Trying to tell your body to generate proteins is hard for many reasons. One of them is the fact that when you try to run the protein information via ribosomes which process that code and generate the protein, it can be very slow or can get stuck during the process.
Luckily, scientists found a way to overcome this problem, by doing code substitution: instead of using the original genetic code to generate the protein, they changed the letters in the code so the code would be optimized. This is known as Codon Optimization.
In 2011 Nature Medicine magazine published an article called "Breaking the Silence". It described how codon optimization, which uses this synonymous DNA changes, can trigger disease in a number of ways.
Turns out the protein which was manufactured when codon optimization has different ways it folds and a different 3D shape, and it "could cause immunogenicity, for example, which wouldn’t be seen until late-stage clinical trials or even after approval".
"The changed form could cause immunogenicity, for example, which wouldn’t be seen until late-stage clinical trials or even after approval." (Chava Kimchi Sarfaty, FDA)
This statement relates to the NORMAL approval cycle. The COVID vaccines went via an accelerated one.
"codon optimization can lead to alterations in protein conformation and function…. and increase immunogenicity….some of these elements can … alter protein folding, and lead to changes in protein conformation and post-translational modifications.” (Vincent P. Mauro)
Protein misfolding "has been linked with neurodegeneration in Alzheimer and Parkinson disease, and many other pathologies." pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28441058/
So if it is so problematic, why do manufacturers use it? because "higher levels of protein expression are required for clinical trials and commercialization, and these expression levels can sometimes be obtained by using (codon optimization)" (Vincent P. Mauro, 2018)
Pfizer is the most aggressive in their genetic code optimization (as far as we know); just read the abstract from "BNT162b2 Vaccine: Possible Codons Misreading, Errors in Protein Synthesis and Alternative Splicing's Anomalies" doi.org/10.22541/au.16…
So Pfizer admits codon optimization can lead to elevated GTT, and "elevated GGT is linked to increased risk to a multitude of diseases and conditions, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome (MetS), and all-cause mortality."
And even though Pfizer admits codon optimization impacts the safety of their product, "Safety pharmacology, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies have not been conducted in accordance with the 2005 WHO vaccine guideline."
The WHO 2005 document states that such tests normally not needed for the FINAL vaccine formulation. This is because in a NORMAL vaccine approval pharmacology, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are done during ANIMAL STUDIES, which were practically skipped here. #COptiGate
Even though EMA states:
"It is important to investigate the potential for undesirable pharmacological activity in appropriate
animal models and, where necessary, to incorporate particular monitoring for these activities in the
toxicity studies and/or clinical studies"
Back to sequencing: this concern was reported in 2006, published in 2007, and "breaking the silence" was published in Nature Medicine magazine in 2011, the FDA or its equivalent in Europe (EMA) STILL THEY DO NOT HAVE a guidance with regard to the genetic sequencing.
Here is Katerina Alexaki from the FDA explaining how a SINGLE synonymous mutation (mutation that doesn't impact the protein but its 3D object & folding) can result in a disease and that if you have multiple substations there is a good chance it may have an effect.
Here is again Katerina Alexaki, this time answering the question whether the regulator demand the manufacturers to test for the impact of their codon optimization.
The answer is no.
Here is a slide from a workshop given to the EMA in 2016, by FDA employee ("Immunogenicity of Biological Therapeutics Product Quality Attributes")
Construct design affects product quality and "Codon optimization and protein folding" are mentioned.
Could it be that the "variants" that we see are a result of the misfolding of the spike protein, which is a result of the codon optimization technology used?
Could it explain the correlation between vaccinations campaigns & "new variants" outbreaks?
BONUS (cont)
If codon optimization is causing "new variants" (new symptoms & sickness), than any new product (eg boosters) which will include new codon optimized genetic code, will again lead to more forms of sickness.
Protein folding is governed by Gibbs Free Energy (ΔΔG). Protein stability seems to plays a vital role in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Dominant variants were found to exhibit significantly lower ΔΔG, with HIGHER THAN EXPECTED protein stability.
Just to explain the above, out of the variants of concern, NONE of the dominant mutations (67 of 19440 possible mutations) observed in induce a strongly destabilizing, which was significantly different to the expected 34% of possible mutations meeting this threshold.
Let's start with the GOOD news:
MOST pharmaceutical companies realized they have a problem (Actually since the MERS outbreak). The spike protein was unstable, so this time they inserted genetic code to create a supportive "skeleton" structure. (cont)
This is how it works:
They made two substitutions in the genetic code, adding two molecules of amino acid called proline, in order for it to act as an anchor to keep the protein structure in place.
I some MOST because AstraZeneca didn't...
Obviously not (BAD NEWS)!
So it seems that ALL the vaccines that are in the market who use this technology, known as S-2P or 2P, suffer from instability and it is difficult to produce reliably in mammalian cells. Just a reminder - we are (still) mammals.
When you look at the actual reporting to EMA, you see that Moderna and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S) reported the use of S-2P, AstraZeneca confirmed it doesn't... and Pfizer described the multiple modifications, and nobody raised it as a risk.
The regulator DOES NOT HAVE a guidance with regard to the genetic sequencing, does not have a process & toolset to measure the risks, and therefore, is unable to develop a Risk Management Program to address the probability & magnitude of future adverse events.
And again, as I said before, we have multiple substations that are right now being kept together by two proline molecules unstable and difficult to produce reliably, and in the case of AZ, not even held at all.
Remember the report of Pfizer from Japan that showed how the vaccine lipids which contain the mRNA in them are leaving the injection site and spreading all around the body?
"Different cell types have drastically different coder usage, different tRNA levels, and figuring the translational kinetics in one tissue tells you NOTHING about the translational kinetics in a different tissue" (Katerina Alexaki)
Translational kinetics can lead to translational pauses, which have a role in modulating protein conformation, can lead to structural changes, increase immunogenicity and change performance. This has been reported since the 90’s.
There is a database of 51 types of tissues with known different coder usage. NO ONE tested their product vs all the different tissue types. NO ONE knows what the impact is.
THE REGULATOR MUST STOP ACTING LIKE A RUBBER STAMP.
On the 17th of December Pfizer informed they already supplied 2.9 million dosages, have millions more doses sitting in their warehouse, and claim they can deliver 50 million more by end of 2020.
Israel started its campaign on 19 December 2020, with prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu being the first person in the country to receive the vaccine. In less than two weeks, over 10% of Israelis received their first dose. Israel's population is 9,364,000, meaning ~1M.
The European Medical Agency (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) released a report on 19 February 2021 on the Pfizer product.
There is a section called "Steps taken for the assessment of the product".
Remember this report was written 3 MONTHS after Israel already started its vaccination program. In Israel, on the 19th of February 4,280,046 got 1 shot, 2,932,180 got 2nd shot, in total 7,212,226 shots.
The product included fragmented mRNA, which expected not to cause problems:
"It is likely that the fragmented species will not result in expressed proteins, due to their expected poor stability and poor translational efficiency"
COptiGate
Fragments are supposed to lack segments that will allow it to be fully processed, but it's not the case.
"majority of fragments...expected to be ...truncated
transcripts...the results indicating a substantial proportion ... are not in agreement with this statement."
poly(A) acts as a timer of mRNA stability, and its value was not tested for during production.
"The length of the tails is important for RNA stability and translational efficiency the poly(A) tail length should be included to the active substance release testing"
One of the emails has identified “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species” between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches—from around 78% to 55%."
"THE POSSIBILITY OF TRANSLATED PROTEINS OTHER THAN THE INTENDED SPIKE PROTEIN (S1S2), RESULTING FROM TRUCATED AND/OR MODIFIED mRNA SPECIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED"
In other words: THE POSSIBILITY OF MUTATIONS MUST BE ADDRESSED.
Reading the leaked document I quoted from (BWP Rolling Review report to ETF / CHMP, Rolling Review #2) is actually good risk measurement, it covers a lot of areas, but it does not cover Codon Optimization at all.
Manufacturers are having SO MUCH PROBLEMS to deliver a product that will be in line with cGMP requirements (which is everything above), so I understand why they want to completely ignore a huge threat landscape.
But why is the regulator not demanding to check it?
There are people (at least in the FDA) such as Katerina Alexaki who understand the topic and have developed a good process of validating the performance of Codon Optimization in biotherapeutics.
From my professional experience, refusal to measure risk IS ALWAYS an indication that someone knows there is a real problem. ALWAYS.
It ties back to #PfizerLeak: no liability for big pharma + full liability to country = no incentives to talk about the new elephant.
I believe that the real reason why people are not acting professionally is political pressure, social pressure, and a spinning door between regulators & industry.
The systems we have in place suppress honest people. This is how disasters occur.
I ALMOST MISSED THE PROOF!!!!
EMA was asking for:
"RELEVANT PROTEIN/PEPTIDE CHARACTERIZATION DATA FOR PREDOMINANT SPECIES SHOULD BE PROVIDED, IF AVAILABLE"
THE REGULATOR DON'T KNOW (or at least didn't know) WHAT THE mRNA IS CREATING, not to mention codon information.
I welcome you to read the follow up to the story - more on codon optimization, why the chances that the SARS_CoV_2 is a "product of nature" are WAY LESS than 1 in 844,596,301... and much more.
Hi again,
After reading my COPTIGATE - 3D CHESS EDITION post, please visit my thread about the Pfizer mRNA code analysis, and if you can, consider supporting my work:
PayPal: paypal.me/ehdenbiber
Bitcoin: bit.co.in/ehden patreon.com/ehden
To understand what member states got dragged into these horrible agreements, let's go back to the agreement between the commission & member states on producing vaccines, annexed to EC decision C(2020) 4192 from the 18th of June 2020.
In a typical European Commission style, the APAs were "approved for signature on behalf and in the name of the participating Member States by a separate individual Commission decision."
Or in other words - the member states are rubber stamps to the EC decisions.
On Friday @arad_nir, Israeli journalist, has exposed that according to Philip Dormitzer, Pfizer's Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer (Viral Vaccines), Israel acts as "a sort of a laboratory", and that its MoH is exclusively using the Pfizer product.
@arad_nir pointed out that this was in direct conflict with the statement of Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis (Israel's director of Public Health Services in the MoH) given only 3 weeks ago, when he asked her why does the Israeli citizens are trapped by the Pfizer contract.
2) Adapt the "regulatory framework ...making use of existing regulatory flexibility to accelerate the development, authorisation and availability of vaccines while maintaining the standards for vaccine quality, safety and efficacy." #PfizerLeak
Highlights from my writing on the topic of codon optimization, for those who have never heard about it before (or for those who wish to share it with others).
Before you bombard experts (e.g. @RWMaloneMD) with endless requests to comment on the validity of what I write, please read this thread, then go to the previous threads (links below), and see the references I use.
There is MUCH MORE INFORMATION in my previous threads!
1) Inconsequential (“silent”) mutations are known as synonymous mutation. 2) Synonymous mutations contribute to cellular processes which are determining protein structure and function. 3) Synonymous mutations influence protein folding.
@plecbe@wimremes More:
According to the article, only 64% of the adult population in Brussels are FULLY vaccinated. Since there is almost same # of vaccinated and non-vaccinated on ventilators in Israel, this statistic just doesn't add up.
Most people fail to realize that in many times SICK PEOPLE under Immunosuppressive Therapies ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE THE COVID19 VACCINE due to their condition.
Here is BC's Centre for Disease Control document on the topic:
REVERSE ENGINEERING: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE GENETIC CODE WITHIN THE PFIZER VACCINE?
(thread)
What does the mRNA code in the Pfizer vaccine tell us about the genetic design decisions, its safety, possible impact on our health, and the "quality" of FDA BLA approval?
This is going to be A LONG thread; I will review the code after the introduction. As usual (with my posts), please use the "show replies" option multiple times to unveil the whole thread.
The FDA's approval to Pfizer's Biological License Application (BLA) stated "...our review of information submitted in your BLA application...did not raise concerns or controversial issues that would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion."