Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
If the Arctic can be sea ice-free year-round when CO2 is 230 ppm but dominated by multi-year ice when the CO2 concentration is 430 ppm, this does not support the alarmist claims that high CO2 concentrations are responsible for enhanced Arctic sea ice melt.
New research utilizing the DNA of dinoflagellate (Polarella glacialis) indicates that, 14,000 years ago, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration is thought to have been 230 ppm, the studied Arctic region (Yermak Plateau) was sea ice-free year-round.
“Around 14.0-13.9 cal kyr BP, a short-lived year-round, ice-free, open ocean occurred.”
During the Early to Middle Holocene (10,000 to 4,000 years ago), Arctic sea ice was seasonal, dominated by first-year ice that did not survive the summer melt season.
“The Holocene Yermak Plateau is characterized by a seasonal sea ice cover, which my consist mainly of first-year sea ice … a large part of first-year ice, as opposed to seasonally drifted multi-year ice.”
Today, at 430 ppm CO2, Arctic sea ice is increasingly first-year, but a “multi-year environment” persists. Multi-year sea ice has survived at least one summer melt season, and it continues to thicken over multiple years.
The current phase is similar to the sea ice conditions that predominated ~16,000 years ago, or during the last glacial.
“…a marginal sea ice cover ca. 16 cal kyr BP [characterized by] first-year sea ice in a multi-year sea ice environment, a setting not unlike today.”
If the Arctic can be sea ice-free year-round when CO2 is 230 ppm but dominated by multi-year ice when the CO2 concentration is 430 ppm, this does not support the alarmist claims that high CO2 concentrations are responsible for enhanced Arctic sea ice melt.
The latest report from David Reich’s genetics lab at Harvard is that “Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia.” In other words, humans have been continuing to evolve in Europe and the Middle East for the last 10,000 years, with significant effect.
Reich’s genome-wide association study (GWAS) indicates that West Eurasians have increased or reduced their vulnerability to a variety of ailments. Genetic changes have rendered them less susceptible to leprosy, rheumatoid arthritis, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, and moreso to coeliac disease and gout. At the same time, there has been positive selection for fair skin, red hair, and intelligence, and negative selection for male-pattern baldness. In summary, West Eurasians have grown foxier, as the arc of their genetic history bends toward fluffy ginger genius.
Reich’s conclusions are pretty likely to hold water. Too many scientific and social scientific fields have been affected by the irreproducibility crisis of modern science. The worst-hit disciplines use far too loose a definition of statistical significance, p < 0.05. Genome-wide association studies, by contrast, tend to use the extraordinarily tighter standard of p < 5 × 10^ −8. Reich lab’s research includes a variety of different standards of statistical significance, including some that are only of p < 8.9 × 10^ −5. That standard is orders of magnitude more reliable than most research.
The data Reich’s lab can work with, after all, is remarkably bounteous. As the researchers wrote:
[W]e increased power through a 14-fold increase in sample size, driven by 10,016 ancient individuals for whom we report new data, which combined with previously reported data yields a dataset of 15,836 people spanning 18,000 years … The final dataset included 8,074,573 SNPs [single-nucleotide polymorphisms] and 1,665,051 insertions or deletions (indels) on chromosomes 1–22.
Science only can advance on sure foundations when you’re reasonably likely the research will hold up. Sociology, psychology, any discipline where you cannot work with millions of pieces of data, cannot be expected to match GWAS levels of rigorous statistical significance. But, as many scientists have proposed, p < 0.01 or p < 0.005 are not impossible goals, even for disciplines less rich in data. Reich’s peers in other disciplines should look at his work and consider the benefits of reasonable certainty that a paper you publish actually says something true.
Americans in general might also take Reich’s work as a prompt to reconsider our various moratoria on using American Indian biological data to provide gene samples. Reich’s report on West Eurasian genetic data presumably is only a beginning. We may expect reports to come on East Eurasians, Sub-Saharan Africans, Aboriginal Australians, Khoisan in South African, American Indians in Latin America—reports on people all over the world.
Except on the American Indians of the United States.
Our legal, regulatory, and cultural inhibitions mean that there will be an enduring blank spot in the knowledge we gain from the genetics revolution—knowledge which will aid not only paleogenetic research but also advances in medicine tailored to each individual’s DNA. American Indians might be the last people on Earth to benefit from such advances in genetically individuated medicine if we continue to veto researchers’ use of American Indian genetic and paleogenetic data.
