If you want to proffer an armchair opinion (and almost everybody does) on the efficacy and safety of the mRNA Covid shots, you cannot offer a considered opinion without understanding what we currently know about genomics. Consider this article to be a ready reference guide, Genomics 101, made simple and you need to read it in its entirety before you utter another word on mRNA.

I’d recommend most medical professionals do the same, as clearly, most do not understand what science understands about genomics, so, without further ado, a brief refresher course. Some of it may appear a little hairy to the uninitiated, but trust me, stay with it.

Technology Breeches the Genome Bottleneck

Nearly 100,000 highly diverse whole genome sequences are now available through the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program. In a decade, our sequencing bandwidth or capability has gone ballistic, enabling us to evaluate all RNA/DNA at a single cell level and in thousands of cells, all in parallel.

As we became more adept and effective at sequencing, the associated costs of investigating our individual genetic codes went from prohibitive to ridiculously cheap, illustrated very effectively by the graph below.

You can clearly see the first inflection point in 2007 with the first generation of NGS (454, SOLiD, Illumina). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a massively parallel sequencing technology that offers ultra-high throughput, scalability, and speed. The technology is used to determine the order of nucleotides in entire genomes or targeted regions of DNA or RNA.

Fast forward to the second inflection point in 2016, less dramatic, but of equal importance, with the maturation of the long read sequencers at PacBio and Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT). These platforms are able phase genomes (untangle mother and father genomes when sequencing diploid cells) and treat every human genome like it’s a de novo (new) assembly problem. They can find novel content unrelated to the original reference sequence.

Let’s unpack some of the technical stuff here.

Diploid is a term that refers to the presence of two complete sets of chromosomes in an organism’s cells, with each parent contributing a chromosome to each pair. Humans are diploid, and most of the body’s cells contain 23 chromosomes pairs. Human gametes (egg and sperm cells), however, contain a single set of chromosomes and are said to be haploid.

Flip this graphic upside down, and that shows you what long read sequencers are capable of. They can take your diploid cell and unravel it into its original components, basically mum’s contribution and dad’s contribution. Unravel the diploid cells of your parents and grandparents, and you have all the required chromosomes to build your family line from scratch.

You can also identify all sorts of genetic issues you may have been gifted with, so its a really useful tool, both to identify existing and potential conditions and predict genetic outcomes.

Technological Iterations

The first generations of NGS sequencers were short read sequencers. They operate by looking for differences between your sample and a genome provided as reference. If your sample has novel genes that are not in the reference genome, then those are typically overlooked. How did we arrive at a reference genome?

The original human reference genome comprised a pool of 20 volunteers but resulted in 70% of the genome being derived from one African American donor. Those 100,000 genomes were sequenced on short read sequencers (50bp-500bp) and mapped back to this reference genome.

Newer longer read sequencers (10,000- 1Mb reads) do not need to rely on a reference genome, but can instead build a hypothesis-free genome from each individual. This allows the discovery of novel(new) content. If you have the time and the desire, this article in science chronicles the history of our genetic journey to this point. The quote below is taken from the same article, entitled “The complete sequence of a human genome”

Since its initial release in 2000, the human reference genome has covered only the euchromatic fraction of the genome, leaving important heterochromatic regions unfinished. Addressing the remaining 8% of the genome, the Telomere-to-Telomere (T2T) Consortium presents a complete 3.055 billion–base pair sequence of a human genome, T2T-CHM13, that includes gapless assemblies for all chromosomes except Y, corrects errors in the prior references, and introduces nearly 200 million base pairs of sequence containing 1956 gene predictions, 99 of which are predicted to be protein coding. The completed regions include all centromeric satellite arrays, recent segmental duplications, and the short arms of all five acrocentric chromosomes, unlocking these complex regions of the genome to variational and functional studies.

Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.abj6987

You’ll note the use of the terms predicted, functional studies, errors and other language confirming what we seemed to have glossed over in our haste to rebuild the human. While we now have a complete parts list (we think so) and we have a map to assemble the parts, we still don’t know how the different parts interact, which bits are dependent on others bits, and how, introducing novel laboratory synthesized parts will impact the whole.

