Novavax: Controlled Opposition

'Quick, into this train car we painted red'

Jan 23, 2024

Having observed Twitter, there’s been a noticeable uptick in astroturf accounts trying to promote people into getting the Novavax shot as an “alternative” to the mRNA shots:

Usual red flags for astroturf accounts are there: masks, artificial COVID-19 propaganda keywords, Ukrainian flags, syringe emojis and more.

None disclose sponsorships (despite being a requirement under FTC rules for advertising on American platforms), and one who replied insisted they were shilling a product for free out of the kindness of their heart. Sure…

There’s no way “our” group would fall for such propaganda nonsense, right?

Uh Oh, We’re In Trouble

Igor Chudov recently published an article titled “mRNA Technology Is the Culprit Behind Faulty Immune Response That Prolonged the Pandemic, IgG4 Study Shows”. And yes, the mRNA is unstable and doesn’t work.

Igor Chudov typically does great work in articles.

The problem is in this case is he cites a pro-Novavax paper (at the current time, not peer reviewed) clearly designed to make competitor shots look bad and make Novavax look good. Basically: rigged study with a blatantly obvious commercial bias on outcome; very likely a flawed study.

This isn’t specific to Chudov either.

At time of writing Chudov’s article has >200 likes by folks who think citing a Novavax commercial attack paper is a good idea (some of which may be readers here!) — prompting the writing of this article. It pains to have to do this.

Chudov (seems to?) think if he points out financial conflict of interest with the not currently peer reviewed paper at the bottom of his article it will somehow magically make the study reliable. Why not declared upfront, at the top? Would it hurt the credibility of the conclusion, perhaps?

The suspicion is he’s citing the paper as it agrees with his views, not that the paper has demonstrably good scientific practice.

He claims skepticism is warranted but does not apply any. He underplays the seriousness of Novavax’s involvement by stating it is ‘funded by Novavax’, as if implying a third party wrote it. It wasn’t just “funded by Novavax”, it was written by Novavax, with a whopping 11 Novavax employees involved:

All the authors marked with ‘1’ work for Novavax. There’s 11 people marked.

Of course Novavax employees are going to write a paper where they say ‘competitor shots bad, Novavax good’. This paper screams rigged financial conclusion, making the findings basically worthless.

Just because you agree with the conclusion (mRNA bad), does not make the data used (Novavax advertising) to arrive at that conclusion sound. Hopefully the community understands this as a criticism of methodology, not a personal attack.

Novavax Transfects

Why are we so annoyed at Novavax? Well, the shortstop is they’re part of the transfection party too.

The flaws with the Novavax shots were originally exposed by the indomitable Jikkyleaks, who started raising awareness of what they dubbed ‘#novagate’.

The discussions on #novagate were vast — vast enough that our descriptor of it will likely fail to comprehend the scope, but we hope to capture the essence.

Jikkyleaks declared that Novavax shots contain saponins, as a type of transfectant reagent…

Well, it turns out it does indeed include saponins. And insect cell proteins (‘you ville inject zee bugs’). And DNA. And Polysorbate 80. And bits of tree. Did we mention it contains DNA?

Novavax hopes if they tell you honestly that their shots intentionally contain DNA (‘it’s a feature, not a bug, but we include bug too!’) that somehow you’ll be at ease.

The paper Jikky cites demonstrating the saponins are transfection agents is “Saponin and fluorine-modified polycation as a versatile gene delivery system”:

The paper goes on to insist that saponins are very effective at delivering plasmid DNA into human cells (HEK; human embryonic kidney), among other things:

This vehicle could transfect small plasmid DNA (∼3 kb) with outstanding efficiency into various cells, including HEK 293T, NIH3T3, A549, PC12, MCF7 and HT-29, as well as robust transfection of a large plasmid (∼9 kb) into HEK 293T cells.