Science funders also should note that science proceeds by joint work in many disciplines and isn’t just a high-tech plaything. The Reich lab’s research depended not least upon “10,016 ancient individuals for whom we report new data.” Those individuals didn’t just show up in laboratories by magic. They came there by careful work by archaeologists, by intelligent observations from interested amateurs, by hard and careful work in caves, in ancient graves, and in sudden gullies opened by rainstorms. Brawn, physical finesse, and something of the Indiana Jones spirit of adventure were as important for making this research possible as microscopes and microchips. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Moneybags: no dig, no data. We all should remember that, too.
This article was originally published by RealClearScience and made available via RealClearWire.
Three labs confirm fragments of DNA from manufacturing are left in the mRNA vaccines
We injected 70% of the world’s population with a barely tested admixture that included random lengths of DNA. We don’t know for sure if that DNA has been inserted into our nuclear DNA, but we’re not really looking either. The government just says mRNA can’t change your DNA. But could contaminated mRNA which is packaged in lipid nanoparticles, with gene therapy vectors and enhancers do that? Maybe, but whatever you do, don’t run those tests, right?
Are we changing germline genetics of the human race — getting into sperm or egg cells? We don’t know. These are just the games we play these days. We could easily have run those tests on sperm at least, before we approved anything in young fertile adults and children, but we didn’t. A Chinese scientist that did that once in a different experiment ended up in jail. Some researchers are quite concerned to put it mildly. The odds may be low, but the numbers are astronomical. After a few billion hands of poker everyone has a Royal Flush.
In March, Kevin McKernan, a molecular biologist, found DNA contamination in Pfizer’s mRNA Covid vaccines and published this in here and here. As soon as Kevin McKernan put out his paper on the presence of small fragments of SV40, the Factcheckers arrived to flood the scene with strawmen — declaring there’s no SV40 virus in vaccines — which is true, but no one said there was.
Now the presence of remnant DNA has been confirmed by two independent labs (Dr. Sin Lee and Philip Buckhaults) — so it wasn’t a freak finding or a mistake. It really is that bad. Indeed, Phillip Buckhaults set out to show the fears were overblown but instead, in astonishment, confirmed what McKernan found.
“My plan was to examine the vaccine to debunk the fear of SV40 being in the vaccine. … I checked them first by a PCR assay that uses primers against the vector, and lo and behold, it fired very hot. A very, very high signal. … and son of the gun, Kevin McKernan was right, this plasmid is present in the vaccine. I proved that there is NOT SV40 full virus, but there is plasmid DNA. And that plasmid does have a little piece of SV40 in it. “
A plasmid is a circle of DNA that’s a regular lab tool. In this case it contains about 10% of the SV40 virus, a virus that contaminated some polio vaccines around 1960, and has been the subject of many studies since. We find it in cancer cells, but did it cause the cancers? Academic opinion is divided (see the papers here). But the part of SV40 that’s in the plasmid is a potent part that amplifies or promotes whatever code follows it. Indeed, SV40 is used in gene therapy research — it makes a good vector. It’s such a good gene therapy tool that the residual DNA contaminant ought to be classified under gene therapy regulations instead of vaccination rules, says McKernan. He points out that there is an ongoing lawsuit in Australia with the TGA about this very issue.
The mRNA vaccines are an incredibly complex chemical product — easy to screw up
Creating mRNA vaccines was a monumentally ambitious chemical task. It’s no wonder things went wrong. An mRNA molecule is a chain of four different small molecules that is 4,284 bases long, in an exact sequence in the correct order. Effectively, on a molecular scale, we must connect these 4,284 nucleic acid bases in a row, and then wrap them in a fat layer (called a lipid nanoparticle). McKernan estimates each vaccination dose contains 13 to 40 trillion copies of the mRNA. This is not like the complexity of chemistry, say, used in creating ammonia in the Haber Bosch process, but something leagues, astronomical magnitudes beyond that. It is only possible because a billion years of evolution has crafted nano-scale machines that do a lot of it for us. We are merely co-opting the tools of biology. Grinding out thousands of bases is something even bacteria can do, but cleaning it up, that’s much harder.
To create all the copies of mRNA, and package it up, we use E.Coli — a bacterium — to be the molecular factory, then we have to strip out those factories, to disassemble them and all their “body parts” and remove them, without damaging the product, and in some batches we failed miserably.
Once again, we all hope friends, families and readers here, of course, got the good batches. It was a lottery.
Kevin McKernan Talks COVID Vaccine DNA Contamination, the Monkey Virus SV40 Promoter, and What’s Actually in the Vaccines
… many years ago there was a case where Dr. He in China did some genome edits on two babies. He made two CRISPR [clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats] babies. That guy went to jail. Fast-forward to today, we’re willing to take that risk on billions of people. Now granted, CRISPR is a lot more effective, and doing it on germline is obviously going to affect every cell in the kid’s body. We’re probably not going to get every cell in the kid’s body when we inject them with one of these vaccines.
But if we hit a stem cell or if we hit a germline cell with a vaccine and we get an integration event, it’s effectively what that guy did, and it put him in jail. The ethical decay that’s occurred in the last five years in the biomedical community is absolutely astonishing. I can only attribute that to the vast amount of money that’s on the table for these vaccines.
What we do know is there is residual DNA in both shots, and this DNA is either right above the regulatory limit or tenfold higher. Our data has shown it to be tenfold higher than the FDA’s standards.
Why did we need such high doses? “… an RNA molecule for every single cell in your body.”
The RNA is just supposed to make enough protein to teach some white blood cells, not to teach every single damn cell in your body:
But what I think was perhaps a valid critique of their effort is that they never really knew how much you needed. Their dosage study looked at three doses. Why are we injecting 40 trillion of these things into people? Why does the immune system need such a huge payload to build an immune response? … we’re putting in truckloads of this material. We’re doing it over and over and over again, and it’s not working. These are all signs that something is horribly wrong. There’s 30 trillion cells in your body, so there’s more than an RNA molecule for every single cell in your body.
Would you like factory DNA in your ovaries?
We know from the biodistribution study that some of these LNPs are getting to the ovaries, so that’s a huge concern. If 1 percent of these LNPs get to the ovaries, there’s 40 billion in each shot, we’re getting down to 400 million that go to the ovaries. Now you’re starting to really concern yourself. If there’s only 300,000 oocytes in each female, and there are 400 million LNPs down there, these numbers are worrisome. What are we doing to the germline in the future generation?
(These numbers didn’t quite tally. Some studies estimate each LNP ball has on average 5 mRNA’s. So 40 billion LNP’s won’t carry 40 Trillion mRNA’s, as McKernan stated above. Perhaps the transcription tool “misheard”, or a reader can explain — either way, the important point stands. Human eggs are precious things, a million or a billion accidents either way is awful).
We don’t know where the vaccines went in body tissues:
This would seem the most basic first step, but we didn’t even do it properly.
Mr. McKernan: There were a lot of things they told us were impossible, which turned out not to be true. I would like to see more biodistribution studies. The biodistribution studies were not run with the mRNA that’s being injected. They ran it with a mock mRNA known as a luciferase mRNA that doesn’t necessarily give you the best signal to detect this over long periods of time.
They also ran those biodistribution studies over very short time windows. Of course, now we’re seeing mRNA in people’s plasma 28 days later, and we’re seeing it in breast milk. We’re seeing the spike protein in monocytes four months later. The biodistribution studies really didn’t track this long enough to know where it goes and for how long.
A cocktail of contaminants
The contaminants include not just a part of a monkey virus, but also antibiotic resistance, and also something called a 72 ACE pair enhancer which is apparently good for moving DNA into the nucleus (Oh no).
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about what we know concretely. Please explain why you might have this SV40 promoter and enhancer in there in the first place.
Mr. McKernan: It’s a common tool used in the biotech industry to drive very aggressive expression of a gene. In this case, Pfizer has it in front of a neomycin resistance gene, which drives resistance for neomycin. The reason they want it there is so that they can grow this plasmid in E.coli. E.coli doubles every 30 minutes, so you can grow E.coli overnight and get gobs of this DNA. You then have to purify it from E.coli to make RNA out of it.
Fragments of DNA — especially ones packaged the right way — could integrate into our own genetic code. They may do nothing or everything depending on where they “land” in our 3.2 billion base genome. They may cause cancer if they land inside a key gene that usually protects us against cancer.
The concern is if this DNA integrates the genome, one portion of the SSV40 sequence is an SV40 promoter, a very strong promoter, which means it drives transcription wherever it lands in the genome. If this happens to drop itself in front of a proto-oncogene and drives a lot of expression off of a gene that’s known, if you hyper-express it and turn the cell cancerous, then we have a concern that DNA is in fact doing that.
Normally it’s difficult for loose bits of DNA to get near the nucleus of our cells where our DNA is kelp. But if the DNA is packaged up and has the right equipment, it can get there:
There are two concerns. There are promoters in this vaccine from SV40 and there’s an 72 ACE pair enhancer, which David Dean has shown is a very potent tool for moving DNA into the nucleus, and they’re right next to each other. If this DNA moves into the nucleus and it drags a promoter with it, and that integrates in front of a gene, it can disrupt gene regulation and potentially lead to the oncogenesis.
Pfizer hid the SV40 component from the EMA
This is a really bad look:
The really crushing thing here is Pfizer never disclosed the SV40 information to the EMA [European Medicines Agency]. They gave them a plasmid map of what the plasmid consisted of, with all of the features labeled, with the exception of the SV40 site.
They did that because they know the SV40 region is a very controversial base in its history in the vaccine field. The polio vaccines were contaminated with the full virus, not just these little components, but the full virus. The full virus has over 5,000 bases. The components we have are about 466 bases of the virus, but they’re arguably the most functional aspects of the virus’s genome for replicating and for gene expression.
The fact that they hid that this is in there from the EMA is a concern. We know from David Dean’s work that it’s used as a gene therapy tool, so it would clearly classify the residual DNA in the vaccines under the gene therapy regulations that we have in many jurisdictions.
Fragments of DNA that integrate may do nothing or everything depending on where they “land” in our 3.2 billion base genome. They may cause cancer if they land inside a key gene that usually protects us against cancer. All our cells have multiple layers of protection against cancer, but this may wipe one of them out.
Stop vaccines for children and adults of fertile ages until we know
If the DNA of eggs and sperm is being changed — it may mean the death of that particular embryo, which may delay pregnancy but not preclude it. It could translate into falling fertility rates, or it may mean children born with a higher risk of disease or disability. We may be playing “shotgun” genetics with the next generation. Why aren’t our Ministers of Health looking? It would be easy to analyze sperm samples and answer this question. It’s a lot harder to test eggs. It’s the sort of test that could be done in weeks.
Now that the DNA contamination is known, the question of culpability and informed consent gets so much more pointed. But for our regulatory agencies — the question remains — why didn’t test for this at the start of 2021?
What kills much faster than cancer? — “endotoxins”
McKernan admits that bacterial endotoxin contamination scares him more than the DNA — at least in an immediate sense. The remnant shells of the bacteria — the body parts of E.Coli — are called lipopolysaccaride, or LPS, and they are highly allergenic. We deal with small doses of this all the time, but in large doses, they can cause anaphylaxis — the potentially deadly overactivation of our immune systems. Just this contaminant alone may have caused sudden deaths within minutes of injection.
There is some risk that if you don’t fully purify it from E.coli, you can leave behind what’s known as endotoxin or lipopolysaccharides, usually abbreviated as LPS. This is an additional risk that Pfizer took on. Moderna’s doing a very similar thing, although they don’t have SV40 in there. They are using E.coli to amplify their plasmid DNA, and it comes with some of this risk.
The good news is that if the endotoxins didn’t kill you, at least that risk is gone, unless you have a booster.
Cherry picking the tests to pass outdated regulations
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) sets a safe ratio of RNA to DNA (well, they say it’s safe), but the pharmaceutical companies cherry picked the type of tests they used, so as to overestimate one and underestimate the others and “pass”. How much do any of them care about your health?
The EMA has a different standard that’s a ratio metric standard. When looking at RNA to DNA ratios, it’s even worse. The actual outcome is that there is more like a 17 to 80-fold gap from what is required in the regulations, as best we can tell.
I’ve only seen Pfizer’s documentation on this, but when they are measuring this and giving data to the regulators, they’re using two different tools to measure the RNA versus the DNA. That’s a mechanism for them to cook the books here. They shouldn’t do that. There’s tools like qPCR that can measure both DNA and RNA, but instead they’re measuring the RNA with fluorescence like a qubit or a fluorometer, and they’re measuring the DNA with qPCR. That inflates the amount of RNA they get and depresses the amount of DNA they get so that they can squeak through these regulatory requirements without anyone really understanding what’s going on.
Coding for the nerds
Lastly, this, below, is just a part of the code for the plasmid DNA contaminants in the mRNA vaccine. Click to enlarge. The A, C, T and G stand for molecules called adenine, cytosine, thymine and guanine. Think of this as the C++, or Python of biology. Given the current state of play, perhaps it’s worth becoming a bit more familiar with molecular biology.
