I can’t find the irony because I’m distracted by the facts. The highlights in the text are mine, they are the key.
Flipping a Switch Inside the Head
With new technology, scientists are able to exert wireless control over brain cells of mice with just the push of a button. The first thing they did was make the mice hungry.
By W. Wayt Gibbs, APRIL 1, 2017
READY YOUR TINFOIL HATS—mind control is not as far-fetched an idea as it may seem. In Jeffrey M. Friedman’s laboratory, it happens all the time, though the subjects are mice, not people.
Friedman and his colleagues have demonstrated a radio-operated remote control for the appetite and glucose metabolism of mice—a sophisticated technique to wirelessly alter neurons in the animals’ brains. At the flick of a switch, they are able to make mice hungry—or suppress their appetite—while the mice go about their lives normally. It’s a tool they are using to unravel the neurological basis of eating, and it is likely to have applications for studies of other hard-wired behaviors.
Friedman, Marilyn M. Simpson Professor, has been working on the technique for several years with Sarah Stanley, a former postdoc in his lab who now is assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and collaborators at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Aware of the limitations of existing methods for triggering brain cells in living animals, the group set out to invent a new way. An ideal approach, they reasoned, would be as noninvasive and non-damaging as possible. And it should work quickly and repeatedly.
Although there are other ways to deliver signals to neurons, each has its limitations. In deep-brain stimulation, for example, scientists thread a wire through the brain to place an electrode next to the target cells. But the implant can damage nearby cells and tissues in ways that interfere with normal behavior. Optogenetics, which works similarly but uses fiber optics and a pulse of light rather than electricity, has the same issue. A third strategy—using drugs to activate genetically modified cells bred into mice—is less invasive, but drugs are slow to take effect and wear off.
The solution that Friedman’s group hit upon, referred to as radiogenetics or magnetogenetics, avoids these problems. With their method, published last year in Nature, biologists can turn neurons on or off in a live animal at will—quickly, repeatedly, and without implants—by engineering the cells to make them receptive to radio waves or a magnetic field.
“In effect, we created a perceptual illusion that the animal had a drop in blood sugar.”
“We’ve combined molecules already used in cells for other purposes in a manner that allows an invisible force to take control of an instinct as primal as hunger,” Friedman says.
The method links five very different biological tools, which can look whimsically convoluted, like a Rube Goldberg contraption on a molecular scale. It relies on a green fluorescent protein borrowed from jellyfish, a peculiar antibody derived from camels, squishy bags of iron particles, and the cellular equivalent of a door made from a membrane-piercing protein—all delivered and installed by a genetically engineered virus. The remote control for this contraption is a modified welding tool (though a store-bought magnet also works).
The researchers’ first challenge was to find something in a neuron that could serve as an antenna to detect the incoming radio signal or magnetic field. The logical choice was ferritin, a protein that stores iron in cells in balloon-like particles just a dozen nanometers wide. Iron is essential to cells but can also be toxic, so it is sequestered in ferritin particles until it is needed. Each ferritin particle carries within it thousands of grains of iron that wiggle around in response to a radio signal, and shift and align when immersed in a magnetic field. We all have these particles shimmying around inside our brain cells, but the motions normally have no effect on neurons.
Friedman and Stanley, with equipment they use to send radio waves. Photo by Zachary Veilleux
Friedman’s team realized that they could use a genetically engineered virus to create doorways into a neuron’s outer membrane. If they could then somehow attach each door to a ferritin particle, they reasoned, they might be able to wiggle the ferritin enough to jostle the door open. “The ‘door’ we chose is called TRPV1,” says Stanley. “Once TRPV1 is activated, calcium and sodium ions would next flow into the cell and trigger the neuron to fire.” The bits borrowed from camels and jellyfish provided what the scientists needed to connect the door to the ferritin (see How to outfit a brain sidebar, right).
Once the team had the new control mechanism working, they put it to the test. For Friedman and Stanley, whose goal is to unravel the biological causes of overeating and obesity, the first application was obvious: Try to identify specific neurons involved in appetite. The group modified glucose-sensing neurons—cells that are believed to monitor blood sugar levels in the brain and keep them within normal range—to put them under wireless control. To accomplish this, they inserted the TRPV1 and ferritin genes into a virus and—using yet another genetic trick—injected them into the glucose-sensing neurons. They could then fiddle with the cells to see whether they are involved, as suspected, in coordinating feeding and the release of hormones, such as insulin and glucagon, that keep blood glucose levels in check.
HOW TO OUTFIT A BRAIN FOR RADIO CONTROL Scientists have come up with a clever way to control neurons via radio by cobbling together genes from humans, camels, and jellyfish. They use an engineered virus to install a door into each target neuron’s outer membrane, then jostle the door open using ferritin particles that respond to strong radio signals. Once the door opens, calcium ions pour into the cell and trigger the neuron to fire. 1. To install the radiogenetics system into neurons, the scientists equipped an adenovirus with the various genes needed to make the system work. Then they squirted the modified virus onto the brain cells they wanted to alter. 2. One of the added genes produces TRPV1, a protein that normally helps cells detect heat and motion. Within each neuron, the TRPV1 protein (pink) embeds itself into the cell’s outer membrane. Like a door, it can change shape to open or shut an ion channel. To add a knob to the door, the researchers stitched TRPV1 to a “nanobody” (violet)—an unusually simple variety of antibody found in camels. 3. Iron-filled ferritin particles (green) serve as the system’s sensor. To allow them to grab onto the nanobody doorknob, the researchers tacked on a gene for GFP—a jellyfish protein that glows green under ultraviolet light. By design, the nanobody and GFP stick together tightly. The system is now connected. When exposed to strong radio waves or magnetic fields, the ferritin particles wiggle, the ion channel opens, and calcium ions (red) flow in to activate the cell.
Once the virus had enough time to infect and transform the target neurons, the researchers switched on a radio transmitter tuned to 465 kHz, a little below the band used for AM radio.
The neurons responded. They began to fire, signaling a shortage of glucose even though the animal’s blood sugar levels were normal. And other parts of the body responded just as they would to a real drop in blood sugar: insulin levels fell, the liver started pumping out more glucose, and the animals started eating more. “In effect,” Friedman says, “we created a perceptual illusion that the animal had low blood glucose even though the levels were normal.”
Inspired by these results, the researchers wondered if magnetism, like radio waves, might trigger ferritin to open the cellular doors. It did: When the team put the mice cages close to an MRI machine, or waved a rare-earth magnet over the animals, their glucose-sensing neurons were triggered.
Stimulating appetite is one thing. Could they also suppress it? The group tweaked the TRPV1 gene so it would pass chloride, which acts to inhibit neurons. Now when they inserted the modified TRPV1 into the neurons, the rush of chloride made the neurons behave as if the blood was overloaded with glucose. Insulin production surged in the animals, and they ate less. “This seems to indicate clearly that the brain as well as the pancreas is involved in glucose regulation,” Friedman says.
Friedman and Stanley hope that biologists will be able to use the remote-control system to tackle a range of neural processes other than appetite. And beyond being a basic research tool, the method could potentially lead to novel therapies for brain disorders.
For example, one could imagine using it to treat Parkinson’s disease or essential tremor—conditions that are sometimes treated by deep brain stimulation, via wires implanted into patients’ brains and connected to a battery pack tucked into the chest. Potentially, it would be less invasive to inject the crippled virus into the same spot of the brain and let it permanently modify the cells there, making them responsive to wireless control.
In theory, it might also be possible to make a patient’s own cells receptive to electromagnetic waves by removing them from the body, delivering TRPV1 and ferritin, and then putting the cells back, Friedman says. This would be a protocol not unlike those currently used in stem cell treatments and some cancer immunotherapies, in which patients’ own cells are engineered and reimplanted back into their bodies.
At this point, however, the system’s clinical usefulness is a question of speculation. “We are a long way from using it in humans for medical treatments,” Friedman says. “Much would need to be done before it could even be tested.”
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Take it with a pinch of salt, as per usual, this still a product of MIT.
Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19
Stephanie Seneff1 and Greg Nigh – Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge MA, 02139, USA, E-mail: seneff@csail.mit.edu / Naturopathic Oncology, Immersion Health, Portland, OR 97214, USA
ABSTRACT
Operation Warp Speed brought to market in the United States two mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Interim data suggested high efficacy for both of these vaccines, which helped legitimize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA.
However, the exceptionally rapid movement of these vaccines through controlled trials and into mass deployment raises multiple safety concerns. In this review we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail.
We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases.
Among these potential induced pathologies, we discuss the relevance of prion-protein-related amino acid sequences within the spike protein. We also present a brief review of studies supporting the potential for spike protein “shedding”, transmission of the protein from a vaccinated to an unvaccinated person, resulting in symptoms induced in the latter.
We finish by addressing a common point of debate, namely, whether or not these vaccines could modify the DNA of those receiving the vaccination. While there are no studies demonstrating definitively that this is happening, we provide a plausible scenario, supported by previously established pathways for transformation and transport of genetic material, whereby injected mRNA could ultimately be incorporated into germ cell DNA for transgenerational transmission.
We conclude with our recommendations regarding surveillance that will help to clarify the long-term effects of these experimental drugs and allow us to better assess the true risk/benefit ratio of these novel technologies.
Introduction
Unprecedented. This word has defined so much about 2020 and the pandemic related to SARS-CoV-2. In addition to an unprecedented disease and its global response, COVID-19 also initiated an unprecedented process of vaccine research, production, testing, and public distribution (Shaw,
2021). The sense of urgency around combatting the virus led to the creation, in March 2020, of Operation Warp Speed (OWS), then-President Donald Trump’s program to bring a vaccine against COVID-19 to market as quickly as possible(Jacobs and Armstrong, 2020). OWS established a few more unprecedented aspects of COVID-19.
First, it brought the US Department of Defense into direct collaboration with US health departments with respect to vaccine distribution (Bonsell, 2021).
Second, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) collaborated with the biotechnology company Moderna in bringing an unprecedented type of vaccine against infectious disease to market, one utilizing a technology based on messenger RNA (mRNA) (National Institutes of Health, 2020).
The confluence of these unprecedented events has rapidly brought to public awareness the promise and potential of mRNA vaccines as a new weapon against infectious diseases into the future. At the same time, events without precedent are, by definition, without a history and context against which to fully assess risks, hoped-for benefits, safety, and long-term viability as a positive contribution to public health.
In this paper we will be briefly reviewing one particular aspect of these unprecedented events, namely the development and deployment of mRNA vaccines against the targeted class of infectious diseases under the umbrella of “SARS-CoV-2.
”We believe many of the issues we raise here will be applicable to any future mRNA vaccine that might be produced against other infectious agents, or in applications related to cancer and genetic diseases, while others seem specifically relevant to mRNA vaccines currently being implemented against the subclass of corona viruses. While the promises of this technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention. It is our intention to review several highly concerning molecular aspects of infectious disease-related mRNA technology, and to correlate these with both documented and potential pathological effects.
UNPRECEDENTED
Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population.
Some of these includes the following.
First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)
2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent
3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market
4. First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction
5. First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text)
6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths
7. First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population
Vaccine Development
Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies.
Unprecedented represents a category of vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)
Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).
With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations.
The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data released to the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).
A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna and Pfizer trials were deemed to be SARS-CoV-1-positive at baseline despite prior infection being grounds for exclusion. For these and other reasons the interim efficacy estimate of around 95% for both vaccines is suspect.
A more recent analysis looked specifically at the issue of relative vs. absolute risk reduction. While the high estimates of risk reduction are based upon relative risks, the absolute risk reduction is a more appropriate metric for a member of the general public to determine whether a vaccination provides a meaningful risk reduction personally. In that analysis, utilizing data supplied by the vaccine makers to the FDA, the Moderna vaccine at the time of interim analysis demonstrated an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% (p= 0.004), while the Pfizer vaccine absolute risk reduction was 0.7% (p<0.000) (Brown 2021).
Others have brought up important additional questions regarding COVID-19 vaccine development, questions with direct relevance to the mRNA vaccines reviewed here.
For example, Haidere, et. al. (2021) identify four “critical questions” related to development of these vaccines, questions that are germane to both their safety and their efficacy:
•Will Vaccines Stimulate the Immune Response?
•Will Vaccines Provide Sustainable Immune Endurance?
•How Will SARS-CoV-2 Mutate?
•Are We Prepared for Vaccine Backfires?
Lack of standard and extended preclinical and clinical trials of the two implemented mRNA vaccines leaves each of these questions to be answered over time. It is now only through observation of pertinent physiological and epidemiological data generated by widescale delivery of the vaccines to the general public that these questions will be resolved. And this is only possible if there is free access to unbiased reporting of outcomes –something that seems unlikely given the widespread censorship of vaccine-related information because of the perceived need to declare success at all cost.
The two mRNA vaccines that have made it through phase 3 trials and are now being delivered to the general population are the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The vaccines have much in common. Both are based on mRNA encoding the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Both demonstrated a relative efficacy rate of 94-95%. Preliminary indications are that antibodies are still present after three months. Both recommend two doses spaced by three or four weeks, and recently there are reports of annual booster injections being necessary (Mahose, 2021). Both are delivered through muscle injection, and both require deep-freeze storage to keep the RNA from breaking down. This is because, unlike double-stranded DNA which is very stable, single-strand RNA products are apt to be damaged or rendered powerless at warm temperatures and must be kept extremely cold to retain their potential efficacy (Pushparajah et al., 2021).
It is claimed by the manufacturers that the Pfizer vaccine requires storage at -94 degrees Fahrenheit (-70 degrees Celsius), which makes it very challenging to transport it and keep it cold during the interim before it is finally administered. The Moderna vaccine can be stored for 6 months at -4 degrees Fahrenheit (-20 degrees Celsius), and it can be stored safely in the refrigerator for 30 days following thawing (Zimmer et al., 2021).
Two other vaccines that are now being administered under emergency use are the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both are based on a vector DNA technology that is very different from the technology used inthe mRNA vaccines.
While these vaccines were also rushed to market with insufficient evaluation, they are not the subject of this paper so we will just describe briefly how they are developed. These vaccines are based on a defective version of an adenovirus, a double-stranded DNA virus that causes the common cold.
The adenovirus has been genetically modified in two ways, such that it cannot replicate due to critical missing genes, and its genome has been augmented with the DNA code for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. AstraZeneca’s production involves an immortalized human cell line called Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) 293, which is grown in culture along with the defective viruses (Dicks et al., 2012).
The HEK cell line was genetically modified back in the 1970s by augmenting its DNA with segments from an adenovirus that supply the missing genes needed for replication of the defective virus (Louis et al., 1997).
Johnson & Johnson uses a similar technique based on a fetal retinal cell line. Because the manufacture of these vaccines requires genetically modified human tumor cell lines, there is the potential for human DNA contamination as well as many other potential contaminants.
The media has generated a great deal of excitement about this revolutionary technology, but there are also concerns that we may not be realizing the complexity of the body’s potential for reactions to foreign mRNA and other ingredients in these vaccines that go far beyond the simple goal of tricking the body into producing antibodies to the spike protein.
In the remainder of this paper, we will first describe in more detail the technology behind mRNA vaccines. We devote several sections to specific aspects of the mRNA vaccines that concern us with regard to potential for both predictable and unpredictable negative consequences.
We conclude with a plea to governments and the pharmaceutical industry to consider exercising greater caution in the current undertaking to vaccinate as many people as possible against SARS-CoV-2.
Experimental mRNA vaccines have been heralded as having the potential for great benefits, but they also harbor the possibility of potentially tragic and even catastrophic unforeseen consequences.
The mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been implemented with great fanfare, but there are many aspects of their widespread utilization that merit concern. We have reviewed some, but not all, of those concerns here, and we want to emphasize that these concerns are potentially serious and might not be evident for years or even transgenerationally.
In order to adequately rule out the adverse potentialities described in this paper, we recommend, at a minimum, that the following research and surveillance practices be adopted:
•A national effort to collect detailed data on adverse events associated with the mRNA vaccines with abundant funding allocation, tracked well beyond the first couple of weeks after vaccination.
•Repeated autoantibody testing of the vaccine-recipient population. The autoantibodies tested could be standardized and should be based upon previously documented antibodies and autoantibodies potentially elicited by the spike protein. These include autoantibodies against phospholipids, collagen, actin, thyroperoxidase (TPO), myelin basic protein, tissue transglutaminase, and perhaps others.
•Immunological profiling related to cytokine balance and related biological effects. Tests should include, at a minimum, IL-6, INF-α, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and C-reactive protein.
•Studies comparing populations who were vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines and those who were not to confirm the expected decreased infection rate and milder symptoms of the vaccinated group, while at the same time comparing the rates of various autoimmune diseases and prion diseases in the same two populations.
•Studies to assess whether it is possible for an unvaccinated person to acquire vaccine-specific forms of the spike proteins from a vaccinated person in close proximity.
•In vitro studies to assess whether the mRNA nanoparticles can be taken up by sperm and converted into cDNA plasmids.
•Animal studies to determine whether vaccination shortly before conception can result in offspring carrying spike-protein-encoding plasmids in their tissues, possibly integrated into their genome.
•In vitro studies aimed to better understand the toxicity of the spike protein to the brain, heart, testes, etc.
Public policy around mass vaccination has generally proceeded on the assumption that the risk/benefit ratio for the novel mRNA vaccines is a “slam dunk.” With the massive vaccination campaign well under way in response to the declared international emergency of COVID-19, we have rushed into vaccine experiments on a world-wide scale. At the very least, we should take advantage of the data that are available from these experiments to learn more about this new and previously untested technology. And, in the future, we urge governments to proceed with more caution in the face of new biotechnologies.
Finally, as an obvious but tragically ignored suggestion, the government should also be encouraging the population to take safe and affordable steps to boost their immune systems naturally, such as getting out in the sunlight to raise vitamin D levels (Ali, 2020), and eating mainly organic whole foods rather than chemical-laden processed foods (Rico-Campà et al., 2019). Also, eating foods that are good sources of vitamin A, vitamin C and vitamin K2 should be encouraged, as deficiencies in these vitamins are linked to bad outcomes from COVID-19 (Goddek, 2020; Sarohan, 2020).
Acknowledgements
This research was funded in part by Quanta Computers, Inc., Taiwan, under the auspices of the Qmulus project.Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests or conflicts to declare.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Less decency and honesty in science than in politics, these days. I didn’t think there’s a few levels below politics.
You know when your juice bottle says “100% orange” and the small prints say it’s just 50% of fruit “concentrate”? They should be arrested for that. Now concentrate on this:
If I were to sum it up in words, I’d quote the source of this revelation:
“It is like saying that there were 700 men and 127 women studied and only a small percent got pregnant. Well, from the start 700 could not have gotten pregnant in the first place.”
Wheatley has just tipped LifeSite News on this, and I immediately did my own verification, anyone can and should do it. The result became the cover image for this article, which really is the beginning and the end of the debate, sums up Covidiocracy for me.
The data was collected and “arranged” by a team of “CDC experts” who published it in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2021. It remained overlooked until mid July, when NEJM followed up with a shameless editorial that questioned nothing, just furthered the lie. And that’s when the small prints caught some diligent eyes and went to become our big headline today, as they deserve. Evil is in the small prints, again, that’s why they hate you when you carefully read inserts and labels.
This is Covidiocracy Science for you, this is the highly esteemed New England Journal of Medicine, up there, close to the British Medical Journal as reputation.
Mind that 82% is 3x the normal rate. All that extra dead babies blood is on the hands of CDC, NEJM and the likes of.
UPDATE:
A reader pointed out that Jeffrey Jaxxen too blew the lid on this, on Del Bigtree’s show, a few days back, and they reached precisely the same conclusion. BUT I noticed one very interesting detail that Del brought up and single-handedly proves intention in this fake narrative: The study hast no less than 54 authors. There is no chance in heaven and hell that they all missed this. If it’s not by mistake, it’s by intention.
This are just my highlights from the show, the full thing is linked above
And we really have to extrapolate this example to all walks of life, because they are all infected with the same corruption. None as blatantly as science, but you still can’t rely on anything you can’t research and verify yourself.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
A confidentiality agreement shows potential coronavirus vaccine candidates were transferred from Moderna to the University of North Carolina in 2019, nineteen days prior to the emergence of the alleged Covid-19 causing virus in Wuhan, China.
The confidentially agreement which can be viewed herestates that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to tranfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The Universisty of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.
Found on page 105 of the agreement
The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019.
Recipient signatories found on page 107
The agreement was also signed by two representatives of the NIAID, one of whom was Amy F. Petrik PhD, a technology transfer specialist who signed the agreement on December 12th 2019 at 8:05 am. The other signatory was Barney Graham MD PhD, an investigator for the NIAID, however this signature was not dated.
NIAID signatories found on page 107
The final signatories on the agreement were Sunny Himansu, Moderna’s Investigator, and Shaun Ryan, Moderna’s Deputy General Councel. Both signautres were made on December 17th 2019.
Moderna signatories found on page 108
All of these signatures were made prior to any knowledge of the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus. It wasn’t until December 31st 2019 that the World Health Organisation (WHO) became aware of an alleged cluster of viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. But even at this point they had not determined that an alleged new coronavirus was to blame, instead stating the pneumonia was of “unknown cause”.
It was not until January 9th 2020 that the WHO reported Chinese authorities had determined the outbreak was due to a novel coronavirus which later became known as SARS-CoV-2 with the alleged resultant disease dubbed COVID-19. So why was an mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate developed by Moderna being transferred to the University of North Carolina on December 12th 2019?
The same Moderna that have had an mRNA coronavirus vaccine authorised for emergency use only in both the United Kingdom and United States to allegedly combat Covid-19.
What did Moderna know that we didn’t? In 2019 there was not any singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity which would warrant a vaccine, and evidence suggests there hasn’t been a singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity throughout 2020 and 2021 either.
Perhaps Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would like to explain themselves in a court of law? – THE DAILY EXPOSE
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
When I first heard of blood clots in vaccinated people, I instantly recalled of a similar problem occurring while the mRNA platform was in study for a cancer therapy, by Moderna, I think, prior to Covid. I couldn’t find that piece of information again, but during the research I discovered something even more revealing.
Blood clots in subjects of Covid gene therapies are very likely caused by defective coatings in magnetic particles used for magnetofection, which leads to cell-clogging.
Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
It has been more than plausibly theorized that the explanation for the magnetism in vaxxers is magnetofection, a method of transfection using magnetic fields.
Magnetofection is a very effective way of transfecting plasmid DNA into a variety of primary cells including primary neurons which are known to be notoriously difficult to transfect and very sensitive to toxicity.
For coincidence theorists, let me just add that the inventor of transfection is one of mRNA jabs inventors, Dr. Robert Malone, who has warned FDA on the dangers of these technologies, according to himself.
Scientifically trained at UC Davis, UC San Diego, and at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories, Dr. Robert Malone is an internationally recognized scientist (virology, immunology, molecular biology) and is known as one of the original inventors of mRNA vaccination and DNA Vaccination. His discoveries in mRNA non viral delivery systems are considered the key to the current COVID-19 vaccine strategies. Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines. Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications and published abstracts and has over 11,477 citations of his peer reviewed publications, as verified by Google Scholar. His google scholar ranking is “outstanding” for impact factors. He has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections.
Magnetofection basically involves attaching DNA onto a magnetic nanoparticle coated with a cationic polymer like polyethylenimine (PEI) [254,255]. The magnetic nanoparticles are generally made up of a biodegradable substance like iron oxide, and its coating onto the polymeric particle is done by salt-induced colloidal aggregation. These prepared nanoparticles are then localized in the target organ by the application of an external magnetic field, which allows the delivery of attached DNA to the target organ, as shown in Figure 3.5. This method also increases the uptake of DNA into target cells as the contact time between the target organ and magnetic nanoparticles increases. In addition, the magnetic field pulls the magnetic nanoparticles into the target cells, which also helps to increase the uptake of DNA [256,257]. In addition, the standard transfection using viral or nonviral vectors is also increased by the magnetofection.
This is a more powerful method of controlled and targeted delivery for gene therapies, in layman terms.
The problem with it is that it’s been proven to be very dangerous for lab animals and it’s not authorized for human use.
From Dr. Jane Ruby m as well as from Pfizer and Moderna we find out how these particles are packaged into the injectable concocts:
“Stew Peters interviews Dr Jane Ruby who confirms the magnetic effects that Covid vaxxed people have experienced. She says it is a deliberately made substance added to the vaccines. This shows criminal intent. It was added because it is an aggressive delivery system to get it into EVERY cell of your body. The process is called ‘Magnetofection’ and is available in scientific literature such as Pubmed. It concentrates the mRNA into people’s cells and forces your body to make these synthetic mRNA instructions even in places where they shouldn’t be located within the body.
It is a ‘forced delivery system’ and is called by the acronym of SPIONS – Supramagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. These particles use a lipid nanoparticle envelope to gain entry into the cells. It is done this way to protect mRNA because mRNA is easily degraded and this is also why the Pfizer vaccines are refrigerated at -70 degrees Fahrenheit as another form of protection.
There is a German company on the internet called ‘Chemicell’ which sells different chemicals which can make these magnetic fields around your molecules. You can buy 200 microgram vials of their product called, ‘Polymag’. These are developed and sold for research purposes only and are not to be used for human diagnostic or as a component of any drug intended for humans.
However at least Pfizer and Moderna are using this substance in their vaccines. Therefore it is vital that anyone thinking of taking a shot, obtain a full ingredient list to have full informed consent and to postpone getting the Covid Jab, as each day brings further information into the public domain. Dr Ruby is asked if this was deliberate by the manufacturers and answers that this substance doesn’t occur naturally. It had to be added into the vaccine.
Many have spoken about the Polyethelene Glycol or PEG which enables the vaccines to get through water based cell membranes as this is lipophilic – attracted to fats – but there are other places in the body where ‘God and Nature’ hadn’t intended these substances to be, but by using this delivery system of supra nanoparticles, you are creating a super delivery system which forces these substances into areas where they are not meant to be.”
. 2019 Nov;13(9):1197-1209. doi: 10.1080/17435390.2019.1650969. Epub 2019 Aug 22.
Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) modulate hERG ion channel activity
Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) are widely used in various biomedical applications, such as diagnostic agents in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for drug delivery vehicles and in hyperthermia treatment of tumors.
Although the potential benefits of SPIONs are considerable, there is a distinct need to identify any potential cellular damage associated with their use.
Since human ether à go-go-related gene (hERG) channel, a protein involved in the repolarization phase of cardiac action potential, is considered one of the main targets in the drug discovery process, we decided to evaluate the effects of SPIONs on hERG channel activity and to determine whether the oxidation state, the dimensions and the coating of nanoparticles (NPs) can influence the interaction with hERG channel.
Using patch clamp recordings, we found that SPIONs inhibit hERG current and this effect depends on the coating of NPs. In particular, SPIONs with covalent coating aminopropylphosphonic acid (APPA) have a milder effect on hERG activity. We observed that the time-course of hERG channel modulation by SPIONs is biphasic, with a transient increase (∼20% of the amplitude) occurring within the first 1-3 min of perfusion of NPs, followed by a slower inhibition. Moreover, in the presence of SPIONs, deactivation kinetics accelerated and the activation and inactivation I-V curves were right-shifted, similarly to the effect described for the binding of other divalent metal ions (e.g. Cd2+ and Zn2+).
Finally, our data show that a bigger size and the complete oxidation of SPIONs can significantly decrease hERG channel inhibition.
Taken together, these results support the view that Fe2+ ions released from magnetite NPs may represent a cardiac risk factor, since they alter hERG gating and these alterations could compromise the cardiac action potential.
MIT SAYS IT’S NOT JUST SPIONS, BUT ALSO LIONS:
HDT Bio, the biotechnology company in Seattle, has an alternative solution. Working with Deborah Fuller, a microbiologist at the University of Washington, it’s pioneering a different kind of protective bubble for the mRNAs. If it works, it would mean that an mRNA vaccine for covid-19 could be stable in a regular fridge for at least a month, or at room temperature for up to three weeks.
Their method: instead of encasing the mRNA in a lipid nanoparticle, they’ve engineered molecules called lipid inorganic nanoparticles, or LIONs. The inorganic portion of the LION is a positively charged metal particle—so far they’ve been using iron oxide. The positively charged metal would bind to the negatively charged mRNA, which wraps around the LION. The resulting particle is solid, which creates more stability and reduces the reliance on refrigeration.
A real-world study by the CDC backs up the clinical trial data from both mRNA vaccines—although the rise of the UK variant in the US is a cloud on the horizon.
“The cold chain has always been an issue for [the] distribution of vaccines, and it’s only magnified in a pandemic.”
Deborah Fuller
HDT Bio initially developed LIONs to treat liver cancer and tumors in the head and neck, but when the pandemic hit, they pivoted to trying the particles with mRNA vaccines. Early preclinical trials in nonhuman primates showed that the LION, combined with an mRNA vaccine for covid-19, worked as they’d hoped.
Carter of HDT Bio says that in an ideal situation, LIONs could be sent to clinics worldwide in advance, to be stored at room temperature or in a regular refrigerator, before being mixed into vaccine vials at clinics. Alternatively, the two could be premixed at a manufacturing facility. Either way, this method would make doses stable for at least a month in a regular refrigerator.
Fuller says that some scientists have criticized the need for two vials—one for the LION and another for mRNA before they’re mixed together. “But I think the advantages of having an effective product more amenable to worldwide distribution outweighs those negatives,” she says.
HDT Bio is applying for permission to start human clinical trials in the US and is looking to start clinical trials in India this spring. In the US, it faces some unique challenges in FDA regulation, since the LION particles would be considered a drug separate from the vaccine. Regulators in Brazil, China, South Africa, and India—where HDT Bio is hoping to launch its product—don’t consider the LION a drug because it isn’t the active component, says Carter, meaning that there would be one less layer of regulation than in the US.
For now, it’s still very much an early-stage technology, says Michael Mitchell, a bioengineer at the University of Pennsylvania who works on drug delivery systems. He stresses that more research should reveal whether the iron oxide causes any side effects. – MIT Technology Review
Now here’s the bombshell:
This is no secret to experts, but it’s been revealed to me in the video presentation below, made in 2017 by reputed Prof Diana Borca, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who uses magnetic nanoparticles to treat diseases. In order to get the magnetic nanoparticles into the right places, scientists like Diana have to figure out what kind of coating the nanoparticles need. Coatings help the nanoparticles get to the cells they want to treat without hurting the healthy cells. And if the coating of the magnetic particles breaks, the result is “CLOGGING”, as Borca explains below. Which can translate as clotting, if in blood. Who knows what they lead to when in other organs, strokes maybe?
So I think the only thing we’re missing from the puzzle is official hard evidence that they used magnetofection or magnetogentic methods.
But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, only the government needs government papers to confirm it’s a duck
What each and every one of you can do until we find that evidence?
On screens we’re sound. Please help with the statistical and empirical tests!
Please help finding out if there’s a strong data and empirical correlation between blood clots and magnetism. Anyone you know that has been jabbed and experienced blood clots, heart or circulatory problems needs to take the magnet challenge right now! A strong enough correlation indicates causation. If you make such a test, please reach us on our socials and communicate the result, whether positive or negative! Also VAERS is exploding with reports of magnetism, please help analyzing the data to see if it pairs with clotting. Thank you!
Also food for thought: isn’t this also related to the problems these GMO dupes experience during air-travel? I’ll investigate this in a soon coming report.
This chapter highlighted magnetofection, magnetic patterning of cells, and construction of 3D tissue-like structures. Among them, Mag-TE for constructing 3D structures has been extensively studied, and various kinds of other tissues such as retinal pigment epithelial cell sheets,102 MSC sheets,44 and cardiomyocyte sheets,46 have been already generated. Tubular structures consisting of heterotypic layers of endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, and fibroblasts have also been created.43 In this approach, magnetically labeled cells formed a cell sheet onto which a cylindrical magnet was rolled, which was removed after a tubular structure was formed. If these processes can be scaled up, there is great potential for these techniques in the treatment of a variety of diseases and defects.
In the translational research, toxicology of functional magnetite nanoparticles is an important issue. The main requisite for a cell-labeling technique is to preserve the normal cell behavior. As for biocompatibility of MCLs, no toxic effects against proliferation of several cell types were observed within the range of magnetite concentrations tested (e.g., human keratinocytes,63 < 50 pg-magnetite/cell; HUVECs,41 HAECs,42 human dermal fibroblasts,41 human smooth muscle cells,43 mouse fibroblast cells,43 canine urothelial cells,43 human MSCs,44 and rat MSCs45 < 100 pg/cell). Moreover, MCLs did not compromise MSC differentiation44,45 or electrical connections of cardiomyocytes.46 In addition, an in vivo toxicity of magnetite nanoparticles has been extensively studied. As an MRI contrast agent, ResovistR was first applied clinically for detecting liver cancer, since ResovistR is taken up rapidly by the reticuloendothelial system such as Kupffer cells of the liver compared with the uptake by cancer cells of the liver. In a preliminary study,103 the authors investigated the toxicity of systemically administered MCLs (90 mg, i.p.) in mice; none of the 10 mice injected with MCLs died during the study. Transient accumulation of magnetite was observed in the liver and spleen of the mice, but the magnetite nanoparticles had been cleared from circulation by hepatic Kupffer cells in the spleen by the 10th day after administration.103
In conclusion, magnetic nanoparticles have been developed into “functional” magnetite nanoparticles which are highly promising tools for a wide spectrum of applications in tissue engineering. The proven lack of toxicity of the functional magnetite nanoparticles is expected to provide exciting tools in the near future for clinical tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.View chapter
One of the pioneers using magnetofection for in vitro applications was Lin et al.91 There are various cationic magnetic nanoparticles types that have the capacity to bind nucleotidic material on their surface. With this method, the magnetic nanoparticles are concentrated in the target cells by the influence of an external magnetic field (EMF). Normally, the internalization is accomplished by endocytosis or pinocytosis, so the membrane architecture stays intact. This is an advantage over other physical transfection methods. Other advantages are the low vector dose needed to reach saturation yield and the short incubation time needed to achieve high transfection efficiency. Moreover, with the application of an EMF, cells transfected with magnetic nanoparticles can be used to target the region of interest in vivo.
2.2.1.1 Iron Oxide Nanoparticles
The magnetic nanoparticles most used in magnetofection include the iron oxide nanoparticles (IONPs). IONPs are biodegradable and not cytotoxic and can be easily functionalized with PEI, PEG, or PLL. Poly-l-lysine-modified iron oxide nanoparticles (IONP–PLL) are good candidates as DNA and microRNA (miRNA) vectors because they bind and protect nucleic acids and showed high transfection efficiency in vitro. In addition, they are highly biocompatible in vivo.
Chen et al.92 used human vascular endothelial growth factor siRNA bound to superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) and it was capable of hepatocellular carcinoma growth inhibition in nude mice. Moreover, Li et al.93 demonstrated that the intravenous injection of IONP–PLL carrying NM23-H1 (a tumor suppressor gene) plasmid DNA significantly extended the survival time of an experimental pulmonary metastasis mouse model.
Another advantage of this kind of nanoparticles is that they can be used as MRI agents. Chen et al.94 bound siRNA to PEG-PEI SPIONs together to a gastric cancer-associated CD44v6 single-chain variable fragment. This bound permitted both cancer cell’s transfection and their visualization by MRI.
But those complexes might be used for cell therapies as well. Schade et al.95 used iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) to bind miRNA and transfect human mesenchymal stem cells. As the binding between the MNPs and PEI took place via biotin-streptavidin conjugation, these particles cannot pass the nuclear barrier, so they are good candidates to deliver miRNA, as it exerts its function in the cytosol. They functionalized the surface nanoparticles with PEI and were able to obtain a better transfection than PEI 72 h after transfection. Moreover, they demonstrated that magnetic polyplexes provided a better long-term effect, also when included inside of the stem cells.View chapter
Another attempt to apply magnetic IONPs is the so-called magnetofection (MF) approach. Key factors enabling this method are IONPs that are coupled to vector DNA and guided by the influence of an external magnetic field. By this means, DNA can be transfected into cells of interest. One possibility to enable enhanced binding capabilities of the negatively charged DNA to magnetic IONP beads is the coating IONPs with a positively charged material such as polyethylenimine. The efficiency of the vectors has hence shown to increase up to several thousand times (Scherer et al., 2002). The above depicted engagement of IONPs in MF has shown to be universally applicable to viral and nonviral vectors. This is mostly because it is very rapid and simple. Furthermore, it is a very attractive approach since it yields saturation level transfection at low-dose in vitro (Krotz et al., 2003). Fernandes and Chari (2016) have demonstrated an approach delivering DNA minicircles (mcDNA) to neural stem cells (NSCs) by means of MF. DNA minicircles are small DNA vectors encoding essential gene expression components but devoid of a bacterial backbone, thereby reducing construct size versus conventional plasmids. This could be shown to be very beneficial for the use of genetically engineered NSC transplant populations in regenerative neurology. The aim was to improve the release of biomolecules in ex vivo gene therapy. It could be demonstrated that MF of DNA minicircles is very safe and provided for sustained gene expression for up to 4 weeks. It is described to have high potential as clinically translatable genetic modification strategy for cell therapy (Fernandes and Chari, 2016). The last in vitro application for magnetic nanoparticles to be presented in this chapter will be tissue repair.View chapter
Two methods rely on the application of a magnetic field for gene transfer. Magnetofection uses magnetic nanoparticles coated with DNA in presence of a magnetic field. The nucleic acid-nanoparticle complexes are driven toward and into the target cells by magnetic force application. Gene transfer is enhanced by magnetofection as DNA-loaded particles are guided and maintained in close contact with the target cells. Cellular uptake through endocytosis is thus increased as well. The process has been mainly applied to cultured cells and has been proven more efficient than other chemical methods in some cases.8 The second method is magnetoporation in which membrane permeability is increased, triggered by the applied magnetic field.9View chapter
For gene therapy applications, magnetic particles are generally used for increasing the transfection efficiencies of cultured cells, a technique known as magnetofection [91–104] in which magnetic particles and nucleic acids are mixed together and then added to the cell culture media. The nucleic acid-bound magnetic particles then move from the media to the cell surface upon the application of an external magnetic force, as shown in Figure 9.1. The principle advantage of this approach is the rapid sedimentation of the gene-therapeutic agent onto the target area, thereby reducing the time and dose of vector to achieve highly efficient transfection, with lower cell cytotoxicity.