In an earlier paper The Daily Beagle found, titled (emphasis added) “Structure-Activity Relationship of Transfection-Modulating Saponins - A Pursuit for the Optimal Gene Trafficker”, the paper gleefully writes at the potential of saponins to transfect:

[…] we were able to provide new and essential insights regarding the structure-activity relationship of transfection-modulating saponins and give an idea of how a highly potent saponin for future gene therapies may look like.

They even include a little diagram depicting the saponin as opening the endosome to gain access to the cell (bottom right of the image):

A Bunch Of Sapofections

Another paper, titled “Sapofectosid – an isolated triterpenoid saponin from Saponaria officinalis L. ensures non-toxic and universal gene delivery”, introduces us to the concept of the ‘sapofectosid’ (which as the title notes, is an ‘isolated triterpenoid saponin from Saponaria officinalis’, or a saponin, basically).

The paper also introduces another term, ‘sapofection’, meaning transfection via the use of saponins.

So a sapofectosid is a saponin used in sapofection. So any time you see ‘sapofection’, think ‘transfection with saponins’ (an action), and any time you see ‘sapofectosid’, think ‘saponin that transfects’ (an item).

We have to decode these terms as the word ‘saponin’ starts to disappear, and ‘sapofectosid’ and ‘sapofection’ starts to take its place.

Hello PEI We Meet Again

In the paper “Sapofectosid - Ensuring non-toxic and effective DNA and RNA delivery”, it confirms ‘sapofectosids’ do enhance transfection efficiency (‘speed’) of DNA and RNA into cells, especially combined with liposomes and a name recognisable to longer-time Daily Beagle readers, polyethylenimine:

Polyethylenimine ‘starred’ in our article titled “The Transfectant Agent Found In Your Food”, where we highlighted a study as early as 2002 where polyethylenimine aided the uptake of plasmid DNA into cells:

Turns out it is back and has joined saponins to form a disasterous duo. We found more.

Patently Absurd

On top of this, the paper “Sapofectosid - Ensuring non-toxic and effective DNA and RNA delivery”, also gets mentioned in a European patent:

The patent in turn mentions another paper titled “Improved intracellular delivery of peptide- and lipid-nanoplexes by natural glycosides”, mentioning one type of saponin (classified as SO1861) as improving the efficacy of LNPs and non-LNPs alike:

Another paper, “Plant derived triterpenes from Gypsophila elegans M.Bieb. enable non-toxic delivery of gene loaded nanoplexes”, introduces another saponin called ‘SA1641’ (Gypsophila paniculata L.), and the paper gushes over how ‘innovative’ and ‘promising’ they are for gene modification:

SA1641 gets mentioned in several places, the first in the Pursuit for an Optimal Gene Trafficker paper, mentioned earlier, and a paper called “The toxin component of targeted anti-tumor toxins determines their efficacy increase by saponins”, which beats around the bush implying gene modification as a means as an ‘anti-cancer’ shot.

Yes, that font for the authors does kind of look like comic sans.

This anti-cancer theme might sound vaguely familiar if you read either our cancer section in the Moderna corruption article or our investigation into ‘turbo’ cancers.

It is amazing how every gene modification shot goal ends up as being ‘fights cancer’ — the very same cancer caused by reckless insertational mutagenesis (basically; randomised DNA insertion into cell DNA).

So clearly the main feature of saponins is their ability to transfect, and yet Novavax misleadingly calls saponins an ‘adjuvant’ (‘something that heightens an immune response’), and omits the obviously genotoxic properties.

Other Vaccines Use Saponins

The saponin iceberg gets bigger, and using Novavax’s poor disguise of ‘adjuvant’, we found multiple companies use saponins and they all claim it is simply an adjuvant with no mention to the transfection abilities. To save space we’re only quoted a few.

“Natural and synthetic carbohydrate-based vaccine adjuvants and their mechanisms of action” reports that QS-21 (another codename for a saponin) is paired with a ‘liposomal formulation’ (remember the paper from earlier mentioning saponins aid lipid-based nanocomplexes) AS01 in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Mosquirix and Shingrix shots.

Here’s where things get scary: Shingrix was approved back in 2017. So odds are, transfection has been occurring on the quiet.