It is double stranded — and in the alternate chain, which is effectively a back up “mirror” copy, we see C always pairs opposite G and T always sits opposite A. This is exactly the same as our DNA — same bases, same language. Our cellular machinery will potentially engage and read this code and produce the products — whatever they are.
—————————————————
hat tip: John Connor II, Leo G, Konrad, Ian B, bella.
Kevin McKernan1*, Anthony M. Kyriakopoulos2 and Peter A. McCullough3 (2023) Differences in Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Replication Derived mRNA: Implications for Cell Biology and Future Disease, Submitted for peer review. [DocX] (page 11)
Two AP1000 nuclear power reactors are powering up in Georgia, and several ventures are developing new generation reactors. The outlook for more nuclear power seems bright. But will there be some future failure that leaks radioactive material out? Yes, perfection is impossible; airplanes crash.
Will such a radiation event kill off nuclear power, as did the harmless Three Mile Island accident?
Yes, if we are guided by baseless fear. Regulators claim any radiation exposure is potentially harmful and so set unreasonably low limits. Media headlines frighten people about any radiation leaks, no matter how small. This article will contrast today’s regulatory limits with published, recommended protective actions to avoid harm to the public after a radiation release from a nuclear reactor accident.
Ionizing radiation harms by displacing electrons, breaking molecular bonds in cells. It is measured in Sieverts (Sv) or Grays, which are watt-seconds of energy absorbed, per kilogram of body weight. An intensive, brief 10 Sv dose is deadly, 1 Sv risks acute radiation sickness, and such a dose over 0.1 Sv can slightly increase future cancer risk.
U.S. regulations limit annual public radiation exposure from nuclear power to 0.001 Sv. The limit is 100X smaller than a brief, intensive dose that might cause cancer, and 1000X smaller than one requiring medical attention. This enormous safety margin was created politically by reducing limits in an attempt to reassure frightened people, but resulted in most people viewing 0.001 Sv as dangerous. Worse, regulators magnify fear with the ALARA rule (as low as reasonably achievable), claiming even lower exposures may cause cancer.
The regulators’ 0.001 Sv limit counts not just a single dose, but all radiation absorbed over an entire year, as if the harm were cumulative, without any biological repair during the year. In reality, repair takes place at DNA, cellular, and tissue levels in time scales of hours to days. DNA repair begins in seconds to minutes after exposure, and cellular repair within hours. How long does it take your cut finger to heal?
Radiation from the triple Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown killed no public citizens, but Japan’s government killed over 1,600 people with unnecessary evacuations.
To prevent such future mistakes, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) publishedActions to Protect the Public in an Emergency due to Severe Conditions at a Light Water Reactor to protect the public from physical radiation harm, avoiding harm from fear based on regulators’ limits. This IAEA documented advice is directed to accident site responders working to protect people’s lives and health, independent of radiation limits promulgated by bureaucrats.
Chart 1 helps guide the accident response team and the public. IAEA’s green SAFE FOR EVERYONE, year-long, dose rate is 25 microSv/hour. This radiation exposure dose rate over a whole year totals to 0.2 Sv, 200X the regulators limit of 0.001 Sv/year, but is safe because the body repairs damage much more rapidly than 25 microSv/hour damages it.
Jack Devanney’s substack article tabulates observed harms and radiation doses to actual people in many studies. He observes that dose rates under 0.01 Sv/day did not exhibit statistically significant, detectable harm. The body’s intrinsic repair rate exceeds the radiation damage rate. Using a 10:1 safety margin he suggests 0.001 Sv/day safety limit. This is 40 microSv/hour, close to the IAEA SAFE FOR EVERYONE rate of 25 microSv/hour.
CHERNOBYL. The Chernobyl accident was deadly; 30 onsite workers with intensive doses over 2 Sv died. Cleanup workers exposed up to 0.3 Sv or more had slightly higher rates of cancer. Radioactive iodine dispersed into the food chain caused over 1,400 thyroid cancers leading to the deaths of 15 children; no other increases in public cancer rates was observed. Perhaps 200,000 people were evacuated. Radiation rates in the Chernobyl exclusion zone are now under 10 microSv/hour, not harmful to the 1,000 stubborn babushkas and others who still live there.