To illustrate this more clearly, lets look to some of the most recent genetic discoveries (post mRNA Covid jabs) to understand just how clueless we actually are. You understand of course that by using the term discovery, we are indicating that we are still exploring and by it’s nature, that term indicates risk.

Microscopes and Genetics

In 1665 Micrographia was published by Robert Hooke. Microgaphia was filled with drawings of objects Hooke had observed with his compound microscope. He was the first person to use the word “cell” when describing living organisms.

Fast forward to 2008 and the debut of the TEAM 0.5. It is the world’s most powerful transmission electron microscope and is capable of producing images half a ten-billionth of a meter.

As our tools and technology improved, we were gradually able to peel back layer upon layer of interdependent worlds hidden within each human on a cellular level. With each new discovery, came the realization that we are actually far more complex than we had ever imagined. Then, in the last few decades, wonder was replaced with hubris, humility a blood soaked victim left to die on the battlefields of commercialized science.

No longer do we wonder at the complexities unravelling before our eyes, our thoughts now focused entirely on the field of genetics as they key to untold wealth. Master the human genome and you can combat aging, perhaps even arrest it completely. You can, at the cellular level, target any disease and, in theory, irradicate it. The potential to engineer children’s physical traits as they grow in the womb isn’t a reach, it is without doubt being explored by scientists.

We are not searching for the Holy Grail anymore. We have decided it is easier to simply build it ourselves, and it this hubris that led to mRNA treatments for Covid being released on the general public, but I digress. Back to proteins, novel human RNA ligase and other exciting discoveries.

In the last few days the National Human Genome Research Institute has announced the completion of a 47 human ‘pangenome’ project. This is 47 diverse genomes sequenced Telomere to Telomere and properly phased with the new longer read sequencers. These are sequenced to a far higher standard than the initial Human Genome project, which used Sanger and BAC end sequencing.

This amazing achievement represents phased perfect hypothesis free genomes, all cross compared to each other from diverse genetics around the world. A true and representative map of all humanity. Wonderful, I hear you say, inspiring. So where is the rub?

Even with the amazing sequencing developments, we are still discovering the functionality of some of the esoteric genes discovered 2 decades ago. Our process of reading DNA far outstrips our capacity to understand what it means and many genes in the human genome are homeless. In other words, we can guess at their roles, but we do not understand their function.

So, we have our map, we have all the working parts (that we can see given our current technology – remember the microscope) but we still don’t fully understand the workings of the functional machine.

Which, some people may feel, is sufficient to justify us tinkering with the bits and pieces, all the while adding in novel “laboratory engineered” extras. The problem is we’re dealing with life, and mistakes at a genetic level can potentially have species wide impact. Forget asteroids and solar flares, science has now acquired the ability to end us all on an macromolecular level.

As melodramatic as that may sound, it is a very real risk and the custodians of this technology have over the last three years proved themselves to be less than completely trustworthy.

Discovering a Human RNA Ligase

Meet C12orf29, a Human RNA Ligase. A what? Let’s explain first what an RNA Ligase is. Without getting to technical, RNA ligases participate in repair, splicing, and editing pathways that either reseal broken RNAs or alter their primary structure. They play an important role and can have dramatic impact on how RNA interacts in a cell. Scientists have just identified a new one, or rather figured out what one we discovered a while ago, actually does.

Remember all the genes we discovered, the purposes of which we are still investigating? Genomics use the acronym Open Reading Frame (ORF) in their name and a chromosome name (C12 = chromosome 12) to refer to these. This particular one, C12orf29 was discovered in 2003 in a large full length cDNA cataloging project in Japan. Two decades passed with this gene remaining in the realm of mystery. We had no idea as to its purpose, until now.

At first glance, C12orf29 looks like just another enzyme that modifies nucleic acids, but it turns out it is far more important than that. Enzymes like this had never been identified in vertebrates prior to this discovery. This paper, post mRNA global distribution, underscores how little we truly understand about RNA processing in the cell.

