I love your approach and attitude. Thanks for your excellent work and communicating this information in a way that everyone that wants to can receive it.
In this article, the table is important, but there are two paragraphs worth noting:
"The scientists, Dr. Gerald Dyker, Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Ruhr University Bochum, and Dr. Jörg Matysik, Professor of Analytical Chemistry at the University of Leipzig, are part of a group of five German-speaking scientists who have been publicly raising questions about the quality and safety of the BioNTech vaccine (as it is known in Germany) for the last year and a half."
and
"Finally, we have the ‘yellow batches’ clustered around the yellow line, which, as can be seen above, barely gets off the x-axis. On Dyker’s calculation, the yellow batches represent around 30% of the total. Dyker notes that they include batches comprising some 200,000 administered doses which are associated with literally zero suspected adverse events.
As Dyker puts it, “malicious” observers might note that “this is how placebos would look”."
It was a "slovenian anti-vaxxer - malicious observer" who stupidly palmed herself off as a head nurse, so it was debunked primarily on the basis that she misrepresented herself, but also that it couldn't cause cancer. Here is a short clip from the video talking about the different batches..
Maybe Dyker took note, because she put the long video up in July 2021.
But this malicious observer noted that the Pfizer vaccine came in three lots.. Number 1 was placebo, which was 30% of the total shots, number two was mRNA and number three was mRNA plus oncogene (which she described as adenovirus, so she got that wrong as well) . She also said that politicians were getting number 1 vials, and in the longer version of this video, she said that the three different jabs applied to the whole of europe, and they were using the recipients of the 30% saline injections as the basis for a placebo controlled study.
From her point of view, it would have been better had she told the whole truth, particularly about who she was, however, it would seem that whoever her sources were, who she refused to reveal..., just might have been on to something.....
Geoff Pain takes issue with the Schmelling article, but perhaps he's being hasty. He should contact the scientists first, before dismissing the study as rubbish.
Regardless it's pretty much a given that at some point the Schmelling article will be retracted to maintain decorum. None of which has any impact on the brilliant work you are doing....
Good point, Hilary. I have been amazed at the articles retracted. I shouldn't be I suppose, but often the overall commentary and discussion following its publication/prepublication (and some of the papers were up for some significant time, too), and then later papers supporting the authors' work. Withdrawing such papers is now more a red flag that the authors are likely "over the target." The first "pandemic era" example was Pradhan et al's paper in January 2020 that pointed out something was fishy, what with there being relatively recent strains of HIV-1 sequences in the SARS2 virus.
Fauci got that retraction done with 2, maybe 3 telephone calls. Maybe he didn't even have to remind India that NIH/NIAID funds a LOT of scientific research there.
Remember his infamous remark "I AM the science?" It was accurate vis a vis the publishing establishment.
Which is ridiculous, because cov-2 absolutely has the potential to be a superantigen in certain people especially in the existence of pre-existing prolonged stress which is crucial for spike unfolding and binding efficiently https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37155555/ .
Quote" In other words, the formation of disulfide bonds, prevalent during oxidative stress, creates a conformation ready to bind to the receptor. Taken together, the present study demonstrates the role of pre-existing oxidative stress in elevating the binding affinity of the spike protein for the human receptor, offering future clues for alternate therapeutic possibilities."
And how would you create that? Create massive year long psycho social stress of course. This article doesn't say that directly but it does say that psycho social stress creates ROS, and ROS is what is needed to increase the binding affinity.
Oh boy, I am replying to my own comment …Anandamide maybe next time you do QPCR you can include some serial dilutions to determine the PCR efficiency. I assume 100% PCR efficiency in my calculation, but if single molecule gives Ct of36 then Ct of 16 is way too much vector, so I am probably wrong
You have the most fascinating articles - that leave me totally blank as a non-scientist. I do know your posts are geared to the scientists but I would love a short layman "conclusion" posted on these. This one sounds interesting/intriguing ...but what's the general conclusion for us regular folk?