FUKUSHIMA. Within the stricken Fukushima power plants site, radiation peaked at 10,000 microSv/hour, dropping 90% in 10 hours. Outside the plant IAEA reported peak measured radiation of 170 microSv/hour 30 km northwest of the site. By the next month radiation dropped to less than 91 microSv/hour everywhere, provisionally safe by Chart 1 except in spots where radiation may have still exceeded 25 microSv/hour. There was no need to evacuate 164,000 people, leading to the deaths of over 1,600 people, and there was certainly no need to do it hastily.
THREE MILE ISLAND. Around Three Mile Island reactor accident the cumulative dose averaged only 15 microSv (likely under 25 microSv/hour everywhere), so there was no need to evacuate anyone. Nevertheless the accident was a factor in ending nuclear power plants construction in the U.S.
NATURAL RADIATION. The back of Chart 1 states the average annual dose rate from natural sources of radiation exposure fluctuates around 0.2 microSv/hour, but in some locations it can be up to 15 microSv/hour.
It’s dose rate, not dose, that matters. Harm results when dose rate exceeds repair rate. Regulators and the multi billion dollar radiation protection industry overstate radiation harm by orders of magnitude:
100X: 0.001 Sv/year regulatory limit vs observed intensive 0.1 Sv cancer threshold.
52X: regulatory yearlong biological repair assumption vs typical healing time.
ALARA: unknown whim.
Regulators should abandon cumulative, yearlong dose limits, and instead set dose rate limits consistent with biological repair times. The ALARA rule should be dropped. What should be the limit?
IAEA’s Chart 1 shows a 25 microSv/hour dose rate limit. Jack Devanney’s article suggested 40 microSv/hour. In 1934, the NCRP (National Commission on Radiation Protection) advised 40 microSv/hour (0.1 R/day in old units). Nearly 50 years later, NCRP founder Lauriston Taylor wrote “No one has been identifiably injured by radiation while working within the first numerical standards set by the NCRP and the ICRP in 1934.”
Nuclear power growth will end with the next radiation release unless we replace regulators with people who observe facts and consequences. The near century of concessions changing 1934 radiation limits from 40 microSv/hour to 0.001 Sv/year has not reduced harm one bit, but has increased public fear because the more restrictive limits have no evidential justification. Fear of nuclear power has killed many more people than radiation.
Nuclear power will be cheaper, ample, and less feared if regulators issue fact-based limits instead of conceding to protesters.
Dr. Hargraves teaches energy policy at Dartmouth’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute and is a co-founder of a nuclear engineering company.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
His autopsy slides show damaged blood vessels, both the cells that form the inner lining (the epithelium) and the fibrous ‘tube’ of the vessels, as well as the disintegrated heart muscle fibres suspected to lie behind sudden adult (or arrhythmic) death syndrome (SADS). His team’s test has found spike proteins in almost every organ in the body. The dark dots in the slides that he showed in what turned out to be his last presentation, in the EU parliament on May 3rd, represent lymphocytes (white blood cells).
In search of enlightenment on why the Covid vaccines are harmful to some people, I paid a call on Dr. Chris Newton. Dr. Newton taught in the Department of Medicine, Hull University, and before that he worked as Senior Research Scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Munich. His research in Munich included cellular transfection with DNA. He has more recently contributed a lengthy chapter on Covid pathogenesis and therapy to Nutrition and Integrative Medicine for Clinicians, Volume Two.
Dr. Newton told me he was extremely dismayed to find that effective medical therapy for Covid was being ignored or undermined. Chris commented: “It became rather obvious, the system was running interference to prevent any potential therapy from gaining traction. The reason being that an authorised therapy for prophylaxis or early therapy would block emergency authorisation of the vaccines which at the time were under development.”
Professor Arne Burkhardt, who sadly has recently died, was a highly respected German pathologist who performed autopsies on people suspected of dying from the Covid vaccines. He led an international team of 10 scientists in developing a test for spike protein in human tissue.
His autopsy slides show damaged blood vessels, both the cells that form the inner lining (the epithelium) and the fibrous ‘tube’ of the vessels, as well as the disintegrated heart muscle fibres suspected to lie behind sudden adult (or arrhythmic) death syndrome (SADS). His team’s test has found spike proteins in almost every organ in the body. The dark dots in the slides that he showed in what turned out to be his last presentation, in the EU parliament on May 3rd, represent lymphocytes (white blood cells).