What does C12orf29 actually do then? Cells are able to survive without it, but once you raise ROS in the cell (Reactive Oxygen Species) as occurs with an immune response, your RNA breaks down more readily. C12orf29 comes in to repair some of that damage. So people with LoF mutations – gene loss that occurs through natural loss-of-function (LoF) – in this gene might be very susceptible to transcriptomic dysregulation during infection.

Immediately the questions begin to pile up. We just injected billions of people with modified RNA and only afterwards discovered a major human RNA ligase that we were blind to before injection. We don’t know how the RNA modification in the mRNA vaccines will interact with this newly discovered RNA Ligase. Will it concatenate (link together) them? Will the cell turn the modRNA into miRNAs and then RNA Ligases join miRNAs into longer pieces with different RNAi footprints?

To put this into proper context, Moderna and Pfizer developed a product that uses mRNA without being aware of many processes that unfold in the cell, the various genes that can and do interact on the RNA, and the potential consequences of the myriad unknowns in their model. It is the engineering equivalent of equipping a racing car with faulty brakes and releasing it at the top of a steep cliff with dodgy brakes.

The odds of it arriving unscathed at the base are so small as to be negligible. You and I are that car and we’re all headed hell for leather down the hill, with no brakes, to the painful conclusion of an experiment that may take generations to unravel.

What you need to takeaway from this

C12orf29 is not an outlier, it is one of many unknown quantities impacting interactions at a cellular level. Will we ever understand the full processes at work in our bodies and simply because we don’t yet have the full picture should we avoid intervening in these processes?

In answer to the first question, there can be no doubt that, given enough time, we will in fact completely demystify the human body and the interdependent processes that drive it. It isn’t going to be in the next decade though. Discoveries take time, scientific evaluation and proper investigation and even with the help of iterative AI, we may well be another 50 years away from fully grasping the complexities of our physiology.

The answer to the second part of the question may surprise you. It is also a resounding yes, but in the same breath, a very qualified yes. Where cutting edge medicine is able to utilize delivery vehicles like mRNA to attack diseases like serious, life-ending cancers, the risks are far outweighed by the potential benefits to the patient, namely life and the extension thereof.

Getting offered that car with the iffy brakes when you’re dying, as your only means to get to your family at the foot of the steep cliff, makes sense. Insisting to perfectly healthy patients who’ve already been down the hill on foot, that they must climb in or risk loosing their livelihoods, is ethically and morally reprehensible. Lying about the condition of the cars brakes, simply confounds the sin.

So are all those who’ve been injected with mRNA going to spawn a second head or watch their offspring grow tails? Have we actually damaged our reproductive capacity as a species? Questions abound with no answers, other than the painful reality of having to wait it out. That is the price we now pay as a society for toying with science we don’t as yet fully comprehend.

There is no debate, in my opinion, to be held on the widespread use of mRNA technology or the LNPs utilized to deliver the treatments. If it were a weapon, it would be outlawed by the Geneva Convention as having the potential to end our species. If, after reading this, you’re still comfortable climbing in the car, good luck on the way down. Just please understand that others have elected to walk until a model comes out with reliable brakes.

The post Unravelling the Dangers of mRNA With Genomics appeared first on Medika Life.

To clarify upfront, there is no world in which the Covid shots can be compared to a vaccine. They are simply a more complex version of the flu jab you get every year if influenza poses a risk to you. Will you still catch the seasonal variety doing the rounds despite being jabbed? Absolutely, flu shots reduce the risk of flu illness between 40% and 60%, and the ensuing symptoms should be far less severe. The influenza jabs are also referred to as vaccines in literature, but they are not a vaccine either, and take advantage of the term vaccine in much the same way the Covid treatments do.

The influenza shot is also not without risk of serious adverse events (SAEs). Doctors see these SAEs frequently, but the benefits to frail and elderly community members susceptible to secondary infections from the flu virus far outweigh these risks, which are rendered negligible in an elderly or immune-compromised patient population.