In in vivo magentofection, the magnetic field is focused over the target site. This method has the potential not only to enhance transfection efficiency but also to target the therapeutic gene to a specific organ or site, as shown in Figure 9.2.
Generally, magnetic particles carrying therapeutic genes are injected intravenously. As the particles flow through the bloodstream, they are captured at the target site using very strong, high-gradient external magnets. Once they are captured, the magnetic particles carrying the therapeutic gene are taken up by the tissue, followed by release of the gene via enzymatic cleavage of cross-linked molecules or degradation of the polymer matrix. If DNA is embedded inside or within the coating material, the magnetic field must be applied to heat the particles and release the gene from the magnetic carrier [105].View chapter
In an attempt to address the transient damage caused by the invasive methods mentioned above (i.e., hydrodynamic injection and electroporation), magnetofection techniques have been introduced. This technique uses the physical method of a magnetic field to direct the deliver of genetic material to the desired target site. The concept involves attaching DNA to a magnetic nanoparticle usually consisting of a biodegradable substance such as iron oxide and coated with cationic polymer such as PEI (Mulens, Morales, & Barber, 2013). These magnetic nanoparticles are then targeted to the tissue through a magnetic field generated by an external magnet. The magnetic nanoparticles are pulled into the target cells increasing the uptake of DNA. This technique is noninvasive and can precisely target the genetic material to the desired site while increasing gene expression. The drawback to magnetofection is the need to formulate magnetic nanoparticles complexed with naked DNA, as well as the need for strong external magnets.View chapter
Stimulus-guided delivery is a non-invasive and convenient approach for clinical applications. Several methods in this category, including electroporation, ultrasound and magnetofection, have been used to deliver siRNAs to specific tissue sites. Owing to constraints associated with application of external stimuli under in vivo conditions, most such studies have been done in vitro. However, in vivo applications of stimulus-guided delivery of anticancer siRNAs are increasingly being reported.
Electroporation has been studied as a means for facilitating in vivo delivery of anticancer siRNAs. Notably, an electroporation method employing a new type of ‘plate and fork’ type electrode has been applied in vivo in mice (Takei et al., 2008). In this application, a chemically modified form of VEGF-specific siRNA in phosphate-buffered saline was intratumorally administered at three doses of 0.08, 0.17 and 0.33 mg/kg, or intravenously administered at a single dose of 6.6 mg/kg. Then, an electronic pulse was applied to a pair of plate and fork electrodes pre-inserted into PC-3-xenografted tumour tissues. Application of electroporation inhibited tumour growth to a similar degree after 0.17 mg/kg intratumoral and 6.6 mg/kg intravenous doses, in each case producing a 40-fold greater inhibitory effect than a local dose. Notably, the duration of the antitumour effect was maintained for 20 days after a single injection via the local or systemic route.
Magnetically guided in vivo siRNA delivery has been investigated using magnetic crystal-lipid nanostructures (Namiki et al., 2009). In this study, a magnetitenanocrystal was coated with oleic acid and a cationic lipid shell, and complexed to EGFR-specific siRNA. Following intravenous administration to mice, siRNA complexed to the magnetic core-encapsulated cationic lipid shell showed a rank order of tissue distribution of spleen followed by liver and lung. For in vivo magnetofection, titanium nitride-coated magnets were internally implanted under the skin peripheral to tumour lesions or were externally placed onto the skin. Mice were intravenously given a total of eight 0.3 mg/kg doses of siRNA complexed to cationic nanoshells administered every other day. Both internal and external applications of a magnetic field reduced tumour (MKN-74 or NUGC-4) volume by 50% compared with the control group 28 days after the initiation of treatment.
Ultrasound-guided siRNA delivery has also been used to increase the in vivo delivery of siRNAs. Ultrasound can produce cavitation, thereby resulting in transient disruptions in cell membranes within tissues (Vandenbroucke et al., 2008). Few studies have addressed the in vivo antitumour effects of ultrasound-guided anticancer siRNAs. To date, most such studies have evaluated the feasibility of the method using siRNAs specific for reporter genes, such as enhanced green fluorescent protein (Negishi et al., 2008). In this latter study, PEG-modified cationic lipid nanobubbles entrapping the ultrasound imaging gas perfluoropropane were complexed with enhanced green fluorescent protein-specific siRNA and intramuscularly administered at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg to mice transfected 1 day prior with enhanced green fluorescent protein-encoding plasmid DNA. Three days after siRNA injection and ultrasound application, fluorescent protein levels at the injection sites were reduced.
Although the feasibility of in vivo applications of stimulus-guided delivery of anticancer siRNA has been demonstrated and positive results have been reported, the ultimate success of these delivery methods may depend on the development of devices capable of providing a sufficient stimulus to tumour tissues deep within the body. Moreover, for in vivosystemic administration, delivery systems that carry both external stimulus-responsive agents and siRNA must meet more general requirements, such as in vivo stability, low toxicity and enhanced tumour tissue accumulation. With the concurrent progress in medical device bioengineering and siRNA delivery technologies, it can be expected that stimulus-guided strategies will be used in more diverse in vivo applications to facilitate anticancer siRNA delivery.View chapter
Various physical methods of gene delivery have been developed, and each one has its own merits and demerits. EP is particularly important for introducing DNA to superficial areas, but to deliver DNA to particular organs, surgery is required. To overcome this problem and to enhance the introduction of gene vectors into cells [254], the new means of physical gene delivery is magnetofection, which delivers DNA to the target organ, using the magnetic field. Magnetofection basically involves attaching DNA onto a magnetic nanoparticle coated with a cationic polymer like polyethylenimine (PEI) [254,255]. The magnetic nanoparticles are generally made up of a biodegradable substance like iron oxide, and its coating onto the polymeric particle is done by salt-induced colloidal aggregation. These prepared nanoparticles are then localized in the target organ by the application of an external magnetic field, which allows the delivery of attached DNA to the target organ, as shown in Figure 3.5. This method also increases the uptake of DNA into target cells as the contact time between the target organ and magnetic nanoparticles increases. In addition, the magnetic field pulls the magnetic nanoparticles into the target cells, which also helps to increase the uptake of DNA [256,257]. In addition, the standard transfection using viral or nonviral vectors is also increased by the magnetofection.
The magnetofection has some drawbacks: a particle size below 50 nm renders it not suitable for magnetic targeting and too large a particle size (more than 5 μm) retards the entry of magnetic nanoparticles inside the blood capillaries. The blood flow rate also affects the transfection efficacy of this method; for example, the flow rate of around 20 cm/s in the human aorta makes the transfection tricky. The external magnetic flux density and gradient decreases at a distance from the magnetic pole, which also affects the transfection efficacy.
Primary endothelial cells are effectively transfected by magnetofection [254,258]. In addition, magnetofection is effective for in vitro and in vivo delivery of DNA to target cells like those in the GI tract and blood vessels [254], and for antisense ODNs delivery [259]. Other applications include advances in ex vivo tissue engineering, development of tumor vaccines, localized therapy for cancer, and cardiovascular therapy [260]. Significant enhancement in reporter gene expression in a short time has been observed in the ex vivo porcine airway model; this may be attributed to an increase in contact time with mucociliary cells, thereby reducing their clearance from the target site [261]. A study carried out using magnetic albumin microspheres with entrapped doxorubicin in the rat model for tumors resulted in a high level of tumor remission in animals compared to animals treated with free doxorubicin, placebo microspheres, or nonlocalized doxorubicin microspheres, which resulted in considerable enlargement in tumor size associated with metastases and subsequent death [262,263]. The magnetic nanoparticles with doxorubicin are also under clinical trial [264]. Magnetofection has been widely used for viral and nonviral vectors and also for the delivery of DNA, nucleic acids, and siRNA [260,265,266].
In conclusion, magnetofection is an efficient system for gene delivery and has the potential to bring in vitro and in vivo transgene transfection in the target organ. The limitations of this delivery system are overcome by the application of proper formulations and novel magnetic field skills.View chapter
Nonviral vectors group a heterogeneous variety of elements that can be classified as naked DNA or RNA, liposome-DNA complexes (lipoplexes), and polymer-DNA complexes (polyplexes). Since the beginning of the gene therapy field, nonviral vectors have received significant attention due to their reduced pathogenicity, lower immunotoxicity, and low cost and ease of production over viral approaches. To date, a myriad of delivery systems grouped as physical methods and chemical carriers have been reported. Physical methods such as direct injection, ballistic DNA, electroporation, sonoporation, photoporation, magnetofection, hydroporation, and mechanical massage, employ physical force to cross the cell membrane barrier. Chemical carriers such as (1) inorganic particles (calcium phosphate, silica, gold, but also magnetic nanoparticles, fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, and supramolecular systems); (2) lipid-based (cationic lipids, lipid-nano emulsions, solid lipid nanoparticles); (3) peptide-based; and (4) polymer-based (i.e., polyethylenimine, chitosan, dendrimers, and polymethacrylate) form small size complexes with nucleic acids to help them cross the cell membrane efficiently (see ref [29] for extensive review). However, despite the large number of different nonviral vectors still, there is poor transduction efficiency of the target cells as well as low and transient transgene expression. Due to it, nonviral vectors account for less than 25% of the clinical assays, mainly for cancer and cardiovascular diseases, being naked/plasmid DNA (452 clinical assays) and lipofection (119 clinical assays) the systems more frequently used, while all the rest of the nonviral vector account only for 3% of the assays.View chapter
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
If you’re a regular follower of ours or Dr. Lee Merrit’s, some of the info in the video below is not latest minute news. I wanted to save this presentation on the website though, for two main reasons: it brings a few new angles, such as the racial one, and it’s really well structured and rounded, managing to paint a complex picture in under 15 minutes. There may be a lot left to say, but this makes the case and it can stand alone. Reference material, at least until science proves otherwise, which seems highly unlikely to me, so far.
“Merritt has an impressive resume as an orthopedic surgeon and military doctor. However, she is also the former president of the conservative medical advocacy group the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which opposes vaccines, the Affordable Care Act and all government healthcare, including Medicare…
Dr. Merritt has certainly accomplished a great deal as a surgeon, including being the first woman to receive the Louis A. Goldstein Spine Surgery Fellowship at the Rochester Strong Memorial Hospital in New York.” – The Millenial Source
This profile has been written by her detractors.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Except for that Note, the article below needs no further commentary from my part.
Scientists Find Cancer Drivers Hiding in a New Place
By Matthew Tontonoz,
Christine Mayr is a member of the Cancer Biology and Genetics Program of the Sloan Kettering Institute.
Summary
Researchers at the Sloan Kettering Institute have found that changes in an information-carrying molecule called messenger RNA can inactivate tumor-suppressing proteins and thereby promote cancer. The findings pinpoint previously unknown drivers of the disease.
IMPORTANT NOTE (added 2020*): This research does not relate in any way to the COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA. There are thousands of different kinds of mRNA in human cells. Each kind of mRNA does different things. The mRNA used in vaccines does not cause cancer or alter DNA. For accurate information about COVID-19 vaccines and why they don’t cause cancer, please visit here. This video explains how mRNA vaccines work.
I personally I don’t see how the resources provided in the note, or anything I’ve ever read, supports the claims there. Nor have I seen why this study does not apply to the mRNA in Covid shots. Quite the contrary. Looks like they hope we are headline skimmers and we won’t read or understand the very science they’re presenting. So let’s read it and understand it, then make our own mind. – Silview.media
Most people think of cancer as a disease of disorderly DNA. Changes, or mutations, in the sequence of DNA alter the function of the proteins made from that DNA, leading to uncontrolled cell division.
But between DNA and proteins is another layer of information, called messenger RNA (mRNA), which serves as a crucial link between the two. New research suggests that some types of mRNA may carry cancer-causing changes. And, because genetic tests don’t usually look at mRNA, those changes have so far gone undetected by cancer doctors.
“If you sequenced the DNA in cancer cells, you would not see these changes at all,” says Christine Mayr, a molecular biologist at the Sloan Kettering Institute who is the senior author of a new paper on the topic published today in Nature. “But these mRNA changes have the same ultimate effect as known cancer drivers in DNA, so we believe they may play a very important role.”If you sequenced the DNA in cancer cells, you would not see these changes at all.Christine Mayrmolecular biologist
The findings turn some common assumptions about cancer on their head and point to the need to look past DNA for answers to questions about what causes the disease.
From DNA to mRNA
If DNA is the genetic blueprint for life, as is often said, then it’s a fairly cumbersome set of instructions. The information in DNA is encoded in the particular sequence of some 3 billion nucleotide “letters” — varying combinations of A, T, G, and C. Blocks of these letters — genes — are used to make particular proteins, a cell’s main workhorses. But DNA lives in the nucleus of a cell, while proteins are made in the surrounding cytoplasm. To bridge this gap, a cell must first make an RNA copy of a gene’s DNA. This RNA copy, called messenger RNA, is then transported out of the nucleus. It is this mRNA copy that cells read and translate into a protein.
Usually, the mRNA copy is a bit shorter than its DNA precursor. That’s because the useful pieces of information in DNA, called exons, are often separated by blocks of sequences that are not needed. These unnecessary parts, called introns, must be cut out to make a final product. After the introns are removed, the remaining exons are spliced together, not unlike splicing together pieces of film and leaving some on the cutting room floor. These findings help explain a long-standing conundrum, which is that CLL cells have relatively few known DNA mutations.
If the mRNA copy doesn’t include all of the exons in a gene or is cut short, then the protein made from that mRNA will also be truncated. It may no longer function properly. And if that protein is a tumor suppressor — one that protects against cancer — then that could spell problems.
What Dr. Mayr and her colleagues, including postdoctoral fellow Shih-Han (Peggy) Lee, graduate student Irtisha Singh, and SKI computational biologist Christina Leslie, found is that many of the mRNAs in cancer cells produce these truncated tumor-suppressor proteins. The changes occur not only in known tumor-suppressor genes but also in previously unrecognized ones.
“The changes to the mRNA make proteins that are very similar to the proteins that are made when you have a mutation in the DNA that causes a truncated protein to be made,” she says. “In the end, the outcome for the cell is very similar, but how it happened is very different.”
Found: Missing Cancer Mutations
Dr. Mayr’s team looked specifically at chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a type of blood cancer. A colleague at MSK, Omar Abdel-Wahab, supplied them with blood samples from people with the condition. Using a method that Dr. Mayr’s lab developed to detect these particular mRNA changes, they found that a substantially greater number of people with CLL had an inactivation of a tumor-suppressor gene at the mRNA level than those who had it at the DNA level.
These findings help explain a long-standing conundrum, which is that CLL cells have relatively few known DNA mutations. Some CLL cells lack even known mutations. In effect, the mRNA changes that Dr. Mayr’s team discovered could account for the missing DNA mutations.
Because CLL is such a slow-growing cancer and people with CLL often live for many years, it’s too early to say whether these mRNA changes are associated with a poorer prognosis.
There are some important differences between the mRNA changes and a bona fide DNA mutation. Most important, the inactivation of tumor suppressors through mRNA is usually only partial; only about half of the relevant protein molecules in the tumor cells are truncated. But in many cases this is enough to completely override the function of the normal versions that are present. And because this truncation could apply to 100 different genes at once, the changes can add up.
Lessons for Cancer Diagnostics
Though Dr. Mayr’s team identified the mRNA changes in CLL, they’re likely not limited to this blood cancer. The team found them in samples of T cell acute lymphocytic leukemia too, for example. Other researchers have found them in breast cancer. Dr. Mayr hopes that scientists will be inspired to explore the significance of mRNA changes in these and other types of cancers.
“Current cancer diagnostic efforts predominantly focus on the sequencing of DNA in order to identify mutations,” Dr. Mayr says. “But our research suggests that changes at the mRNA level might be as frequent.”
In other words, cancer diagnostics may need to change to include these previously unknown cancer drivers.
This work was funded by a National Cancer Institute grant (U01-CA164190), a Starr Cancer Consortium award, an Innovator Award of the Damon Runyon-Rachleff Cancer Foundation and the Island Outreach Foundation (DRR-24-13), a National Institutes of Health Director’s Pioneer Award (DP1-GM123454), the Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Alliance, and an MSK Core grant (P30 CA008748). – Sloan Kettering Institute
LATER UPDATE:
may 2023 update:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
This is just one expert testimony in the Texas Senate hearings on vaccine mandates, May 16 2021. But it lines up with many other testimonies and reports and with the explosive situation revealed by VAERS and other official stats, so it’s hard to believe that only happens in Texas. And if it does, rest assured this is going to be the norm soon, whether officially reported or not. You don’t need medical knowledge anymore to tell that, we have enough data to be able to anticipate the trends using basic math now, as I’ve shown before and I’ve only been proven right since.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
I’m trying to advance the discussion, but apparently most are still stuck at “these are not even vaccines”. Yeah, we knew that the moment we visited a manufacturer’s website, which is among the first reasonable things to do. I hope this will help closing that debate and will ease stepping further down the rabbit hole. Watch how many will find out these things from me rather than from the original source!
Without mRNA, your genetic code would never get used by your body. Proteins would never get made. And your body wouldn’t – actually couldn’t – perform its functions. Messenger ribonucleuc acid, or mRNA for short, plays a vital role in human biology, specifically in a process known as protein synthesis. mRNA is a single-stranded molecule that carries genetic code from DNA in a cell’s nucleus to ribosomes, the cell’s protein-making machinery.
Recognizing the broad potential of mRNA science, we set out to create an mRNA technology platform that functions very much like an operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs. In our case, the “program” or “app” is our mRNA drug – the unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein.
We have a dedicated team of several hundred scientists and engineers solely focused on advancing Moderna’s platform technology. They are organized around key disciplines and work in an integrated fashion to advance knowledge surrounding mRNA science and solve for challenges that are unique to mRNA drug development. Some of these disciplines include mRNA biology, chemistry, formulation & delivery, bioinformatics and protein engineering.
Our mRNA Medicines – The ‘Software of Life’
When we have a concept for a new mRNA medicine and begin research, fundamental components are already in place.
Generally, the only thing that changes from one potential mRNA medicine to another is the coding region – the actual genetic code that instructs ribosomes to make protein. Utilizing these instruction sets gives our investigational mRNA medicines a software-like quality. We also have the ability to combine different mRNA sequences encoding for different proteins in a single mRNA investigational medicine.
We are leveraging the flexibility afforded by our platform and the fundamental role mRNA plays in protein synthesis to pursue mRNA medicines for a broad spectrum of diseases.
Within a given modality, the base components are generally identical across development candidates – formulation, 5’ region and 3’ region. Only the coding region varies based on the protein/s the potential medicine is directing cells to produce.
Learn how our Research Engine and Early Development Engine are enabling us to fully maximize the promise of mRNA to meaningfully improve how medicines are discovered, developed and manufactured.
‘Life is just a flow of information. And we’re interfering with it”
Overcoming Key Challenges
Using mRNA to create medicines is a complex undertaking and requires overcoming novel scientific and technical challenges. We need to get the mRNA into the targeted tissue and cells while evading the immune system. If the immune system is triggered, the resultant response may limit protein production and, thus, limit the therapeutic benefit of mRNA medicines. We also need ribosomes to think the mRNA was produced naturally, so they can accurately read the instructions to produce the right protein. And we need to ensure the cells express enough of the protein to have the desired therapeutic effect.
Our multidisciplinary platform teams work together closely to address these scientific and technical challenges. This intensive cross-functional collaboration has enabled us to advance key aspects of our platform and make significant strides to deliver mRNA medicines for patients.
Our mRNA RESEARCH ENGINE™ services enable us to advance new product ideas into development candidates via our drug discovery efforts, and includes infrastructure to enable rapid supply of thousands of preclinical mRNAs for research involving in vitro and in vivo experiments in order to accelerate programs from idea to development candidate designation.
mRNA Design Studio™ – Digital Design and Ordering of mRNA for Research
Our mRNA Design Studio enables rapid design of multiple mRNAs.
As our scientists create new mRNA concepts, they can design mRNAs for research and testing, within days, using our proprietary systems. As the Digital Biotech Company™, we utilize the software-like property of mRNA in our proprietary, web-based mRNA Design Studio. Our scientists request mRNAs for a specific protein, and the protein target is automatically converted to an initial optimized mRNA sequence. Using our Sequence Designer module, they can tailor entire mRNAs from the 5’-UTR to the coding region to the 3’-UTR based on our ever-improving proprietary learnings. The mRNA sequence is then further optimized using our proprietary bioinformatics algorithms. Our digital ordering then ensures rapid and accurate transmission of sequences to our modular synthesis robotics.
Our proprietary in-house digital application suite contains a Sequence Designer module to tailor an entire mRNA, with ever-improving rule sets that contain our accumulated learning about mRNA design. Drug Design Studio utilizes cloud-based computational capacity to run various algorithms we have developed to design each mRNA sequence. The utility of cloud-based capacity allows us to provide flexible computational capacity on demand, allowing the Research Engine to power parallel intake and design of multiple mRNA sequences.
Moderna’s Research Engine
Our Research Engine combines proprietary digital drug design tools and a highly automated production facility to enable Moderna and our strategic collaborators to move mRNA medicines swiftly through the research stage, from idea to development candidate nomination.
Scientists can begin by selecting any protein in the human proteome to be further engineered, including antibodies, or they can design novel proteins like traps, fusion proteins, or completely novel scaffolds and sequences. All can be designed to explore previously undruggable pathways.
The Drug Design Studio integrates with Moderna’s automation platforms – directing orders through each phase of mRNA synthesis. Once the order is placed, Moderna’s high-throughput mRNA pre-clinical production facility manages the manufacturing of mRNA constructs and delivers them in just weeks.
PS: Some people wonder why the vids above are available on their website but unlisted on their Youtube. It’s because they know you won’t look for them on their site, mostly potential partners will.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button! We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness. Get it here!
SILVIEW.media 