I asked Dr. Newton whether he deemed these findings by Dr. Burkhardt and others convincing. He said he did as he trusts that professionals of the stature of Professor Burkhardt and fellow pathologist Professor Walter Lang will have carried out the control tests required and so there is every reason to be confident in their findings, as evidenced by neutralising antibodies and spike-specific T-cells.
Dr. Newton explained that the original DNA sequence for the vaccine spike protein is a portion of the SARS-CoV-2 virus code data released by China in early 2020. The first step in creating the mRNA vaccines was to turn the computer sequence into physical DNA in a laboratory. Dr. Newton explained that the process was to join short segments of DNA and to assemble the full coding sequence of the spike protein as ‘hard copy’ DNA. Dr. Newton said that he had himself used a similar process when studying the molecular biology of oestrogen receptors at the Max Planck Institute.
The ‘hard copy’ DNA, which is circular in form and known as a plasmid, is added to a cellular bioreactor where the spike DNA is reproduced many times and then converted to mRNA. A purification procedure removes cellular proteins, lipids and DNA. mRNA is much more fragile than DNA and so is encased in lipid nanoforms. Salt solutions are added and the liquid then frozen to minus-70°C to keep it stable during storage and transport.
What happens when these mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles are injected into people’s bodies was the subject of several hours of conversation between Dr. Newton and myself. Dr. Newton’s particular concern is that the lipid nanoparticles are designed to penetrate membranes and these ingredients can potentially reach every organ including the brain. He suggested that there are several ‘hot spots’, including the ovaries, testes and bone marrow.
Although spike protein will be expressed when cells take up mRNA, Dr. Newton suggested that inflammation of tissues cannot solely be ascribed to the spike protein. The mRNA is carried by the encapsulating lipids and so toxicity of carrier lipids may equally provoke a harmful inflammatory response.
Dr. Kevin McKernan’s researchhas shown that the purification procedure described above has not been effective: the vaccines contain a large proportion of DNA, including the original circular plasmid and linear fragments of a wide range of sizes. If DNA (rather than mRNA) is taken up by cells, they may continue to generate spike protein for a long time.
Meanwhile, Dr. Gabriele Segalla, a specialist in these types of nanomaterials, hasfound that the lipid nanoparticles, when warmed up from minus-70°C and then injected into the body, become unstable and the minute droplets disintegrate, forming clumps and even solids, thus generating another set of unpredictable, harmful and little understood substances in the body.
Dr. Segalla emphasises that size is important. These microscopically small nanoforms behave differently to the same chemicals when in physically larger formation – an important feature that is recognised by European medicine regulators. This means nanoforms can be toxic on account of their small size and not solely because of the actual chemical compounds involved.
Returning to my conversation with Dr. Chris Newton, he explained to me that all of the various components of the vaccine cause inflammation and there is little or no information as to how the body neutralises, stores or excretes them, or in what timeframe.
In another chapter of Nutrition and Integrative Medicine for Clinicians, Volume Two, Arden Anderson reports that chronic inflammation is always damaging and is fundamental to many diseases including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, high blood pressure, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s. In his own chapter, Dr. Newton sets out the foods and antioxidant supplements useful against inflammation, spike protein and COVID-19 itself. Sounds like the NHS is going to need a few copies.
IMAGE: OCTOPUS BIMACULOIDES.view more CREDIT: ROGER T. HANLON
WOODS HOLE, Mass. — Each cell comes with a finite set of instructions encoded in its DNA. Life, however, is unpredictable, and when circumstances change, animals need flexibility to acclimate. New research led by Joshua Rosenthal of the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) and Eli Eisenberg at Tel Aviv University indicates that octopuses and their close relatives elegantly adjust to environmental challenges by tinkering with their RNA — an intermediary molecule that conveys DNA’s directions.
In a new study appearing in Cell on June 8, Rosenthal and colleagues document an enormous uptick in RNA editing when octopus, squid and cuttlefish, known as coleoid cephalopods, acclimate to cold water. After cooling the octopuses’ tanks, the team saw increases in protein-altering activity at more than 13,000 RNA sites in the animals’ nervous systems. In two of these cases, they investigated how swapping out a single letter of the RNA molecule’s code alters the function of proteins the neurons produce.
Through RNA editing, the cephalopods appear to have found a unique way of tweaking their own physiology, according to Rosenthal, a senior scientist at MBL.
“We’re used to thinking all living things are preprogrammed from birth with a certain set of instructions,” he says. “The idea the environment can influence that genetic information, as we’ve shown in cephalopods, is a new concept.”
The mystery of massive RNA editing in cephalopods
A cell’s molecular machinery transcribes the instructions encoded in DNA into RNA, some of which goes on to make protein. Researchers have learned that cells have the capacity to swap one member of the four-letter genetic code, Adenosine, for a substitute molecule, Inosine, which behaves like Guanosine, one of the original four. While the same process occurs in humans and most other animals, it only rarely affects RNA that’s bound to produce protein.
In 2015, Rosenthal and his colleagues showed that squid employ this kind of protein-altering RNA editing (called A-to-I) on a massive scale, and later showed the same in octopus.
“A big question for us was, ‘What are they using it for?’” Rosenthal says.
Because editing changes RNA only temporarily, the researchers suspected these animals use it to acclimate to their environment. For the current study, they focused on the effects of one such factor, temperature, within the nervous system. Temperature matters because it governs the activity of enzymes, which in turn drive chemical reactions crucial to all physiological processes.
Like other cephalopods, the California two-spot octopus (Octopus bimaculoides) they studied cannot generate its own body heat to counteract the temperature drops that accompany tides, changes in water depth, and seasons.
After acclimating octopuses to temperatures at the warm end of their natural range (22 degrees C/ 72 degrees F) and the cool end (about 13 degrees C / 55 degrees F), the researchers examined their RNA. Within its molecular code, they tracked activity at locations where they already knew editing occurs. In the octopuses in the cold tanks, they found significant increases at 13,285 sites where the one-letter change alters protein. For those in the warm tanks, they found upticks at 550 such places.
Follow-up experiments suggested RNA editing may help the animals adapt to gradual changes, but not to rapid ones associated with, for example, traveling from warmer surface water down to cooler depths.
To corroborate the lab work, Matthew Birk, now an assistant professor at Saint Francis University in Pennsylvania, recorded temperature near octopus dens in winter and late summer, then collected the animals.
With help from collaborators at the University of Michigan and Texas Tech University, the team investigated how RNA editing tweaked the function of two proteins that are vital for neural function in the octopuses. The first protein, kinesin-1, ferries cargo along the long branches of neurons. RNA editing, they found, changes the rate at which this molecule travels. Likewise, it alters the responsiveness of a protein called synaptotagmin that enables communication between neurons.
One secret to cephalopods’ sophistication?
Cephalopods likely use this form of genetic tinkering to adjust to change in many ways, well beyond acclimating to cold water, Rosenthal suspects. “I think it’s the tip of the iceberg,” he says of this study’s findings.
It may explain, in part, how these organisms have achieved sophisticated behavior. Octopuses, for example, can solve mechanical puzzles, and mimic colors and textures to camouflage themselves. Capabilities like these require nervous systems composed of a complex set of proteins.
“What mechanisms do they use to create this complexity? I believe that RNA editing is one of them,” Rosenthal says.
Written by Wynne Parry
—###—
The Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) is dedicated to scientific discovery – exploring fundamental biology, understanding marine biodiversity and the environment, and informing the human condition through research and education. Founded in Woods Hole, Massachusetts in 1888, the MBL is a private, nonprofit institution and an affiliate of the University of Chicago.
It is apparently so well established that radiation can induce genetic mutation that ChatGPT can’t cite a single real study and instead offers “fictional studies.” And though ChatGPT only offers fictional studies to support its position, it still maintains that radiation causes genetic mutation. Artificial intelligence produces true lies.
A new low for artificial intelligence — ChatGPT cited admittedly “fictional” scientific studies to answer a question about radiation.
Ahead of coming blockbuster radiation safety news on JunkScience.com, I asked ChatGPT whether exposure to radiation can cause genetic mutation. In its best imitation of 1946 Nobel prize winner Herman Muller, one of the all-time biggest science frauds, ChatGPT responded affirmatively:
So I asked ChatGPT to cite a study reporting that radiation induces genetic mutation:
Curious, I tried to find the study that ChatGPT not only cited but described. What I found, though, is that no such study actually exists.
So I went back to ChatGPT with that information and it responded:
Then I tried to find the second study, which is also described in some detail. Again, it did not exist. And I reported that to ChatGPT, which then mades an astounding admission:
It is apparently so well established that radiation can induce genetic mutation that ChatGPT can’t cite a single real study and instead offers “fictional studies.” And though ChatGPT only offers fictional studies to support its position, it still maintains that radiation causes genetic mutation.
.jpg){kind=link}
You must be logged in to post a comment.