice.
What we’re looking at is drug design, something [I've] spent decades involved in.
Drug design considers multiple factors simultaneously. How to hit the intended target in a way that yields effective treatment. How to assess the risks of unwanted effects. Best options for formulation, for stability, safety & delivering the payload to the intended anatomical target & not everywhere else. Lessons from past toxicity, such as use of lipid nanoparticles homing to ovaries.
Up to you. I can’t make people believe anything. I can only try to explain why what’s being claimed as a Star Trek style breakthrough is actually an act of unequivocal & deliberate harm."