Interestingly, the highest levels of protection from flu shots are enjoyed by healthy individuals, not the frail, elderly or immune compromised. Why? Well, their immune response to the jab is more robust, producing more antibodies. Ironic when you consider it is the latter patient population most in need of protection. It would be interesting to see if this response is echoed in the Covid inoculations.

Why were the Covid treatments mislabeled as “vaccines”?

This million-dollar question and one I will examine in depth in this article. Rather than looking to a single factor to explain why these treatments hijacked the term vaccine, the motivations and justifications are far more complex and additional factors combined to create what history may very well view as our greatest medical failure.

Firstly, the term mislabeled is indicative of an error, committed unintentionally. There was both intent and purpose in labelling these Covid therapies as vaccines. It was an intentional, and as I will show you in the article, calculated appropriation of the term to benefit from the trust medicine had established over generations in the word, vaccine. There were also important legal ramifications and the influenza shots had paved the way for further exploitation.

The Promise

Struck with what appeared to be the worst pandemic we had faced in a century, we existed for months in a state of fear, a fear that was carefully nurtured and managed by mainstream media, as we were later to discover, at the behest of groups like SAGE. Our Presidents and Prime Ministers, aware of their tenuous positions, offered salvation. They required a salve to soothe the populace and it took the form of a promised “vaccine” to protect you against a disease that led to a really nasty end.

Pharma was instructed to produce this miracle cure in record time. As early as February and March of 2020, three months after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, we had already been primed for the vaccine. Our expectations were set and anything other than a vaccine would have represented failure. Why? Well, because we all knew and accepted the fact that vaccines, traditionally offered complete protection against the targeted virus. It was what vaccines did, prior to the pandemic. The promised vaccine became a lifeline to many, including overtaxed and exhausted medical staff.

The Legality

Consider the fact that the original SARS virus had been with us for nearly two decades. Despite this, we had failed to produce a vaccine against it, a virus that had the potential to infect on a global scale. We understood the genetic make up of SARS intimately, even using it in illicit Gain of Function (GOF) research funded by the NIH, and performed in the very laboratory in Wuhan in China that came to represent Ground Zero for the pandemic. Yet, despite this, we still had no vaccine. At least, not officially.

In less than a month after sequencing the SARS-COV2 virus (early January of 2020), Moderna had a working mRNA vaccine. In late January of 2020, 28 days after receiving the sequencing (yes, that early), they approached the Whitehouse and CDC to begin Phase 1 trials for their so called vaccine candidate. If you’re thinking to yourself, this all seems highly suspect, then you’re not alone. Forget Warp Speed, this was interdimensional travel.

Not only was a huge headache which had plagued the mRNA industry for a decade involving a stable delivery mechanism for the the Messenger RNA solved, but Moderna had also unpicked the SARS-COV2 virus’s genetic structure and figured out how best to “stop” it by exploiting the spike protein and how it bonded with our ACE2 receptors. All in all, 28 days later, science had created a novel medicine. Either fantastically impressive or highly dubious, we may never know for certain.

To ensure maximum uptake of the new Covid treatment, whatever the motivation may have been for mass vaccination (the public narrative falsely suggested that the shot was ostensibly to reduce infection and transmission), it was essential to adopt a delivery strategy that would allow for the enforcement of the public’s use of the treatment. Vaccines are the only treatments we legally enforce on our populations. Take childhood vaccines. No vaccines, no schooling. Take travel. Visas are often dependent on certain vaccines. Some employers require you to receive certain vaccines.

Most of this legislation had been indirect, so in effect, you were not left feeling you were being coerced to vaccinate. Prior to 2021, the legal manipulations to ensure we abided by vaccine regimens were far more subtle. Post 2021, that rapidly went right out the window as governments engaged in and encouraged mandating the Covid treatments by any and every means. That despite the fact that even the FDA and the Federal government had published legal advice prior to the pandemic stating that Emergency Use Authorization medicines could not be mandated.

Back on 2021, Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination could be required, Her answer was emphatic.

“ under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.”