And This Saponin Shot Was Invented In 1987

Mosquirix, an anti-malaria shot, was created back in 1987 (but wasn’t piloted, oddly, until 2019). This isn’t a typographical error either, another source (paywalled, unfortunately).

Ah, that’s totally normal, invent a vaccine, then wait 32 years to roll it out. Definitely no signs of pre-planning. Nothing suspicious here. Oh, and it has only recently been “approved” for use by the pharmaceutical corrupt regulators in Africa, in 2021.

A 32 year old vaccine with a saponin transfection reagent, only deployed… now?

Well, this 1987 date will intrigue you further. Another paper, in German, titled “Untersuchung von Saponinen als neuartige Verstärker der Transfektion” (translation: Investigation of saponins as novel enhancers of transfection), written back in 2018 made this remark:

Or typed out (so you can translate yourself and verify):

So wurde 1987 erstmals beschrieben, dass positiv geladene Lipide und negativ geladene DNA Nanoplexe bilden, wodurch die Aufnahme („Uptake“) der DNA in die Zelle erleichtert wird

Translated:

In 1987, it was first described that positively charged lipids and negatively charged DNA form nanoplexes, which facilitates the uptake of DNA into the cell

That is to say, in 1987 — the same year the saponin containing Malaria vaccine Mosquirix was invented — they discovered that lipids can be paired with DNA to form ‘nanoplexes’ facilitating DNA uptake into a cell. And if it sounds suspiciously like how mRNA carrying LNPs work, it should do — it is basically the same technology, involving Zeta Potential (very crudely: electrical charges attract).

Or put differently, gene modification was a known thing in vaccines as early as 1987. The German paper goes on to depict a figure showing saponin entry into the cell’s nucleus:

Figure B descriptor:

B Endozytotischer Prozess mit Nanoplexe – mit Saponin: Die Anwesenheit von Saponinen führt zu Störungen in der Endosomenmembran. Aufgrund der amphiphilen Eigenschaften interagieren die Saponine mit der Membran und ermöglichen somit ein Austreten der Partikel noch vor einem enzymatischen Abbau

Translated:

B Endocytotic process with nanoplexes - with saponin: The presence of saponins leads to disruptions in the endosome membrane. Due to their amphiphilic properties, the saponins interact with the membrane and thus allow the particles to escape before enzymatic degradation

So saponins allow DNA to escape from the endosome into the nucleus, modifying the cell’s DNA, confirming that Novavax are peddling a gene modification shot like everybody else. Grounds not to be referencing their work.

But wait, there’s more.

The Matrix-M Has You

You might have spotted the word “Matrix-M” in the FDA ingredients list for Novavax and thought it was one of those pretentious corporate trademark terms:

You’d be half-right. However, very eagle-eyed long-time Daily Beagle readers might vaguely recall this term from somewhere. It was indirectly mentioned in our article “Near To Zero: Sterilisation Viruses and "Malnutrition Vaccines”.

Long story short, vaccine shill Peter Hotez of ‘block everybody on Twitter’ fame wrote a paper predicting an “imminent global food catastrophe” back in 2022 and insisting folks get ‘malnutrition vaccines’.

In his paper he published a list. Top of it was his own ‘hookworm’ shot he was promoting for profiteering purposes. But buried in that list was another…

None other than saponin containing Mosquirix with GlaxoSmithKline, and — surprise — another vaccine called ‘R21/Matrix-M’ (which also contains saponins) made as a joint venture between Serum Institute of India (SII), Oxford University and Sanaria.

The WHO “pre-qualified” (read: didn’t even review) the Matrix-M vaccine back in December 2023.

Oh, great. A pre-planned vaccine from 1987 that includes saponins and transfection, that was put on ice for 32 years, trialled in 2019, and now rolled out in 2023. Before dire warnings of an imminent food shortage.

Moral of the story: beware anyone peddling saponins, don’t trust Novavax and don’t trust their papers.

Stay wise, dear reader.

The Daily Beagle