So was Wakefield rightfully scrutinized and Drosten given a hall pass?
Many of the concerns raised about Wakefields qPCR are significant. But the one most cited (contamination) by Dr. Bustin was not.
He claimed Wakefield omitted an RT-Step.
Bustin is emulating this in 2020.
Wakefield is also nailed for Lack of an SOP.
Same story in the Drosten review.
The proper way to address DNA or RNA contamination is with DNases and RNases.
RT enzymes are active at RTemp and as the cycler ramps its temperature up to 95C.
#BustinBusted nature.com/articles/s4159…
@threadreaderapp unroll
Bustin continues to push for limited to No RT step in qPCR.
Precisely what he persecuted Wakefield for…and was paid handsomely for the testimony he has since contradicted.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a dense read but it will help you to understand why the DNA fluorometer data is lighting up so much on modRNA. This is much more cross-talk than you see with traditional ssRNA.
That is because these are intercalating dyes that bind to minor grooves are only found in double stranded nucleic acids.
The fact that RNaseA is showing such a reduction in signal is because the RNA isnt single stranded.
At least half of it is digestable by a dsRNA specific nuclease known as RNaseIII.
Another portion responds to RNaseH which only digests RNA in RNA:DNA hybrids.
The fraction that responds to RNAseIII should worry you. Your cells have RNaseIII and its the start of the RNA interference pathway.
To make matters worse, Pharma is using an ELISA that is blind to dsRNA <400bp. It cant see this problem. And they know it exists
First…
They measure how long is spike expressed in cells.
7 days out it is higher than day 1. Peaks at day 5.
Using 3 different Fluorometry methods they zero in on DNA levels before and after RNaseA treatments.
4-5X over once RNA is removed.
The AccuBlue dyes had the least cross talk.
Your response to peoples request for your qPCR protocol is misinformation.
No transparency on your methods but we can already see that you are using only 1 assay in the vector (Kan gene) so you are under estimating the load 100X.
You should know this by now as Speicher et al published this a year ago.
@TGAgovau This is misinformation. Dr. David Speicher's latest test used RNaseA. There is no RNA interfering with the fluorometry.
Did you not even read the report?
Life must be good at the TGA when you can be a year behind all the time.
@TGAgovau Part of GMP and ISO is having your protocol open for inspection.
Is SV40 Large Tumor Antigen required for SV40 origin of replication activity.
No
Here we detect Pfizer plasmid DNA in a colon tumor biopsy 1 year after vaccination.
And its not small amounts of DNA. Its so much DNA that it can only be explained by plasmid amplification post vaccination or genome integration and amplification.
Variants are found in the SV40 Promoter that do not exist when you sequence the vaccine directly suggestive of replication errors once transfected into mammalian cells.