Nursing the Nerf
By now, we’ve all probably heard of the recent study where vax mRNA was found in breast milk.. More importantly we heard the rehearsed chorus from all the vax addicts that it is ‘minuscule’ and will be destroyed by the gut. This Nerf award honors a pair of papers that both sing the same song but appear to have undergone significant cosmetic surgery.
Let’s get to some of the calculations on how much RNA was found and what does that mean. Some of them are discussed on this ephemeral twitter thread where the Gut NPCs came to sing the same repeated song.
One of the signs that you are about to be Nerfed can be seen in the language used in the abstract where ‘lactating individuals’ not ‘lactating women’ were described; a clear sign that woke clergy are about to distort their findings.
They report the highest example of 16.7pg/ml vax mRNA found in breast milk/breast EVs. The study is N=11. This is important to consider as vax injuries are rare events which implies the tail effects will not be seen in a N=11 study.
No PCR conditions were described but they did disclose their Limit of Detection (LOD) which was at 440,000 copies (1pg). A very sensitive test like qPCR can get down to 50 copies per ml with many HIV and C19 tests. This insensitive vax mRNA LOD maybe helpful if you want to demonstrate a fast clearance rate. Once the mRNA drops below your LOD, you can claim it is gone.
Nothing surprises me in Peer review anymore but I am perplexed that papers that described such a headline grabbing observation escaped peer review without any disclosed PCR primers or conditions.
This didn’t stop the NPC mob from trying to claim that the PCR was picking up C19 and had off target amplification. I don’t think they understood this same argument also undermines the process used to approve the vaccines.
This does raise an important point regarding the lack of transparency on the qPCR primers for this study.
Fortunately, I was handed Another paper that published in 2021 (thank you AnnoyedXXL) which did disclose their primers and measured the vax mRNA in breast milk at 2ng/ml. This paper had better PCR methods (primers actually disclosed) and controls but still deemed this to be ‘minuscule’. Another Nerf but it is worth reading over their PCR controls.
Quantitating modified mRNA can be tricky as the N1-methylpseudouridine creates RNA knots and some RT polymerases are known to slow down through these regions. Below is a figure showing the substitution rate (error rates) of RT polymerases using certain modified nucleotides. When polymerases make errors, they often stall on the substituted base. So there is reason to believe that amplifying the modified mRNA will not occur under the same conditions as amplifying the unmodified sequence and these authors made an unmodified plasmid control sequence of the vax to measure this artifact and adjust their standard curves accordingly. This data was not shown and I would have loved to have seen it. Im particularly interested in how much the modification retards the qPCR compared to its unmodified control. That might play a role in underestimating the amount of vax mRNA in breast milk.
So I took the primers from this more transparent but equally Nerfed study and BLAST’d them against SARs-CoV-2.
Very weak hits for the Forward and Reverse primers with no 3 prime end homology while the probe has some complementarity but not at the 5’ end where the 5’ nuclease activity for Taqman assays is required for proper probe hydrolysis.
Recall, Taqman requires a 3rd oligo that has a dye and a quencher on the 5’ and 3’ ends respectively. The polymerase extends the PCR primers and runs into the probe. Like a cattle prod on a train, the polymerase digests the DNA in its way and liberates the dye from the quencher on the probe. This is what generates the signal in qPCR. It’s the removal of the dye from its quencher. So the Probe needs to be seated on the 5’ for the polymerase to engage its 5→3 endonuclease activity.
I doubt these primers and probe react according to in-silico analysis but this should be confirmed in the wet lab. I also checked that the primers in fact hit the vaccine sequence and they in fact do.
The dose makes the poison.
So we have evidence of up to 2ng/ml in the paper with transparent PCR primers that don’t match C19. Babies can ingest 100ml-1000ml of milk per day. Granted the average feeding is 100mls but infants feed many times per day. These numbers add up to 200ng-2ug of mRNA per 100-1000ml day.
Adults are dosed with 30ug of BNT162b2 per 75kg person. This is 400ng/kg. Average birth weight is 3.5kg so 571ng/kg (2000ng/3.5kg) is possible in just one day of feeding at 1000ml/day. This is over the adult dose when normalized by weight. Yet I was told by countless trolls that this was ‘Parts per billion’ and thus minuscule. This is what a guilty conscious does. It rationalizes culpability with lazy reasoning.
Another way to view this is in the number of molecules of mRNA which equates to 249 billion mRNA molecules. A 75kg adult is estimated to have 30 Trillion cells and a 3.5kg child is likely 1.4 Trillion cells (3.5kg/75kg * 30T).
So the term ‘minuscule’ is a Mega Nerf.
So what if its truckloads… You eat truckloads of mRNA all day!
The next chorus you will hear is that RNA is so fragile it won’t survive the gut and you eat orders of magnitude more mRNA from chicken than from breast milk. This is true about the ubiquity of naked mRNA but its not true about mRNA that is RNase resistant like N1-methyl-pseudoU mRNA. The fragile mRNA that wasn’t supposed to leave the injection site or be present 15 days later in the plasma, you are now being asked to believe it is only labile after it leaves the breast… which according to their thesis should not be there to begin with.
The argument regarding the GI destroying all of this mRNA is lacking 2 details regarding extracellular vesicles (EVs). These are 110nm exosomes and are a known transfection based communication system between mother and child.
1)The oral mucosa can be transfected by EVs in breast milk and plenty of damage can be done without entering the gut.
2)EVs found in breast milk can survive the gut.
