Two things you might be interested in: (1) the moderna sequence in that paper is flawed because it was sequenced from a degenerate vaccine sample (check the BLAST against WT Wuhan viral AA sequence). The Pfizer sequence is 100% correct (2) The GC content is conspicuously reduced in the furin cleavage site portion of the Pfizer sequence, whereas the original viral sequence is GC-rich in this area. Bizarre eh?
Kevin, I'm trying to understand the good,bad, and ugly side of the G4 formation, from what I'm seeing outside of it as a target with laser like precision for cancers, it's formations from mrna translation or otherwise looks all bad, am I wrong? Also I came across another method for screening for them, don't know if this is an accepted or helpful method. https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/33/22/3532/4061281
I have a few questions for all the number specialists, table designers and statistics interpreters:
After two years of data accumulation in the context of the ''pandemic'', does it make any sense at all to extract any statement from this mountain of data? Does the result of a data evaluation still serve any truth at all?
Why do I ask? Well, in the meantime there are so many overlaps in the definition of unvaccinated and vaccinated, of recovered and diseased, to which constantly changing definitions differing from country to country are added, that there are no longer any possibilities for comparison with which any trends or conspicuous features can be uncovered. All of the data only creates a nebulous, ever-changing picture that, in its constant succession of snapshots, creates more confusion than clarity.
Does it still somehow make sense to put so much energy into data evaluation day after day, if no one is able to produce ONE clear picture from all the different evaluations that could really help us? I don't want to diminish in any way the efforts and expertise of many people who make their evaluation skills available to the general public on a daily basis, I just wonder what drives you? Do you feel that your efforts are really bearing fruit, that something good is coming out of your work for the community? Something that will expose all those who have been lying to us and leading us around by the nose for months now. Something that many would like to see happen, of course, but is always unlikely to happen - at least that's how I feel.
It seems to me that this is exactly the intention behind all the constantly changing definitions using non-standardized tests with ever questionable interpretations on their part. As if the aim is to generate as much confusion as possible in the data jungle so that the general public completely loses its orientation and at some point stops asking questions altogether.
I would be very interested in your opinion on this and I would like to thank all of you who are always putting so much energy into bringing light into the darkness, even if the darkness never really seems to go away.
I've only just read this post. I'm not part of the group of number specialists, table designers and statistics interpreters, but your questions are circuitous and serve no purpose.
There is a saying that goes, "Only dead fish go with the flow." If everyone was doing nothing, then people would ask why they were sitting around drinking lattes, or whatever.
Exactly what do you think is the best way forward that would promote your cause, or "bear fruit" after three years of most of the community being lead by the nose?
The people who know inside themselves, that they are being lied to, will live accordingly.
The people who don't have a BS detector, and think that they are being told the truth will do as they are told. No amount of reason, logic or data will convert them. The only thing that might take their blinders off, is if they have a serious reaction, or know someone who does.
Of course it makes sense to put energy into data evaluation, because there will come a time when enough data exists, that there can be no retreat from the truth. Right now, the gate keepers of technology and social media have destroyed the concept of truth.
At the very least, knowing the truth will at some point reinforce the spine of those who never lost sight of what the bigger picture of the truth might actually be.
Amazing over-interpretation of RNA folding modeling results. The senior author is a renal-cardiologist with no experience or training in molecular virology or biology, let alone molecular modeling, who does not even understand fundamentals of protein translation. Do the others have any prior relevant experience or training in RNA biology or biochemistry?
This topic leads me to wonder - can mRNA spike be differentiated in vivo? E.G., if one were experiencing any adverse effect, is it possible to identify and point to mRNA spike as causative? Sorry if this is a pedestrian question. I realize that AE's can be over or under reactive immune system responses, but in the case of vascular system AE's, is it possible to correlate the AE to confirmation of mRNA spike present in the affected tissues?
The codon optimization should make differentiation of viral sequence fairly straightforward from mRNA. I dont know how well the mRNA PCR? I cant find any papers on this. The density of Pseudouridine is bound to cause some polymerase and priming problems but I suspect a careful inspection of the mRNA could amplify something off its 3' tail. I think the spike protein has been detected longer (months) than the mRNA but I don't see many papers on qPCR efficiency of BNT162b2.
Fantastic article!
Two things you might be interested in: (1) the moderna sequence in that paper is flawed because it was sequenced from a degenerate vaccine sample (check the BLAST against WT Wuhan viral AA sequence). The Pfizer sequence is 100% correct (2) The GC content is conspicuously reduced in the furin cleavage site portion of the Pfizer sequence, whereas the original viral sequence is GC-rich in this area. Bizarre eh?
Kevin, I'm trying to understand the good,bad, and ugly side of the G4 formation, from what I'm seeing outside of it as a target with laser like precision for cancers, it's formations from mrna translation or otherwise looks all bad, am I wrong? Also I came across another method for screening for them, don't know if this is an accepted or helpful method. https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/33/22/3532/4061281
Mr. McKernan, thanks for all of your scientific contributions. Subscribed.
Thank you for sharing this information. By the way, do you know the book ''A silent gene theory of evolution'' by Warwick Collins?
Im not familiar with it
I have a few questions for all the number specialists, table designers and statistics interpreters:
After two years of data accumulation in the context of the ''pandemic'', does it make any sense at all to extract any statement from this mountain of data? Does the result of a data evaluation still serve any truth at all?
Why do I ask? Well, in the meantime there are so many overlaps in the definition of unvaccinated and vaccinated, of recovered and diseased, to which constantly changing definitions differing from country to country are added, that there are no longer any possibilities for comparison with which any trends or conspicuous features can be uncovered. All of the data only creates a nebulous, ever-changing picture that, in its constant succession of snapshots, creates more confusion than clarity.
Does it still somehow make sense to put so much energy into data evaluation day after day, if no one is able to produce ONE clear picture from all the different evaluations that could really help us? I don't want to diminish in any way the efforts and expertise of many people who make their evaluation skills available to the general public on a daily basis, I just wonder what drives you? Do you feel that your efforts are really bearing fruit, that something good is coming out of your work for the community? Something that will expose all those who have been lying to us and leading us around by the nose for months now. Something that many would like to see happen, of course, but is always unlikely to happen - at least that's how I feel.
It seems to me that this is exactly the intention behind all the constantly changing definitions using non-standardized tests with ever questionable interpretations on their part. As if the aim is to generate as much confusion as possible in the data jungle so that the general public completely loses its orientation and at some point stops asking questions altogether.
I would be very interested in your opinion on this and I would like to thank all of you who are always putting so much energy into bringing light into the darkness, even if the darkness never really seems to go away.
I've only just read this post. I'm not part of the group of number specialists, table designers and statistics interpreters, but your questions are circuitous and serve no purpose.
There is a saying that goes, "Only dead fish go with the flow." If everyone was doing nothing, then people would ask why they were sitting around drinking lattes, or whatever.
Exactly what do you think is the best way forward that would promote your cause, or "bear fruit" after three years of most of the community being lead by the nose?
The people who know inside themselves, that they are being lied to, will live accordingly.
The people who don't have a BS detector, and think that they are being told the truth will do as they are told. No amount of reason, logic or data will convert them. The only thing that might take their blinders off, is if they have a serious reaction, or know someone who does.
Of course it makes sense to put energy into data evaluation, because there will come a time when enough data exists, that there can be no retreat from the truth. Right now, the gate keepers of technology and social media have destroyed the concept of truth.
At the very least, knowing the truth will at some point reinforce the spine of those who never lost sight of what the bigger picture of the truth might actually be.
Amazing over-interpretation of RNA folding modeling results. The senior author is a renal-cardiologist with no experience or training in molecular virology or biology, let alone molecular modeling, who does not even understand fundamentals of protein translation. Do the others have any prior relevant experience or training in RNA biology or biochemistry?
This topic leads me to wonder - can mRNA spike be differentiated in vivo? E.G., if one were experiencing any adverse effect, is it possible to identify and point to mRNA spike as causative? Sorry if this is a pedestrian question. I realize that AE's can be over or under reactive immune system responses, but in the case of vascular system AE's, is it possible to correlate the AE to confirmation of mRNA spike present in the affected tissues?
The codon optimization should make differentiation of viral sequence fairly straightforward from mRNA. I dont know how well the mRNA PCR? I cant find any papers on this. The density of Pseudouridine is bound to cause some polymerase and priming problems but I suspect a careful inspection of the mRNA could amplify something off its 3' tail. I think the spike protein has been detected longer (months) than the mRNA but I don't see many papers on qPCR efficiency of BNT162b2.
It would be interesting, especially for vascular injury, to confirm correlate the contribution from mRNA spike vs. “natural”
spike. But we know if it is possible, it will be suppressed if not buried with Hoffa.