mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines – Are They Bio-Weapons?
26 February 2022 - 2:30 pm
Big question. It should be noted that it is a separate question from “are they deliberately created bio-weapons?”. Intent can be difficult to prove in a court of law, and I am not attempting to prove intent here but I will provide some potential indicators. We can all make up our own minds based on what we do know of course, but really, regardless of intent, if the outcome is the same then the same measures should be taken to deal with that outcome. If someone takes a box of matches and tries to light a stove and accidentally sets the house on fire, we don’t continue to sit there as the flames and smoke engulf us because they were only trying to heat a tin of beans. To continue the metaphor I will be demonstrating that there was some (at best) reckless playing with matches, and that there is indeed a fire that is being ignored by the Governments and media, and because of that a vast proportion of the public are unaware of the smoke and flames all around them.
Playing With Matches
The article “Patent Corruption: SARS-CoV 1 and 2” supplies a lot of evidence that confirms the deliberate attempt to enhance the damage the spike protein of the so-called coronavirus can do, and we know that “the spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus” because Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance told us. He should and does know, as he’s been spending vast amounts of time and grant money on “surveillance” of coronaviruses in China (naturally), working with Ralph Baric in labs to “manipulate” coronaviruses, as stated by Daszak.
It is noteworthy that the “Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses” who classified what was originally referred to as “2019-nCoV” and then naming it “SARS-CoV-2” as per this NIH article from March 2020 lists Ralph S Baric as one of the “collaborators”, along with Germany’s Christian Drosden amongst others. Brazenly the “authors declare no competing interests”, which if you take it at face value is true, they are not “competing”, they are totally aligned interests. Baric and others who receive millions of dollars in funding to engineer harmful genetic material, then also get to define a “novel” virus, declare it’s origins and lineage, decide what “clinical manifestations” should be attributed to their “discovery” and then advocate for measures to deal with it, such as mRNA “vaccines” that encode the harmful spike protein and make the recipient’s own cells produce it, all in the name of “public health protection”.
Baric is also a co-author of a study from May 2021 titled “Investigate the origins of COVID-19”. From what you can glean from the freely available part it states the “causative agent” of COVID-19 as being SARS-CoV-2 with no reference to verify that claim, followed by an admission of “no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident”, the WHO had just decided that a “zoonotic spillover”, i.e. animal to human transmission was “likely to very likely” and a “laboratory incident” as being “extremely unlikely”. As there is no actual evidence supporting either (and it’s not like they haven’t looked), it is reasonable to conclude it is likely neither, but as the whole “zoonotic” thing is the bottomless well of funding and new scary viruses that keep the industry in business and the WHO making further incursions into people’s everyday lives and personal choices about their health.
Ralph S Baric has been publishing papers (and presumably getting funded to perform the research and experimentation) that are now listed on PubMed since 1981. One of his early scientific contributions was a “virus research” paper in July 1985 titled “Characterization of leader-related small RNAs in coronavirus-infected cells: further evidence for leader-primed mechanism of transcription”. Coronaviruses and mRNA have been an interest of Ralph Baric’s for almost 40 years. Fortunately for the rest of the world we have seen this four decades of expertise applied to elevate coronaviruses from a harmless, virtually unknown obscurity and lab plaything to the most famous virus in the world that in 2020 was probably many children’s first spoken word. Aren’t we lucky that people like Ralph exist?
Smoke
We have already covered the uptick in major health issues across all demographics and they continue to escalate. We have also already covered the latest attempts to censor the data that evidences the harms that the so-called vaccines are doing, along with the censoring of data that evidences that they are not even providing people with any protection. Athletes collapsing and their careers ending or faltering, fans requiring treatment in the stands regularly is the metaphorical smoke wafting in front of viewers and all they seem to do is waft it away so they can continue watching the carnage.
Fire
On the 21st February 2022 this study was published on the Frontiers in Virology website, titled “MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site”.
This study is very interesting as it is an analysis of the variations between the claimed SARS-CoV-2 genome and other “coronaviruses”. We’re talking about sequences of nucleotides that have been sequenced and we are told are the genetic identities of various “viruses”. We’re not going to be debating the existence of them outside computer databases or how these pieces of genetic material were decided to be what they are claimed to be, or whether they actually cause any of the diseases attributed to them. We are going to take this stuff at face value, and for the purposes of review accept the various sequences and so on as being part of the genes, proteins and viruses they are claimed to be.
With that in mind we’ll look at the first set of points made by this study, which as yet has not been refuted by any other research published that appears to be available.
In the introduction they say that the genome for SARS-CoV-2 “has 82.3% amino acid identity to bat coronavirus SL-CoVZC45”, a “77.2% amino acid identity to SARS-CoV” and a “96.2% genome sequence identity to bat coronavirus RaTG13”. Some pretty close similarities but the importance is in where and what segments of sequences are different, and how long those sections are. It is acknowledged that “numerous point mutation differences exist between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13” there is “only one insertion and dissimilarity exceeding 3 nucleotides”. Oh really? What insertion is that? The article states:
A peculiar feature of the nucleotide sequence encoding the PRRA furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 S protein is its two consecutive CGG codons. This arginine codon is rare in coronaviruses: relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) of CGG in pangolin CoV is 0, in bat CoV 0.08, in SARS-CoV 0.19, in MERS-CoV 0.25, and in SARS-CoV-2 0.299.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full
OK, so there are some codons in this specific coronavirus that are rare in others, so what?
A BLAST search for the 12-nucleotide insertion led us to a 100% reverse match in a proprietary sequence (SEQ ID11652, nt 2751-2733) found in the US patent 9,587,003 filed on Feb. 4, 2016
Right, so searching on the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) which is a tool that “finds regions of similarity between biological sequences” by comparing “nucleotide or protein sequences to sequence databases and calculates the statistical significance”, they found a “reverse match” in a patent. This is starting to sound a bit more interesting now. The study found that…
Examination of SEQ ID11652 revealed that the match extends beyond the 12-nucleotide insertion to a 19-nucleotide sequence: 5′-CTACGTGCCCGCCGAGGAG-3′ (nt 2733-2751 of SEQ ID11652), such that the resulting mRNA would have 3′- GAUGCACGGGCGGCUCCUC-5′, or equivalently 5′- CU CCU CGG CGG GCA CGU AG-3′ (nucleotides 23547-23565 in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, in which the four bold codons yield PRRA, amino acids 681–684 of its spike protein). This is very rare in the NCBI BLAST database.
How rare is “very rare”?
The correlation between this SARS-CoV-2 sequence and the reverse complement of a proprietary mRNA sequence is of uncertain origin. Conventional biostatistical analysis indicates that the probability of this sequence randomly being present in a 30,000-nucleotide viral genome is 3.21 × 10−11
The number 3.21 × 10−11 is in scientific notation and if you are not used to using it, might not mean an awful lot. Converting that number to more commonly used decimal it is 0.0000000000321 which is quite a small number. Another way of expressing this probability is an approximately 1 in three trillion chance.
That really is “very rare”. For some context the CDC lists the chances of being struck by lightning as “only around 1 in 500,000”. Compared to 1 in 3,000,000,000,000 that lightning strike looks pretty commonplace doesn’t it? Better stock up on rubber umbrellas.
Who owns that patent? Looking up US patent 9,587,003 reveals that it is granted to ModernaTX, filed on 4th February 2016 and granted on the 7th March 2017. Yes, that ModernaTX, the one that produces COVID-19 “vaccines” that contain mRNA to instruct the recipient’s cells to produce the very spike protein that contains the 100% reverse match of this 19 nucleotide sequence. What’s this patent for? Well it’s for “modified polynucleotides for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides”.
