Comment on Adhikari et al. (20204): their findings invalidate the postulated mechanism and effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and their predominant efficacy measures
Comment on Adhikari et al. (20204): their findings invalidate the postulated mechanism and effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and their predominant efficacy measures
Already PfiBis trial C4591001 demonstrated thzat the "effect" on the RT-PCR starts 12 days after first dose, while ABs occurred only 21 to 28 days after first dose. Hence, already in December 2020 it was clear that ABs do not contribute to what they defined as efficacy.
Later, FDA und Pfizer had to admit that the mechanism of action would be unclear or unknown. LOL as regards Pfizer.
Going deeper, theses modRNA product cannot have any effect of "severe COVID-19", they again only lower the incidence of hospitalisation with a positive RT-PCR test. But presumably increase the overall SAE rates. Must be, as these products definitely cause deaths!
The explanation is just simple:
The modRNA products interact with the RT-PCR test, either by producing a peptide that interferes with the RT (a bit more likely) or by producing antisense sequences (less likely) that make the primer of actual the PCR-test (on DNA) blind.
Thank you for the data and link. I do agree that the modRNA products interfere with the test and that ABs are not a valid measure of protection. And yes, all this has long been known. I wrote about this in my book (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-18903-6). Sadly, it was long crystal clear, but censored. What these products do to the immune system is much less clear and should have been studied in detail in the lab, before mass-rollout to humans. Thank you for all your work and for raising awareness. Congrats on the detailed and important expert opinion. Good luck!!!
"What these products do to the immune system is much less clear..."
I like to honestly disagree.
It is clear from the booster trials and many obsservational studies that the vaxxed certainly have a higher risk to get C19, whatever this is; for me just a kind of flu.
It is clear from many VAERS findings, in particular from disproportionality analyses, that these modRNA vaccines increase the susceptibility for infections in general.
There are also findings that the modRNA products do not provoke formation of just one protein, e.g. the notorious spike protein, but also of many other proteines and peptides.
These proteins and peptides are useless, but drive the immune system into a wrong direction.
I doubt that this must be observed in every detail by in vitro research for every disease. The VAERS data already make clear: These vaxxes trigger myocarditis, appendicits, dementia, and cancer. And many other untoward diseases.
I believe the i.s is so complex we don't understand it. For example, immune imprinting. Tolerance development. Then, how does it respond to the synthetic products? They will be inhomogeneous, some will have dsRNAs, some will have DNAs, etc. Some will have immunity reactions to the PEG etc etc. It's all over the place. Some will get lots of synthetic material, some not much - where is the threshold? All we know is that the i.s. sometimes does this, and sometimes something else - see the Foehse et al article re the reprogramming of the i.s. following the injection.
I will need to read this in depth, since I struggle a bit with immunology. But thank you. I have always been suspicious of the antibodies and their efficacy given what I knew about the mRNA and its translation.
However, I think my conclusion on the vaccines which I stated in Oct 22 and for which I was thrown off Twitter remains essentially correct.
Thank you. You are absolutely right. It's all synthetic and "supported" by models (what happens in practice is a huge question). A very succinct summary of yours! And, sadly, you seem to be spot on.
Very interesting. There are clearly implications for the whole mRNA platform given that this brings its supposed modus operandi into question, and just heightens our fears if introduced into animals intended for the food chain especially. This is messing with biology that is far from completely understood which increases the risks of unintended consequences.
Already PfiBis trial C4591001 demonstrated thzat the "effect" on the RT-PCR starts 12 days after first dose, while ABs occurred only 21 to 28 days after first dose. Hence, already in December 2020 it was clear that ABs do not contribute to what they defined as efficacy.
Later, FDA und Pfizer had to admit that the mechanism of action would be unclear or unknown. LOL as regards Pfizer.
Going deeper, theses modRNA product cannot have any effect of "severe COVID-19", they again only lower the incidence of hospitalisation with a positive RT-PCR test. But presumably increase the overall SAE rates. Must be, as these products definitely cause deaths!
The explanation is just simple:
The modRNA products interact with the RT-PCR test, either by producing a peptide that interferes with the RT (a bit more likely) or by producing antisense sequences (less likely) that make the primer of actual the PCR-test (on DNA) blind.
For more arguments see here:
English: https://kremer.tentary.com/p/GNV9M3
German: https://kremer.tentary.com/p/My5eA4
Chapter 6.
Thank you for the data and link. I do agree that the modRNA products interfere with the test and that ABs are not a valid measure of protection. And yes, all this has long been known. I wrote about this in my book (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-18903-6). Sadly, it was long crystal clear, but censored. What these products do to the immune system is much less clear and should have been studied in detail in the lab, before mass-rollout to humans. Thank you for all your work and for raising awareness. Congrats on the detailed and important expert opinion. Good luck!!!
"What these products do to the immune system is much less clear..."
I like to honestly disagree.
It is clear from the booster trials and many obsservational studies that the vaxxed certainly have a higher risk to get C19, whatever this is; for me just a kind of flu.
It is clear from many VAERS findings, in particular from disproportionality analyses, that these modRNA vaccines increase the susceptibility for infections in general.
There are also findings that the modRNA products do not provoke formation of just one protein, e.g. the notorious spike protein, but also of many other proteines and peptides.
These proteins and peptides are useless, but drive the immune system into a wrong direction.
I doubt that this must be observed in every detail by in vitro research for every disease. The VAERS data already make clear: These vaxxes trigger myocarditis, appendicits, dementia, and cancer. And many other untoward diseases.
I believe the i.s is so complex we don't understand it. For example, immune imprinting. Tolerance development. Then, how does it respond to the synthetic products? They will be inhomogeneous, some will have dsRNAs, some will have DNAs, etc. Some will have immunity reactions to the PEG etc etc. It's all over the place. Some will get lots of synthetic material, some not much - where is the threshold? All we know is that the i.s. sometimes does this, and sometimes something else - see the Foehse et al article re the reprogramming of the i.s. following the injection.
NB: RT = reverse transcriptase. This reaction makes DNA from RNA of supposed viruses. Only DNA can be amplified in a PCR.
I will need to read this in depth, since I struggle a bit with immunology. But thank you. I have always been suspicious of the antibodies and their efficacy given what I knew about the mRNA and its translation.
However, I think my conclusion on the vaccines which I stated in Oct 22 and for which I was thrown off Twitter remains essentially correct.
synthetic mRNA
synthetic lipids
synthetic Ab and immunological response
Only the adverse events are real
Thank you. You are absolutely right. It's all synthetic and "supported" by models (what happens in practice is a huge question). A very succinct summary of yours! And, sadly, you seem to be spot on.
Very interesting. There are clearly implications for the whole mRNA platform given that this brings its supposed modus operandi into question, and just heightens our fears if introduced into animals intended for the food chain especially. This is messing with biology that is far from completely understood which increases the risks of unintended consequences.