Wow. Excellent! Thanks very much for reporting this. I agree 100% about "peer review" - reproduction is way more important and informative. The truth wins. Peace.
I think it is "The NineTeen Complex (NTC) of proteins associates with the spliceosome during pre-mRNA splicing and is essential for both steps of intron removal. The NTC and other NTC-associated proteins are recruited to the spliceosome where they participate in regulating the formation and progression of essential spliceosome conformations required for the two steps of splicing. It is now clear that the NTC is an integral component of active spliceosomes from yeast to humans and provides essential support for the spliceosomal snRNPs (small nuclear ribonucleoproteins)." DOI; 10.1042/BST0381110
If its any consolation I'm really none the wiser for reading that :) I can't find an easier explanation on the internet.
Ah, Kevin responded in the comments. NTC is Negative Template Control (water, in this case). With no nucleic acid strings to amplify, no PCR product is made, so it is a negative control.
From my experience, many journals are not eager to publish papers reproducing/debunking/correcting previous research. They say they "lack novelty" and therefore are not worthy being placed in high-IF journals. So, many topics are often touched only once and teams then try something else to publish their results. And keep their jobs.
Can it be reproduced — exactly. Have it be done by a couple students, then make them go through the dreaded consistency checks to find all their mistakes. Or multiple teams with competing methodology. Peer review is mainly cya for editors.
Non Template Control - water.
This is a measure of what happens to your PCR reaction when there is nothing present.
It’s a negative control.
Do you by chance have links to the lab work of those that reproduced or in the case of Willem Engel produce similar or confirming results? Thanks
🙄
Hope you and Dr. Goddek are enjoying your time together. Wonderful to see this collaboration.
I love your approach and attitude. Thanks for your excellent work and communicating this information in a way that everyone that wants to can receive it.
Anandamide, the more the merrier. On a seemingly unrelated note, I'm sure you have seen the Schmelling study from Denmark.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36997290/
And the discussion about it here: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/28/pfizer-vaccine-batches-in-the-eu-were-placebos-say-scientists/
In this article, the table is important, but there are two paragraphs worth noting:
"The scientists, Dr. Gerald Dyker, Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Ruhr University Bochum, and Dr. Jörg Matysik, Professor of Analytical Chemistry at the University of Leipzig, are part of a group of five German-speaking scientists who have been publicly raising questions about the quality and safety of the BioNTech vaccine (as it is known in Germany) for the last year and a half."
and
"Finally, we have the ‘yellow batches’ clustered around the yellow line, which, as can be seen above, barely gets off the x-axis. On Dyker’s calculation, the yellow batches represent around 30% of the total. Dyker notes that they include batches comprising some 200,000 administered doses which are associated with literally zero suspected adverse events.
As Dyker puts it, “malicious” observers might note that “this is how placebos would look”."
It was a "slovenian anti-vaxxer - malicious observer" who stupidly palmed herself off as a head nurse, so it was debunked primarily on the basis that she misrepresented herself, but also that it couldn't cause cancer. Here is a short clip from the video talking about the different batches..
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jUSY1higKF5O/
Maybe Dyker took note, because she put the long video up in July 2021.
But this malicious observer noted that the Pfizer vaccine came in three lots.. Number 1 was placebo, which was 30% of the total shots, number two was mRNA and number three was mRNA plus oncogene (which she described as adenovirus, so she got that wrong as well) . She also said that politicians were getting number 1 vials, and in the longer version of this video, she said that the three different jabs applied to the whole of europe, and they were using the recipients of the 30% saline injections as the basis for a placebo controlled study.
From her point of view, it would have been better had she told the whole truth, particularly about who she was, however, it would seem that whoever her sources were, who she refused to reveal..., just might have been on to something.....
https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinformation=the-chief-nurse-of-the-university-of-ljubljana-medical-center-uncovered-that-politicians-and-other-high-ranking-officials-in-slovenia-are-being-vaccinated-with-saline-instead-of-the-mrna-vaccine-the
Geoff Pain takes issue with the Schmelling article, but perhaps he's being hasty. He should contact the scientists first, before dismissing the study as rubbish.