Releasing an inadequately tested and trialed medical treatment to the public is a desperate and unethical (many will argue illegal) act fraught with potential legal ramifications, the health ones aside. Particularly if said treatments are essentially genetic therapies employing a novel mechanism of action capable of producing unknown long-term effects. Pharma (in particular Moderna and Pfizer/BionTech) sought legal immunity from any government that purchased their treatments to avoid this legal minefield sought legal immunity from any government that purchased their treatments. If you took their treatment (one the very same governments insisted you use) and suffered any adverse events, you were essentially on your own.

These indemnities issued to Moderna and Pfizer spoke volumes to the potential risk they were exposing patients to. Interestingly, even after these treatments were issued full licenses by the FDA, that immunity persisted. Again, there is established precedent in the vaccine industry to issue this type of blanket immunity to pharma companies. Only in the vaccine industry. Sell your experimental treatment as anything other than a vaccine and you’re on shaky ground if the wheels come off.

For this reason, and none other, all the new mRNA based influenza jabs you will receive in the future will be labelled as vaccines. While this hasn’t yet transpired, please bookmark this and revisit the article in a years time.

Coercing the flock

It soon became apparent, by mid-2021, that the willing participation of the public to meet the required levels of immunity (remember, we were still being sold the no transmission and almost complete immunity playbook) wasn’t going as smoothly as planned. People had begun questioning the efficacy of the treatments and the side effects of mRNA treatments and traditional vaccines. Conspiracy theories abounded, some founded in science and others originating in the minds of grifters, intent on their moment of fame. Others were simply concerned about the safety and ethical motives for vaccinating the healthy segments of our populations.

Mandates were imposed, almost unanimously, by governments across the globe. Some, like the Australians, took it to the extremes, while in the U.S. you risked your work, access to basic retail services, your apartment and the very roof over your head if you chose not to “vaccinate”. Air and other public travel was restricted to the vaccinated. With hindsight, the ridiculousness of the travel restrictions, given the inefficacy of the Covid shots at preventing transmission, becomes almost laughable. Almost.

Consider how many at-risk vaccinated people contracted the virus and developed Covid, in some instances fatally, simply for the fact they believed they were protected.

Again, none of the tragedies above would have had a legal leg to stand on without the involvement of the term vaccine, coupled with a public narrative of protecting your fellow man. Shame those who wouldn’t comply and you turn society against them. It is the ultimate shameless form of coercion and manipulation and it was globally adopted. Creating a “vaccine” was key to the success of the narrative sold to the public. It was, in point of fact, the only option.

So mRNA based Covid treatments are not vaccines?

Absolutely not. If you still have trouble wrapping your head around this, allow me to summarize.

• The mRNA shots do not prevent transmission. You are still able to spread the virus once you’ve been infected.
• The mRNA shots do not prevent infection. You will still develop Covid, unlike those vaccinated against polio.
• The mRNA shots do not prevent death, they only reduce the chances of developing serious symptoms and we are uncertain of the exact percentage of their efficacy.
• The mRNA treatments require repeated doses every few months to ensure “protection” against new variants. Sounds suspiciously reminiscent of another jab, the influenza shot – also not a vaccine.

Don’t expect pharma, medicine, science and politicians to acknowledge publicly they have made mistakes. There is no walking this back and that in part, is why the narrative still continues, seemingly in its own “information vacuum”, one that appears impervious to emerging data on safety. While this article isn’t about discussing virus origins, intent and other plausible alternatives to the publicly offered narrative, these exist and cannot be discounted.

Perhaps the most important thing we can take away from this is that as of January 2023, there are zero human beings on the planet vaccinated against Covid. It is time to recognize this and to stop referring to ourselves as two camps, the #vaxxed and #unvaxxed.

Missed Part 3 of the Covid Files on mRNA? Catch up here or read Part 5, On the Origin of Covid. With apologies to Darwin here

The post When is a Vaccine not a Vaccine? appeared first on Medika Life.

Almost exactly 100 years ago in 1920, hot on the heels of the discovery of x-rays by German scientist Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, a new machine was introduced into shoe shops across the globe. Called the Fluoroscope or Pedosscope(UK) the device was essentially a portable x-ray machine with a singular and rather ingenious purpose.

