Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Vaccine? No, Not Really.
The jab is a vaccine, or at least that’s what it’s called, but it really isn’t. It is not a vaccine as vaccines were once understood. It is an invasive genetic delivery therapy and consists of an injected mixture containing nanocarbon fibers, lipids, and strands of mRNA designed specifically to reprogram a cell’s DNA, its genes, and its purpose. Instead of say, assembling within a scaffold of proteins designed to contract on command (example: muscle cell), the former muscle cell is reprogrammed by the mRNA to give up its duties and madly make COVID spike proteins until it burns out.
mRNA must work quickly or it breaks down. It cannot enter a cell on its own. Enter dense lipids, to protect the mRNA, and carbon nanoparticles to penetrate cell walls and allow the mRNA to enter a cell. The manufactured spike proteins leak out of the now compromised cell and drift though the circulatory and lymphatic systems, until they locate an ACE2 receptor on the surface of cell and bind with it. In theory, this would close a pathway for a potential COVID cell infection. In addition, these circulating spike proteins will eventually be recognized by your immune system as invasive and will prompt an antibody response to neutralize them. These same antibodies would respond to actual proteins on a COVID spike, effectively neutralizing any COVID viruses post-exposure.
Historically, vaccines for viral infections have been incredibly effective. Small pox? Eradicated. Polio? Virtually eliminated. Chickenpox, the mumps, the measles, rubella, whooping cough? Gone. In the public mind, viral vaccinations are miraculous. So, when this new mRNA technology was elevated to “vaccine” status, the CDC and NIH effectively tapped into the public’s vaccine goodwill. But this new “vaccine” wasn’t a vaccine at all. It was gene therapy, both unproven and unapproved. The definition change is an old-fashioned bait and switch.
Redefining vaccines to include invasive mRNA genetic therapy also served another, more nefarious purpose. It allowed the manufacturers to hide behind the legal liability shield provided generally to producers of vaccines. Had the therapy been relegated to therapeutic status, producers would have to defend themselves against civil claims for possible harmful, even fatal, side effects. And they might lose.
I submit, dear readers, that had the public known these things, many more folks would have been reluctant to participate in mass injection. Further, if they knew that cell lines harvested from aborted fetuses were needed to develop the tests for the efficacy and safety of this therapy, even more people would have balked.
Further, the NIH, CDC, and vaccine manufacturers obviously did not know whether these new “vaccines” would be effective. Authorizations were “emergency”. They hoped they would be effective and if wishing were real, they all would have been, but wishing is never a good reason to place a bet. These new vaccines have now proven to be largely ineffective. They are not lasting, hence require constant boosters. They do not prevent infection, hence breakthrough cases are now the norm. They do not staunch infectiousness as those who get COVID, even if vaxed, boosted and asymptomatic, still shed virus and infect others. They are not durable as new strains of the virus, like Omicron, are not deterred by the vaccines. The only thing we know for certain: breakthrough cases are less mortal than infections in the unvaxed. However, as with all respiratory viruses, evolved variants are also proving to be less harmful and more virulent than their predecessors
It is clear now that mRNA so-called vaccines seem to do only one thing; they reduce the severity of a COVID 19 infection. There is a medical term for a treatment that reduces the severity of a viral infection: a therapeutic. Government agencies have oversold this mRNA technology at every turn, even elevating it to “vaccine” status. This was an abuse of language for political ends, largely benefitting the virus purveyors and their investors. It’s time this mRNA therapy is purged from the definition of what constitutes a vaccine. It is an invasive gene therapy. At best, mRNA therapy has proven to be only therapeutic, a treatment whose benefits are limited and may not outweigh the risks for many easily discernable segments of the population. The vaccine liability shield should not apply to these therapies. Perhaps it is time to alert the trial lawyers. The immense gains accumulated by the hucksters pushing this stuff have proven illegitimate. And the therapy itself may well prove harmful to many while those harmed have had no good recourse.
Published in General
Sure, that’s a good attitude to have. In Dr. Racaniello’s livestream course, there are students who ask questions like that, and I find it helpful. (I don’t watch the sessions live, so I don’t get to ask questions myself.) For example, when he’s talking about the reproduction of a protein from RNA someone will ask how long it actually takes (because it’s a very involved process that took a long time to explain). And he explains that it’s on the order of a few seconds or faster (I forget which, but in any case it’s much faster than I would have guessed). Or the same when he describes the process by which a virus moves within the cytoplasm of a cell. It is sort of like a two-legged tightrope walk. There are a few YouTube animations that show how it works, but they go in slow-motion for clarity. Students want to know how fast they actually move, and he has some numbers.
But yes, as far as I know the spikes are not attached to anything unless they attach to ACE2 protein on cells that have that protein on their surface. Your body’s immune defensive cells try to attach to them, though, and when they get good at it produces antibodies to attach to them.
The assembly and unzipping is fast but the frequency I don’t know. It depends on raw materials present and brownian motion and magic.
I assume that the mRNA kill the cells, but it’s not certain that they do. By hijacking the cells machinery they may be inhibiting other cell functions, and that may make them vulnerable. Also, if your immune system detects that viral activity is going on in cells, it marks them for death(*). And the vaccine mRNA could perhaps be detected as viral activity; but I don’t know. Your antibodies can’t do this detecting, but some t-cells can. (These are among the t-cells that tend to remain in your body long after the antibodies have diminished, and which help prevent severe disease even if they’re not swift enough to prevent infection.)