Regardless it's pretty much a given that at some point the Schmelling article will be retracted to maintain decorum. None of which has any impact on the brilliant work you are doing....
Good point, Hilary. I have been amazed at the articles retracted. I shouldn't be I suppose, but often the overall commentary and discussion following its publication/prepublication (and some of the papers were up for some significant time, too), and then later papers supporting the authors' work. Withdrawing such papers is now more a red flag that the authors are likely "over the target." The first "pandemic era" example was Pradhan et al's paper in January 2020 that pointed out something was fishy, what with there being relatively recent strains of HIV-1 sequences in the SARS2 virus.
Fauci got that retraction done with 2, maybe 3 telephone calls. Maybe he didn't even have to remind India that NIH/NIAID funds a LOT of scientific research there.
Remember his infamous remark "I AM the science?" It was accurate vis a vis the publishing establishment.
Prasad was right. And Cheng - particularly the first... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32989130/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35874696/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33930306/ as much as said something similar without saying the same thing.
I note though that the industry was anxious to refute that: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36010602/
Which is ridiculous, because cov-2 absolutely has the potential to be a superantigen in certain people especially in the existence of pre-existing prolonged stress which is crucial for spike unfolding and binding efficiently https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37155555/ .
Quote" In other words, the formation of disulfide bonds, prevalent during oxidative stress, creates a conformation ready to bind to the receptor. Taken together, the present study demonstrates the role of pre-existing oxidative stress in elevating the binding affinity of the spike protein for the human receptor, offering future clues for alternate therapeutic possibilities."
And how would you create that? Create massive year long psycho social stress of course. This article doesn't say that directly but it does say that psycho social stress creates ROS, and ROS is what is needed to increase the binding affinity.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34555595/
I'm sure there are a whole lot more needles in the haystack we could find as time goes on.
Interesting.
Well done Kevin and Team. Since you have the Ct values have you calculated the copy number and the absolute mass of the ds vector DNA? Just curious.
This is in the preprint
Oh boy, I am replying to my own comment …Anandamide maybe next time you do QPCR you can include some serial dilutions to determine the PCR efficiency. I assume 100% PCR efficiency in my calculation, but if single molecule gives Ct of36 then Ct of 16 is way too much vector, so I am probably wrong
You have the most fascinating articles - that leave me totally blank as a non-scientist. I do know your posts are geared to the scientists but I would love a short layman "conclusion" posted on these. This one sounds interesting/intriguing ...but what's the general conclusion for us regular folk?
Wow. Excellent! Thanks very much for reporting this. I agree 100% about "peer review" - reproduction is way more important and informative. The truth wins. Peace.
What is an NTC, please?
I think it is "The NineTeen Complex (NTC) of proteins associates with the spliceosome during pre-mRNA splicing and is essential for both steps of intron removal. The NTC and other NTC-associated proteins are recruited to the spliceosome where they participate in regulating the formation and progression of essential spliceosome conformations required for the two steps of splicing. It is now clear that the NTC is an integral component of active spliceosomes from yeast to humans and provides essential support for the spliceosomal snRNPs (small nuclear ribonucleoproteins)." DOI; 10.1042/BST0381110
If its any consolation I'm really none the wiser for reading that :) I can't find an easier explanation on the internet.
Ah, Kevin responded in the comments. NTC is Negative Template Control (water, in this case). With no nucleic acid strings to amplify, no PCR product is made, so it is a negative control.
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
LOL (laughing out loud)
We all seem to like our acronyms.
Thank you, Nabeela! I appreciate your efforts.
Awesome work.
From my experience, many journals are not eager to publish papers reproducing/debunking/correcting previous research. They say they "lack novelty" and therefore are not worthy being placed in high-IF journals. So, many topics are often touched only once and teams then try something else to publish their results. And keep their jobs.
Can it be reproduced — exactly. Have it be done by a couple students, then make them go through the dreaded consistency checks to find all their mistakes. Or multiple teams with competing methodology. Peer review is mainly cya for editors.