The idea was brilliant. Customers could try on a new pair of shoes and pop their freshly shod feet into the Fluoroscope box. The device would then produce an x-ray image of your feet inside the shoes. People were obviously fascinated by the technology and the novelty aspect of the machine made it an overnight winner. After all, no one wants to buy shoes that don’t fit properly. An estimated 10,000 machines were sold in the US, 3,000 in the UK, 1,500 in Switzerland, and 1,000 in Canada before authorities began discouraging their use.

Today we know the dangers of continued exposure to x-rays. In the 1920’s we didn’t. What we had instead, in the 1920s, was a new breakthrough in technology that we bravely (foolishly) embraced with little or no concern for the wider safety implications of the technology. If history is anything to go by, the lessons we should have learned from the Fluoroscope and numerous other then-emergent technologies which now litter scientific literature, were lost. 

Even after the dangers of the Fluoroscope and exposure to radiation were highlighted, the devices persisted in many shoe shops in the US until the mid-1970s, with many choosing to ignore the health warnings associated with prolonged exposure to x-rays. To this day, shoe companies deny any liability for the introduction of the machines.

In reality though, how dangerous was the Fluoroscope? This breakdown of the radiation provided by the devices, courtesy of Wikipedia, offers some insight.

Large variations in dose were possible depending on the machine design, displacement of the shielding materials, and the time and frequency of use. Radiation surveys showed that American machines delivered an average of 13 roentgen (r) (roughly 0.13 sievert (Sv) of equivalent dose in modern units) to the customer’s feet during a typical 20-second viewing, with one capable of delivering 116 r (~1 Sv) in 20 seconds. British Pedoscopes were about ten times less powerful. A customer might try several shoes in a day, or return several times in a year, and radiation dose effects may be cumulative. 

For perspective, a dose of 300 r can cause growth disturbance in a child, and 600 r can cause erythema in an adult. Hands and feet are fortunately relatively resistant to other forms of radiation damage, such as carcinogenesis, but spare a thought for the operators of these devices who were effectively exposed to massive doses of daily radiation.

What does this have to with my DNA?

Great question and if you haven’t joined the dots yet, allow me. Science has been seriously experimenting with DNA-based medications for well over a decade and in many ways, these medicines are seen as a holy grail by the medical community. With good reason. Many diseases stem from gene combinations gone wrong and our ability to deliver treatment at this level will quite literally revolutionize medicine.

Identifying and isolating faulty genes and our ability to turn on or turn off switches in our genetic coding could mean the end of many diseases we have been previously unable to treat effectively. Most promising in the emergent field of DNA-based medicines is the ability of science to produce treatments specific to an individual. No more hit and miss, but something that’s been built and designed just for you. A treatment that can be deployed within a few days, and that, most importantly, is cost-effective. 

In the above scenario, the patient is the clear beneficiary. Covid accelerated the development and deployment of exactly these types of medicine. mRNA vaccines deliver nano-particle encapsulated genetic instructions directly to our cells. For many patients with co-morbidities and the aged, these vaccines were, and remain, a god-send. 

There is however a need to embrace our newfound mastery of the body’s DNA with extreme and urgent caution. Unlike the Fluorscope that may have caused cancerous lesions in a few feet and rendered a few operators barren, DNA is universal and our current understanding of the technology and its encompassing risks rival that of the early x-ray. We are at the dawn of new technology, and if history has taught us anything, circumspection and caution are called for.

Currently, there are no DNA overlords. There is no national or global oversight of the impacts of these medicines on us, no specific guidelines, or rigorous safety mechanisms to ensure that we are not exposed to the devastating side effects of future treatments gone wrong. 

As of now, we are celebrating our initial medical successes and as I write this, new medications are being prepared or have already been released into the market. Medicines that target our cell structures and DNA and as with the Fluoroscope, we are assured the whole process is completely safe. In fact, why not get your child to try it out? 

I for one, would rather my child were barefoot for a while.

The post The Fluoroscope Serves as a Warning for New Medical Technology appeared first on Medika Life.