You would think that a 19 nucleotide sequence containing such rare groupings amounting to a 1 in three trillion chance of occurring by chance in a patented product would be pretty strong evidence. We know that Moderna has received funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) run by Anthony Fauci, and so has Ralph Baric according to his 2016 CV listed (mirror) on the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health website. The statistical significance and the financial connections are there for all to see. So how have the mainstream media reported on this? In an embarrassingly incompetent article by the Daily Mail’s “Deputy Health Editor” published on the 23rd February 2022 titled…
“More evidence Covid was tinkered with in a lab? Now scientists find virus contains tiny chunk of DNA that matches sequence patented by Moderna THREE YEARS before pandemic began”
…they perform some damage control on the topic. There are two glaring errors that “fact-checkers” would be all over if a site like this made the “mistakes” which are that “Covid” couldn’t have been “tinkered with” anywhere because that is the disease, not the alleged cause which is SARS-CoV-2, and that SARS-CoV-2 is allegedly an RNA virus not DNA. The interchanging use of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID is a deliberate attempt to confuse the general public. Even if we accept them as 100% real and what we are told they are, this confusion between the cause and the problem is unhelpful when attempting to discuss these topics in earnest. The placing of the word (?) “Covid” in the sentence “Covid was tinkered with in a lab” is not a mistake a Deputy Health Editor for “the biggest news website in the world” (as Boyd calls the MailOnline in his LinkedIn profile) should be making. It is more likely an attempt to seed into the public consciousness the scary concept that the scary super-infectious virus could indeed be lab engineered, which is likely to be even more alarming than the “zoonotic” idea that it just naturally engineered itself in bats and somehow made the leap to humans. This has always been the fall-back plan when the Wuhan wet-market theory started to lose traction, and the outrageous censoring of any and all discussion about the “lab leak theory” back at the beginning of all this seems more like a cynical piece of reverse psychology and was there to prop up a false dichotomy, i.e. SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly super-infectious virus that causes COVID-19 that either:
Came from a bat
or
Came from a lab
…and either way we should all be very scared and accept the “vaccines” as our only hope of survival.
But despite the headline, the link to the Frontiers in Virology study and an image of the Moderna patent, admitting the 19 nucleotide sequence is part of a gene called MSH3 that “is known to affect how damaged cells repair themselves in the body”, they fairly quickly switch to dismissing the entire thing as a “coincidence”… Imagine that.
They quote someone called Professor Lawrence Young, a “virologist from Warwick University” as saying:
We’re talking about a very, very, very small piece made up of 19 nucleotides. So it doesn’t mean very much to be frank, if you do these types of searches you can always find matches. Sometimes these things happen fortuitously, sometimes it’s the result of convergent evolution (when organisms evolve independently to have similar traits to adapt to their environment). It’s a quirky observation but I wouldn’t call it a smoking gun because it’s too small.
Laurence Young – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10542309/Fresh-lab-leak-fears-study-finds-genetic-code-Covids-spike-protein-linked-Moderna-patent.html
It is a shame Mr Young wasn’t so forthcoming regarding his scepticism of matching 19 nucleotides when it came to the COVID-19 RT-PCR “tests”, in which one particular assay is attempting to find a mere 19 nucleotide sequence. His claim that “if you do these searches you can always find matches” is pure nonsense and completely ignores the specificity of this particular sequence. How has this Professor got a career in virology at a University if he is incapable of grasping the concept of specific, rare genetic sequence traits and matching them up with such extraordinarily compelling statistical significance? The answer is likely that if he is a real person he was just someone the Mail found that would willingly put his name to such an absurd claim because there is no way it could damage his (likely) publicly funded career, regardless of how wrong it is.
They also wheel out a second sceptic, a Dr Simon Clarke who is “a microbiologist at Reading University”. This highly educated individual had this sublime response lined up…
So it’s an interesting coincidence but this is surely entirely coincidental.
Gee, thanks for that Simon. What would we do without such logical, articulately phrased and evidenced evaluations from the highly qualified experts at our premier institutions of education?
The article then switches back to fuelling the “unhinged conspiracy theory” of a lab leak for a bit and finishes off with a timeline that misses off all the important information and events to ensure any average reader who managed to wade through the entirety of the obnoxiously advert-laden page goes away no better informed other than potentially scared that the COVIDs was so contagious it escaped a level 4 biosecurity lab in China.
There is no mention of what the patented gene is for. Oncology-related proteins if you recall. This is cancer stuff. That MSH3 gene they mention in passing, saying it “is known to affect how damaged cells repair themselves”, is deliberately obscuring/undermining the importance of this. Way back in 1996 it was understood what role the MSH3 gene plays as far as cancers go. This article titled “NIH Scientists Find Mutant Repair Gene MSH3 Has Role in Uterine Cancer” is evidence of that. This website has an explanation of how MSH3 is involved with the repair of cells that specifically relate to cancer and how mutations in it are strongly correlated with all kinds of cancers and tumours. It states:
MutS homolog 3 (MSH3) is a gene that encodes a protein that is a component of MutS beta – a post-replicative DNA mismatch repair system. The protein functions in DNA mismatch repair. Missense mutations, nonsense mutations, silent mutations, frameshift deletions and insertions, and in-frame deletions are observed in cancers such as intestinal cancer, skin cancer, and stomach cancer.
https://www.mycancergenome.org/content/gene/msh3/
So interference and corruption of the MSH3 gene affects post-replicative DNA mismatch repair. That then would lead to DNA repairs not happening correctly and DNA then containing “nonsense mutations” amongst other problematic-sounding cell replication issues that are seen in actual cancers.
We wouldn’t want anything like that inside us really would we? We certainly wouldn’t want our own cells programmed to generate something like this. I am making no claims here specifically. But this is surely a concern. There is a study titled “SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro” from October 2021 that would appear to back this up. On the page it does mention “An expression of concern” regarding the article, but as yet it has not been retracted or corrected. Bear in mind this study is taking the mainstream “Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV–2) has led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, severely affecting public health and the global economy” position. It is hardly bucking the narrative, but it is something that is going to require an explanation from the pharmaceutical companies and every regulatory body that rubber-stamped these injections claiming they had been through “robust and rigorous” trials and safety analyses and deemed “safe and effective”. At the end of the abstract they state:
Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/
No kidding.
This is all sounding rather ominous, and is yet more evidence to prove what real experts and honest scientists warned of before these mRNA injections were given to anyone. Next we are going to look at a Swedish paper published on the 25th February 2022 titled “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line”.
This paper has established that the Pfizer BioNTech mRNA in their COVID-19 injection does actually incorporate into human DNA. From the paper:
We detected high levels of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells and changes in gene expression of long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1), which is an endogenous reverse transcriptase. Immunohistochemistry using antibody binding to LINE-1 open reading frame-1 RNA-binding protein (ORFp1) on Huh7 cells treated with BNT162b2 indicated increased nucleus distribution of LINE-1. PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
Huh7 cells are another cell line that is effectively immortal. They are human liver tumour cells that are used in virology and propagation. While there is reason to question the relative comparability of defective human tumour cells outside the body that are disconnected from any functional immune system, and otherwise healthy human cells in the body connected and supported by the body’s many methods of repairing and sustaining itself, those that do believe all the standard tenets of the field of virology should accept these findings as extremely serious and require immediate action, followed by consequences.
This study’s findings show that the mRNA is changing human cell DNA in as little as 6 hours. Even more seriously the effects on LINE-1 are noted in the study. LINE-1 is a reverse transcriptase that we have as part of our genetic makeup and as we know, reverse transcriptase is part of the process by which cells are created and replicated, in the embryonic stage as well as later in life. It is part of the process that goes wrong in cancer as well. The study states:
Human autonomous retrotransposon LINE-1 is a cellular endogenous reverse transcriptase and the only remaining active transposon in humans, able to retrotranspose itself and other nonautonomous elements, and ~17% of the human genome are comprised of LINE-1 sequences.
Looking at Figure 3 in the paper they showed significantly altered levels of LINE-1 expression compared to the control…
According to this article titled “LINE-1 Retrotransposons Keep Early Embryonic Chromatin in Line” published in September 2017, they found that:
…too much or too little LINE-1 expression caused development to come to a halt. This means that the precise timing and level of retrotransposon expression is critical for the development of the embryo
https://epigenie.com/line-1-retrotransposons-keep-early-embryonic-chromatin-line/
So not only does the spike protein contain a match to a Moderna patented cancer-causing gene mutation, there is now even more evidence it adversely affects the immune system, and the effects of the Pfizer mRNA can impact the levels of a bio-chemical product related to the development of embryos.
Is the media talking about any of this? Not really. A hand-waving article dismissing a 1 in three trillion chance as a “coincidence”, not a mention of these other critical findings that are confirming what has been known all along and is evidenced further by the lived experience of people. The now proven (by their own methods of virology) fact that the mRNA injections also change human DNA which is yet another thing dismissed as a “crackpot conspiracy theory” is one more nail in the coffin for these mRNA injections. Unfortunately no matter how many nails are hammered in by real science that prove these are bioweapons, accidental or otherwise, the near radio-silence on all this by the media and Governments is deafening.