Science of COVID, Spike Protein, and mRNA injections

After a whirlwind of information blasting through mass media in the past two and a half years, it is often a good medical practice to do a review of all data. Questions like the origin of the virus; what is gain of function; what is the spike protein; and what is and why are they using mRNA?

Some basics on the origin of SARS-CoV2 and understanding gain of function (GOF) research are needed first, and the best resource from Jan 2020 using the government’s own data and FOIA request is a website that puts together a timeline updated as more information becomes available from Emily Koop at US Right to Know: https://usrtk.org/biohazards/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/. Additionally, for the scientist or physician listening, Gary Ruskin, compiles a list of key articles on the origins of Covid-19, gain-of-function research, and Biolabs at: https://usrtk.org/biohazards/origin-of-sars-cov-2-gain-of-function-readings/.

In addition to origin, the spike protein is the crux of the issue. It is the part of the virus that was manipulated to enter human cells. It is the viral protein that caused untoward damage to humans from both an inflammatory and coagulation perspective. Amazingly, it is this protein that was selected by our scientific elites to be coded on synthetic mRNA and reproduced in the cells of billions of healthy people as a purported ‘cure’ to the pandemic. Interestingly, Ralph Baric and Shi Zengli published papers in 2015 and 2016 about their ‘breakthrough’ research in which they created a synthetic chimeric virus:

Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells, and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lungs with notable pathogenesis. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein. Based on these findings, we synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrated robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo. (https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985)

So, in short, they took the spike-like protein, which Shi Zhengli isolated from Yunnan bats in 2011, and inserted it into a mouse-adapted variant of SARS-CoV. They also tested it in human cells. They also found that it was not only the binding of spike protein to the receptor that determined the virus’s potential for the transition from one animal species to another, even in human cells but also spike processivity, receptor bio-availability, or antagonism of the host immune responses — may contribute to emergence. This is a fancy way of saying the ability of the spike to be cleaved by proteases (including furin) can have an impact on virulence. Of course, given this discovery, Ralph Baric did what every humanity-loving scientist does with new information; patented it. Patent: WO2015143335A1. 24 September 2015. Straight from the patent is a summary of invention that includes the following on page 2:

In further aspects, the present invention provides a method of producing an immune response to a coronavirus in a subject, treating a coronavirus infection in a subject, preventing a disease or disorder caused by coronavirus infection in a subject, and/or protecting a subject from the effects of coronavirus infection, comprising administering to the subject an effective amount of the chimeric coronavirus spike protein, the isolated nucleic acid molecule the vector and/or the composition of this invention, or any combination thereof, thereby producing an immune response to a coronavirus in the subject, treating a coronavirus infection in the subject, preventing a disease or disorder caused by coronavirus infection in the subject and/or protecting the subject from the effects of coronavirus infection.

Sound Familiar?

mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

Questions to ask your physician:

Ask you, provider, basic questions:

In your training as a medical provider- were you encouraged to
approach the patient encounter as collaborator, you know, the give and
take in building mutual respect?

Is the inoculation experimental?

When did you first begin to encourage your patients to become
experimental subjects with biological agents?

When did you begin supporting human research on your patients without
informed consent?
Is it as safe as they said it was 2 years ago?

Why not? The answer is because of the Spike protein (Of the 29
proteins that make up this virus, why did they choose the only known
toxin to base the experimental inoculations off of) and the Lipid
NanoParticle (a known toxin that causes a down regulation of oncogenic
suppression genes.)

If they have given the inoculation in their office, have they had any
patient with an adverse response? If so, let them know that the
federal government REQUIRES them to insert the info into VAERS.

Or, if it is as safe as they swore that it was 2 years ago, do you not
trust the CDC’s VAERS? Because the VAERS shows astronomically and
unprecedented numbers of injuries (over 1 million) and deaths >30,000
( more than all the total deaths ever cumulatively recorded in 32
years with the other 70+ vaccines given over that time period).

Is it as effective as they said it was– “95%”?

Why did they change the definition of ‘vaccine’ within the past year?

Have you apologized for your prior views that proved wrong about the
inoculations to your patients? What about to other providers in the
community that didn’t believe the narrative?

Have you ever heard of the Trusted News Initiative?

How would you rate the CDC’s response to the pandemic? 1 month ago,
the CDC Director profusely apologized for their abject failures. Did
that change your view of their response?

Does it concern you that there were many patents on the eventual
SARS-2 virus issued over the past 20 years?

Given the proof that HCQ was effective in 2004, why do you think the
Lancet and nEJM lied about it in the spring of 2020?
If an injection is EUA, when does it lose its EUA status? Answer: when
there is a known treatment that has been approved or the threat ends?

Is Dr. Anthony Fauci an honorable person?
Is Dr. Deborah Birx an honorable person?

Is Dr. Francis Collins an honorable person?

How would you rate the country’s handling of the pandemic overall?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *