Post

More from @HouseLyndseyRN

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Feb 21

*Persistence of S1 Spike Protein in CD16+ Monocytes up to 245 Days in SARS-CoV-2 Negative Post COVID-19 Vaccination Individuals with Post-Acute Sequalae of COVID-19 (PASC)-Like Symptoms*

Via: Bruce K. Patterson, Ram Yogendra, Edgar B. Francisco, Emily Long, Amruta Pise, Eric Osgood, John Bream, Mark Kreimer, Devon Jeffers, Christopher Beaty, Richard Vander Heide, Jose Guevara-Coto, Rodrigo A Mora-Rodríguez

doi: doi.org/10.1101/2024.0…

{this is the preprint they refused to publish unless they took the vaxinjured data out- MY DOCTOR WHO DIAGNOSED & SAVED ME IS AN AUTHOR}

• ABSTRACT •
There have been concerning reports about people experiencing new onset persistent complications (greater than 30 days) following approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), Janssen (Johnson and Johnson), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca))

We sought to determine the immunologic abnormalities in these patients and to investigate whether the potential etiology was similar to Post-Acute Sequalae of COVID (PASC), or long COVID

We studied 50 individuals who received one of the approved COVID-19 vaccines and who experienced new onset PASC-like symptoms along with 45 individuals post-vaccination without symptoms as controls

We performed multiplex cytokine/chemokine profiling with machine learning as well as SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein detection on CD16+ monocyte subsets using flow cytometry and mass spectrometry. We determined that post-vaccination individuals with PASC- like symptoms had similar symptoms to PASC patients

When analyzing their immune profile, Post-vaccination individuals had statistically significant elevations of sCD40L (p<0.001), CCL5 (p=0.017), IL-6 (p=0.043), and IL-8 (p=0.022)

Machine learning characterized these individuals as PASC using previously developed algorithms

Of the S1 positive post-vaccination patients, we demonstrated by liquid chromatography/ mass spectrometry that these CD16+ cells from post-vaccination patients from all 4 vaccine manufacturers contained S1, S1 mutant and S2 peptide sequences

Post-COVID vaccination individuals with PASC-like symptoms exhibit markers of platelet activation and pro-inflammatory cytokine production, which may be driven by the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 S1 proteins in intermediate and non-classical monocytes

The data from this study also cannot make any inferences on epidemiology and prevalence for persistent post-COVID vaccine symptoms

Thus, further studies and research need to be done to understand the risk factors, likelihood and prevalence of these symptoms

Summary: SARS CoV-2 S1 Protein in CD16+ Monocytes Post-Vaccination

• Footnotes •
Abbreviations: PASC, post-acute sequelae of COVID-19; POVIP, post-vaccination individuals with PASC-like symptoms; NCM, non-classical monocytes; IM, intermediate monocytes; CX3CL1, C-X3-C motif chemokine ligand 1; CX3CR1, C-X3-C motif chemokine receptor 1; IL, interleukin; RANTES, regulation on activation, healthy control T-expressed and secreted; CCR, chemokine receptor; IFN, interferon; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; MIP, macrophage inflammatory protein; PBMCs, peripheral blood mononuclear cells; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; LH, long hauler or PASC

• Paper in collection : COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv connect.medrxiv.org/relate/content…

• INTRODUCTION •
Despite over 13 billion doses of SARS-CoV2 vaccines being administered to individuals worldwide, there have been concerning reports and publications of persistent adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines

These reports suggest that new-onset cardiac, vascular and neurological symptoms commenced within minutes and hours after vaccination and subsequently, were persisting for months and years 1–5

Interestingly, many of these persistent post-vaccine symptoms are similar to symptoms associated with post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), or long COVID

We recently reported that the S1 protein subunit of SARS-CoV2 was persistent in both nonclassical (CD14- CD16+) and intermediate (CD14+CD16+) monocytes several months and years after acute infection and could be a possible pathophysiological explanation for PASC

Interestingly, the BNT162b2 (Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), Janssen (Johnson and Johnson), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) vaccines also deliver a synthetic S1 protein subunit directly into muscle cells to elicit an immunological response

Since there were similarities between PASC and persistent post-vaccination symptoms in individuals who never had a history of COVID infection, we sought to study if persistent S1 proteins were also present in CD16+ monocytes of both groups

One of the challenges in studying individuals with persistent post-vaccination symptoms is the lack of approved confirmatory tests to rule out previous infection or exposure to SARS-CoV2

Hence, we used a combination of patient clinical history, negative anti-nucleocapsid antibody testing and T-detect testing as a way to screen these patients

Here, we report on 50 individuals with symptoms >1 month following vaccination (with either Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson or AstraZeneca) that resembled the spectrum of symptoms reported in long COVID or PASC7

We used machine learning to analyze the immune profiles in these individuals

Further, we used high parameter, single cell analysis to determine if S1 protein generated by vaccination persisted in immune cells as previously described

• MATERIALS/METHODS •

~ Inclusion Criteria ~
We included patients who received at least 1 dose of the one of the four approved COVID vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, AstraZeneca) and who experienced persistent new-onset symptoms 30 days after their last inoculation

~ Exclusion Criteria ~
We excluded participants with a prior history of seizure disorder, migraines, neuropathy, inflammatory bowel disease, depression and anxiety disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease, fibromyalgia, arthritis, COPD, asthma, chronic kidney disease, chronic heart failure (CHF), arrhythmias, bleeding disorders, and anticoagulation therapy

Fifty participants (age range 13-65) who developed new-onset symptoms that persisted greater than 30 days after receiving either the BNT162b2 (Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), Janssen (Johnson and Johnson), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) vaccines were enrolled following written informed consent

Forty five adult participants (age range 20-70) who received one of the four approved COVID vaccines and did not report any new-onset persistent post-vaccine symptoms (greater than 30 days) were used as controls

Vaccine inoculation dates and batch numbers were confirmed through their CDC-issued vaccine cards

Lack of prior infection was determined using patient clinical history including prior negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, anti-nucleocapsid antibody testing and T- detect testing

As demonstrated in Table 1 and Figure 1, representative patients vaccinated with all four approved vaccines were included in the study as well as the duration of the symptoms post-vaccination

Read 18 tweets

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Feb 18

• Per FOIA •

• THE DOD CONTRACT WITH PFIZER •

Have a good day!

<3

Read 20 tweets

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Feb 3

(1) ~ A MUST READ THREAD/PART 1 of 2 THREADS (1/25)

** Would you Like “Turbo Cancer” with that? **

~The “Turbo Cancer is a myth” MYTH is a low point, even for big pharma cartel and their pseudoscience cronies~

* By: Arkmedic Substack *

• Today’s article is hopefully going to answer the question about whether "Turbo Cancer”

(a) exists
(b) is a consequence, or possible consequence of the imposition of a genetic vaccine platform on the global population

.@Jikkyleaks.

(2) ~ “Turbo Cancer is a Myth: Via Wikipedia” ~

• The first thing that needs clearing up is “where did the Turbo Cancer phrase come from?”

• If you’re in the field you might think this is a made up term, but it really exemplifies the idea of a rapidly progressive cancer, that is progressing or spreading much faster than you would be used to

• Most oncologists know how the cancers they treat progress and so can give you an idea of what to expect

• A prostate cancer in an elderly person for instance would normally take years to progress, so getting growing secondaries in a few months would be unusual

• Similarly for a small breast cancer that was surgically removed or treated with radiotherapy which would be expected to be cured with the first line of treatment

• So you would think “Turbo Cancer” would be embedded in the oncologists lexicon from old, but it isn’t

• In fact the first mentions were coming from Twitter/X the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023:
x.com/search?q=%22tu…

• Here is Dr Charles Hoffe talking about it back in January 2023 as a relatively new phenomenon below:

(3) • Now, Charles is a family doctor rather than an oncologist, but there were certainly oncologists noticing a pattern of rapidly progressive cancers around that time, such as the highly respected Angus Dalgleish (doctorsforpatientsuk.com/press-release/ )who was basically forced out of his position for talking about it, and more recently James Royle a colorectal surgeon who clearly laid out the evolution of this new phenomenon on John Campbell’s Youtube channel here:
youtu.be/1AHJc8D-7Vg

Read 65 tweets

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Jan 30

(1) • OCTOBER TERM, 2012 •

— Syllabus —
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader

~ See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 ~
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

• Syllabus •
ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY ET AL. U. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC., ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

No. 12-398. Argued April 15, 2013—Decided June 13, 2013

• Each human gene is encoded as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which
takes the shape of a "double helix."

• Each "cross-bar" in that helix
consists of two chemically joined nucleotides

• Sequences of DNA nucleotides contain the information necessary to create strings of amino acids used to build proteins in the body

• The nucleotides that code for amino acids are "exons," & those that do not are "introns."

• Scientists can extract DNA from cells to isolate specific segments for study

• They can also synthetically create exons-only strands of nucleotides known as complementary DNA (cDNA)

• DNA contains only the exons that occur in DNA, omitting the intervening introns

• Respondent Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Myriad), obtained several patents after discovering the precise location & sequence of the BRCA1 & BRCA2 genes (breast & ovarian cancer genes), mutations of which can dramatically increase the risk of breast & ovarian cancer

• This knowledge allowed Myriad to determine the genes' typical nucleotide sequence, which, in turn enabled it to develop medical tests useful for detecting mutations in these genes in a particular patient to assess the patient's cancer risk

• If valid, Myriad's patents would give it the exclusive right to isolate an individual's BRCA1 & BRCA2 genes & would give Myriad the exclusive right to synthetically create BRCA cDNA

• Petitioners filed suit, seeking a declaration that Myriad's patents are invalid under 35 U.S. C. §101

• As relevant here, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners, concluding that Myriad's claims were invalid because they covered products of nature

• The Federal Circuit initially reversed but on remand in light of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. — the Circuit found both isolated DNA & cDNA patent eligible

(2) Cite as: 569 U.S. _ - (2013)

• Syllabus •

(c) DNA is not a "product of nature," so it is patent eligible under §101

• cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments

• Its creation results in an exons only molecule, which is not naturally occurring

• Its order of the exons may be dictated by nature, but the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when introns are removed from a DNA sequence to make cDNA Pp 16-17

(d) This case, it is important to note, does not involve method
claims, patents on new applications of knowledge about the BRCA1 & BRCA2 genes or the patentability of DNA in which the order of the naturally occurring nucleotides has been altered Pp. 17-18 689 F 3d 1303, affirmed in part & reversed in part

• THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., & KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, & KAGAN, JJ., joined & in which SCALIA, J., joined in part

• SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part & concurring in the judgment

(3) • ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v.
MYRIAD GENETICS, INC. •

• Syllabus •
Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature & not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring Pp. 10-18

(a) The Patent Act permits patents to be issued to "[whoever invents or discovers any new & useful ... composition of matter," §101, but "laws of nature, natural phenomena & abstract ideas" "are basic tools of scientific & technological work” that lie beyond the domain of patent protection Mayo, supra, The rule against patents on naturally occurring things has limits, however

• Patent protection strikes a delicate balance between creating "incentives that lead to creation, invention& discovery" & "imped[ing] the flow of information that might permit, indeed spur, invention." Id., at

• This standard is used to determine whether Myriad's patents claim a "new & useful … composition of matter," $101, or
claim naturally occurring phenomena Pp. 10-11

(b) Myriad's DNA claim falls within the law of nature exception

• Myriad's principal contribution was uncovering the precise location & genetic sequence of the BRCA1 & BRCA2 genes

• Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, is central to the patent-eligibility inquiry whether such action was new "with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature," id., at 310

• Myriad did not create or alter either the genetic information encoded in the BCRA1 & BCRA2 genes or the genetic structure of the DNA

• It found an important & useful gene, but groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry

• See Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127

• Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible "new . . . composition[s) of matter," §101

• Myriad's patent descriptions highlight the problem with its claims:

• They detail the extensive process of discovery, but extensive effort alone is
insufficient to satisfy §101's demands

• Myriad's claims are not saved
by the fact that isolating DNA from the human genome severs the chemical bonds that bind gene molecules together

• The claims are not expressed in terms of chemical composition nor do they rely on
the chemical changes resulting from the isolation of a particular DNA section

• Instead, they focus on the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 & BRCA2 genes

• Finally, Myriad argues that the Patent & Trademark Office's past practice of awarding gene patents is entitled to deference, citing J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'7, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, a case where Congress had endorsed a PTO practice in subsequent legislation

• There has been no such endorsement here & the United States argued in the Federal Circuit & in this Court that isolated DNA was not patent eligible under §101 Pp. 12-16

Read 8 tweets

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Jan 30

** ~> THE VACCINATED CAN BE PATENTED {OWNED} <~ **

• In a court case in 2013 (Pathology .vs. Myriad Genetics, Inc. in the U.S. the Supreme Court ruled that “you can not patent Human DNA as it was a “ from nature.” •

• BUT at the end of the ruling the Supreme Court DID RULE that “if you were to change a human’s genome by mRNA vaccines (which are being used currently) then the GENOME CAN BE PATENTED.” •

• This means that everyone who has had the vax is now technically “patented” & something that iOS patented is “owned” & will come under the definition of “trans-human.” •

• Those people that are legally identified as “trans-human” do not have access to Human Rights or any rights provided by the state •

• This is because they are not classed as 100% organic or a human •

• Therefore, technically anyone having this vaccine could no longer have any access to human rights •

• There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently so clarification should be available soon •

supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf…

supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf…

So my question since I’m patented do I also get to incrue their royalties

Read 12 tweets

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

@HouseLyndseyRN

Jan 30

This was disheartening to read and process

Email update from international human rights general secretary

Accountability is coming

Wake up people

With @ReportAdve30828 @negar_harari

@Patent_SUN can you post your patents thread please

All the patents

Look for yourself

https://x.com/houselyndseyrn/status/1777565124217221262?s=46&t=Lh1not_SqhyxKBv7MqlBlw

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @HouseLyndseyRN

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

Lyndsey, RN 💜🐭

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!