What the EMA Leak Tells Us On... mRNA Instability

Is it really supposed to fold like this?

In my video on the topic, at 3:18 onwards you’ll see the slide that covers the mRNA integrity percentages. The image notes a percentage variation between 55% and 86%, with the higher percentage found in the clinical batches, and the lower percentage found in the commercial batches.

What is mRNA, and why does integrity matter?

mRNA stands for ‘messenger RNA’, and it is produced by transcription from DNA to mRNA. The mRNA used in the SARS-CoV-2 shots attempt to encode the spike protein for SARS-CoV-2.

The mRNA used in the Pfizer shot is actually a modified version, which, to quote the article Reverse Engineering the source code of the BioNTech/Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine remarks:

[…] unmodified, freestanding Spike proteins collapse into a different structure. If injected as a vaccine, this would indeed cause our bodies to develop immunity.. but only against the collapsed spike protein. […]

Collapsing proteins fold into different shapes and effectively mean, any immunity based on them is based on the collapsed design, and ergo does not confer immunity to the host for the specific non-collapsed protein it was intended to induce immunity for.

To solve this issue of constantly collapsing, unstable proteins - a property intrinsic by default, and thus already known to pharmaceutical companies as being an issue long before the EMA leak - they modified the mRNA to produce a splint. Something they had discovered back in 2017. Quoting again:

In 2017 it was described how putting a double Proline substitution in just the right place would make the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS S proteins take up their ‘pre-fusion’ configuration, even without being part of the whole virus. This works because Proline is a very rigid amino acid. It acts as a kind of splint, stabilising the protein in the state we need to show to the immune system.

Likewise, a similar such “splint” was added to the mRNA for the SARS-CoV-2 shots used by Pfizer. The catch? This wasn’t the only thing they had modified. They wanted to, for whatever reason, make the shot ‘stealthier’ to the immune system.

This is very odd if the goal is to get the immune system to develop immunity to the specific protein. So they made an… immunising shot whose goal is to avoid triggering immunity, with an unstable protein that tended to collapse in on itself unless modified to not do so?

Quoting the article again:

This is somewhat of a problem for our vaccine - it needs to sneak past our immune system. Over many years of experimentation, it was found that if the U in RNA is replaced by a slightly modified molecule, our immune system loses interest. […]

So in the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, every U has been replaced by 1-methyl-3'-pseudouridylyl, denoted by Ψ.

The wider implications

Firstly, this sets up a model for exactly why the mRNA would be losing integrity and collapsing in the first place. It shows the splint simply does not do a good enough job of maintaining stability in the spike protein.

Secondly, it shows Pfizer were aware of the problems in advance. And failed to pre-emptively disclose those issues to the Health Regulatory agencies in the opening. Not that was of any concern to the agencies in question, because it was largely brushed under the carpet until a leak blew it wide open, much to the anger of the agencies who declared a criminal investigation against any who’d ironically expose their very own criminal collusion. Julian Assange all over again.

Thirdly, the discrepencies between the clinical and commercial aspects in integrity show the public got the raw deal again. Not only are you the lab rats for an untested product with obvious defects and pay through the nose on the product, you also get the inferior version of said product, all whilst pharmaceutical companies get off scot-free with immunity to liability.

How it impacts you

If you had pinned your hopes on pharmaceutical companies being honest and trying to do the right thing, you can deflate that balloon. At 55% integrity for commercial (read: what the public receive), it means the proteins are so malformed as to be worthless in efficacy. Quoting the BMJ:

Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.

That is to say, it doesn’t work. If a minor defect hobbles performance, a loss of 45% is a crippling blow.

But it gets worse; it means all the clinical studies, at least, the ones not based on fraud, carry worthless safety data and efficacy data, because the integrity of the clinical batches - 86% - is wildly different from what the public are receiving, as low as 55%.

This is of course ignoring the fact such safety data was never actually made public to begin with, much to the chargin of the BMJ.

This means, you’re putting yourself at undue clinical risk for a product that does not work and does not offer the protection metrics boldly proclaimed using dubiously fabricated data.

Then there’s one other nasty possibility…

Prions

Misfolded proteins go by another name… prion disease. The careful distinction to make here is, not all misfolded proteins are prion disease or become prion disease. Proteins can collapse in a wide variety of shapes that ultimately go on to do nothing.

However, it is no secret that prion diseases are caused by misfolded proteins. One of the main identified antagonists of prion disease is PrPC (cell-surface glycoprotein) which malforms into PrPSC.

In a pre-print (something not yet peer-reviewed) study, it has been shown cell surface glycoprotein interacts with SARS-CoV-2. In the same study, it was even proposed such glycoprotein could become yet another SARS-CoV-2 shot!

Ignoring the insanity of the proposal of messing with something at risk of causing prion disease if done wrong for a moment, there is an implied relationship between cell-surface glycoprotein and SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins.

It is unclear what impact misfolded mock SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins would have on such a relationship, but if it adversely impacts cell-surface glycoproteins, then it is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge such a risk exists.

Could I absolutely say for sure? No. But the burden of proof isn’t on me to warn the public of danger only after it has happened and the horse has bolted the stable. Not only would this be a terrible safety model, it would result in harms being discovered long after they were already in-motion.

The burden of proof is on the pharmaceutical companies to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they have explored all possible risk avenues and proven their product as being safe beyond any conceiveable concerns.

The study fraud and the EMA leak showing a complete lack of accountability show otherwise.

If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter. Thank you!