Point being, if the vaccine mRNA ends up causing early death in the cells it invades, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing, so long as it doesn’t cause them to die before they produce any viral spike proteins.
(*)One of the reasons there is no vaccine for HIV is that it has the ability to mask the signals on the cell membrane by which certain immune system cells can detect that viral activity is going on inside.
Yeah, sort of. They attach to cells that have ACE2 on the surface, which includes cells that line your respiratory openings. It’s part of the process by which a virus will enter cells, except in this case it’s just the spike. So the whole process that requires the rest of the viral particle cannot occur. But yes, this process is often like becoming part of the membrane.
I’m saying that in words and pictures many pages of internet articles from high-quality publications, with high quality diagrams showed spikes integral to the cell membrane protruding outward. (In doing so they surely come into contact with neighboring cells.) These spikes and cells, rather than viral bodies as with a genuine infection, become foreign bodies and targets for destruction.
(And people wonder why there’s so much autoimmune problem with the vaccine.)
No, I think most cells invaded by the mRNA must survive, or everyone would have necrosis at the point of injection. People are making assumptions that the mRNA causes cell death like the real virus. I haven’t read that in any reliable source–if anything, I’ve gathered that the lack of cell death is part of the appeal of this technology.
OK, this discussion is well beyond anything I understand about the effects on cells. A question. Would these effects explain anything about why young men are disproportionately affected with Myocarditis since we know the heart cells don’t reproduce like others and young men, on average, are more physically active than others?
I think it has to do with what I read that testosterone plays a part in the virus, but I forget how. And teenaged males have a lot of testosterone.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7972673/
“COVID-19 consistently displays a higher mortality in males. This sex-specific difference in outcomes is seen not only in the current COVID-19 pandemic, but also in prior viral epidemics and pandemics. Sex hormones, such as testosterone, play a clear role in modulating the immune response, providing a clue that may illuminate the underpinnings of these outcomes.”
Interesting. And from the conclusion:
So, testosterone may make some men more vulnerable to sars-cov-2. And the cure? More testosterone.
Perhaps.
Although it’s in the paragraph labeled “Conclusion” it’s important to keep in mind that this is more speculation than conclusion.
If this were a Star Trek episode, we’d be wondering if viruses are sentient beings. :-) :-)
Yeah, the virologists find it impossible not to anthropomorphize them even as they keep warning each other not to anthropomorphize them.
It’s true in all of the life sciences.
Yes, and this was from a long time ago. I haven’t looked lately to see if any further research or evidence-based speculation has been done.
Let’s unpack a few things:
Most RNA does not really self-replicate. mRNA is used to make protein but the protein can be an RNA copying machine like RNA-dependent RNA Polymerase (RDRP) which basically Xeroxes the RNA as opposed to transcribing DNA into RNA. Please forgive the text-art double helices and such.
The normal process
DNA }{}{}{}{ —- Transcription —-> mRNA ^^^^^^^ —–Ribosomes / Translation ——> Protein ++++++++
With a mRNA vaccine
mRNA ^^^^^^^ —–Ribosomes / Translation ——> Protein ++++++++
Self-replicating mRNA
mRNA ^^^^^^^ —–Ribosomes / Translation ——> ++RNA-dependent RNA Polymerase (RDRP)++ & ++Other Protein++
mRNA ^^^^^^^ —–++(RDRP)++ ——> lots of mRNA ^^^^^^^ (Repeat)
Retroviruses (HIV) and only retroviruses
viral RNA ^^^^^^^ —–++(Reverse Transcriptase)++ ——> DNA }{}{}{}{
Sorry for not answering sooner, I didn’t see this. I used the word “infect” as opposed to “transfect” but I don’t see a meaningful distinction in this case. I suppose transfect is better. I often mention the origin of the virus and of the vaccine. But I just always thought that most people weren’t interested. How I refer to it is to say that the virus is (and here I get semantical arguments) man-made, lab-created, a process of human mental exertion and technical skill. And the vaccine is as well. Whether the vaccine can carry the Made in China label of not, its development was paid for by the US government, and presumably its development was guided by US interests and goals.
But regardless of the intent of the originators, it is something completely new and if it is dangerous, it is dangerous in poorly-known ways. For example, some MD and virologist researchers are concerned that the lipid coating itself can make the heart muscle take it in electively to metabolize. If this is true, and it appears to be theoretically true, and it is unknown if it is in fact true, I think — I hope — that this would be an unforeseen adverse effect that was not intended by either the WIV or the Americans who purportedly paid for the research.
Added: But since replication of the full mRNA is carried out, like the whole of an RNA virus, perhaps “infect” is actually better.
Transfection is the specific term for introducing nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) into a cell. This is the most accurate term for a RNA vaccine
Transduction is the term for introducing nucleic acids using a virus, usually without causing the virus to replicate. To the best of my knowledge, this is how the Johnson and Johnson vaccine works.
Infection is usually reserved for a virus replicating in a cell.
So what word would we use to describe insertion of mRNA that infects a cell causing it to reproduce a toxic antigen? For lack of a better word, I think I’ll use “infect”.
There is no lack of a better word.
A better word is “vaccine.” “Infect” implies an organism that is going to reproduce itself and cause disease along the way. Vaccine implies a piece of the invasive organism designed to elicit the host organism’s defense against the invasion.