I lost count of all of the check marked Twitter MDs that echoed how harmless all natural RNA is. I thought they taught the natural fallacy in medical school? I’m equally stunned that some MDs think nanograms of things can’t be deadly as they inject people with Botox. Botox is a peptide from a bacteria that is deadly in the ng/kg range. There are 1000mls in a kilogram so pg/ml is a lethal dose of botox (parts per trillion). Suddenly all of those “PaRtS pEr BiLlIoN!” downplayers seem a bit naive.
Not all RNA is created equal and this is especially true once you venture into man modified RNA. RNA toxicity is ,of course, not the primary concern. Simply on display to underscore nuance.
However, the assumption that the RNA doesn’t transfect cells when it is found associated with extracellular vesicles is willful ignorance. If the mRNA can transfect the infants cells and produce spike protein, we now have children under 6 months old being guinea pigs for Pfizer. When you see exosomes associated with vax mRNA, you should give Bansal et al read. This study found spike protein circulating on exosomes in plasma 4 months after vaccination and nerfed their title to call this “Cutting Edge”.
So why do these authors claim this is minuscule? If you dig into their citations to support this statement, they are not peer reviewed references. They also don’t speak to oral mucosa transfection?
I found their heat map very telling.
Having some experience with R Studio, you can tell when someone is trying to make their data say something it doesn’t.
The text above this heat map is also Nerfed. Notice the slight of hand.
1)They use 100ml instead of the high end of 1000ml/day.
2)They fail to mention, one needs to feed everyday, not just one day.
3)They conveniently leave out the fact that the infant is 3.5kg and the adult 75kg, A 20X Nerf.
So 1000ml would deliver 6.67% per day of the adult dose nursed to a child that is 20X lower volume.
So once again, we see a reversion to the (narrative) mean. This is not a defect of peer review. This is its sole purpose. Control freaks must control the word of science as it has replaced the word of god. They cannot let it be free.
This study found no reported symptoms from the speechless 12 infants but something about their heat mapping skills tells me they were not looking very hard. I doubt Myocarditis was on their radar as it requires MRI to fully diagnose.
This leads one to WONDER if there are any cases of lactating, vaccinated mothers having health problems in their infants? Kristina Bruce (Twitter @ACMEAtomicAce) finds some in VAERs.
Ooops.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d7khkX3Oe61cDBAr7leYCGpX-TsS4ZyQ/view
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1505306
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1166062
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1734541
Informed consent on topics never studied?
Likewise, do any of the other studies looking into this need to be revisited with this new information?
It doesn’t help when days later papers like this emerge.
More ‘Lactating individuals’ bring out the Nerfs in JAMA. 67.9% have 1 systemic symptom and this is deemed “well tolerated”. This reminds me of the the phrase “the kids are resilient”: a tacit confession that you are about to harm children.
And now that we have evidence of mRNA localizing to the nucleus (again), one starts to wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes. There is an interesting sequence in the 3’UTR of BNT162b2 that might be a nuclear localization signal known as a SIRLOIN sequence. The sequence discussed in this preprint is a NLS (nuclear localization signal) that is the Furin Cleavage Site (FCS). It’s not in other betaCVs so we have someone to thank for the new nuclease penetrating aspect of this virus which was happily emulated into all spike vaccines.
In summary pg-ng/ml of modified mRNA is not minuscule when you account for the infants weight and feeding schedule. The authors breast pumping this stream are showing signs of narrative adherence or flat out deception. What is critically needed is measurement of spike expression in the nursing child and much larger studies than 12 people. Even the most cautious vax skeptics don’t believe the vax harms everyone. Or if they suspect it, we lack the biomarkers to track anything but the tip of the iceberg we can currently see in VAERs, yellow card etc. There is an unexplained Russian roulette with these that effect a minority of people in very severe manners and any attempt to declare safety from N=12 is Snake oil. A very ironic analogy given the FDA was established to prevent snake oil from going to the market and now appears to be in the business of marketing such lipids.
And don’t assume lipids are safe either. We have lots of focus on spike but less is known or understood about the LNP vehicle.
Additional Reading forwarded by this crowd
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35802776/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34740773/
https://gut.bmj.com/content/71/9/1922
See Marc Girardot Substack for more on the LNPs.
And for the authors of these papers, I mean you no ill will as I have enough publication experience under my belt to know that this language is the result of the broken peer review process distilling a consensus narrative.
"Even the most cautious vax skeptics dont believe the vax harms everyone."
I have to respectfully disagree here.
Even if catastrophic adverse events are currently rare, simple anecdotal evidence suggests to me that relatively minor adverse events (enough to qualify as "harm") are the rule rather than the exception. The majority of people that I know who took the "vaxx" did indeed have some pretty unpleasant side effects for at least a day or two after, ranging from malaise and body aches to mild paralysis. Again, speaking strictly anecdotally, this appears to be a more harmful shot than even the barrage of vaccines given to military servicemen, or the rabies prophylaxis series.
Moreover, my strong suspicion is that the catastrophic adverse events that we have read about so far represent a very small tip of the iceberg to come. (Also, they are, of course, a tiny minority of the catastrophic adverse events that have already occurred -- how many have already perished as a direct result of this injection, but slipped under the radar due to ignorant hospital staff? My guess is, it's a heck of a lot.) I believe that the "harm" caused by these shots will be the rule, rather than the exception. The long term effects won't be realized for some time yet.
This is ugly, if fascinating, and it is only going to intensify. What would be truly interesting to know is the actual statistics as to uptake. I do not trust any of the public data on "vaccination rates," and don't know how to go about ascertaining the actual numbers.