Thread by @Kevin_McKernan

UPDATE!
More people have weighed in on this including the authors of the Re-adenylation paper.
They have been very transparent and helpful.

The plasmid DNA is there.
The 3’UTR sequence that matches the Fauci/Moderna synthetic constructs is shared sequence between the vaccines and points to a hole in our original assembly of the Moderna vaccines.

Here is how we know.
Thanks to @P_J_Buckhaults for suggesting this.

If you map reads to the Moderna HIV constructs, you only get coverage over the ends of their HIV vaccines (I checked 4).
You don’t get sequence coverage over the whole construct.
That implies there are shared parts of the plasmids in these Moderna vaccines.

Why does our Moderna vaccine have a 60bp hole in it? We sequenced a bivalent vaccine. The assemblers, when faced with 2 conclusions average then into a consensus and this 60bp is jumbled as a result.
BLAST is currently favoring the alignment to HIV vaccines over our Moderna C19 reference as it’s derived from monovalent sequence and more accurate.

There are now a few other sources of Moderna monovalent vaccine sequence that have teased this apart.
One is in GitHub and I don’t know why BLAST isn’t prioritizing that BLAST hit over the HIV constructs.
Still digging into that.

I want to thank @pakraw for being so open about their methods.
They used a monovalent Moderna vaccine which will help clean up our bivalent reference sequence.

I could have submitted this for peer review.
Maybe in 6 months this controversial topic would publish.
Another 6 months for authors to reply and correct any issues.
Instead, we have answers in 24 hours.
The risk… the public gets to see the sausage of science. I prefer the later approach even if it can leave ‘egg on your face’ on occasion.

What did the public learn from this.
1)we now have 5 projects in the SRA where RNAseq is performed on vaccinated organisms and there is evidence of plasmid DNA in the patients.
2)Template switching is well documented by Moderna but this dataset doesn’t yet point to that. Maybe more digging will show it but these Fauci reads are better explained as a hole in our original Moderna reference (egg on face)
3)Moderna has many vaccines in development including HIV and Fauci is an author. This is a conflict if NIH is involved in granting them funds.
$1.2B in C19vax royalty already flows into NIH.

When you get results that are as shocking as this it’s important to share with others and to hacksaw your hypothesis.
I tried doing this by BLASTing these HIV sequences to all primers and probes listed in their supplement to see if anything else could explain the unexpected sequence. That was negative. The key was finding some homology in GitHub from Fires lab.
It would be great if those reads were public as we’d have the plasmid-3’UTR junction better resolved.

This leads to a large culture question in science.
Scientists use Retractions or correction as career ending moves. You can never be wrong. Publish or perish.
This creates an insidious culture and explains why we don’t have a journal of negative results and witch hunt scientists over blurry bands on gels.

This cultures frowns on direct communication of results to the public without gatekeepers.

This has enabled the peer review system to become completely captured and have better margins than google.
Researchers give up their copyright, pay $5K per publication and review for free

The journals then become captive to their Pharma AD revenue and the editors decide what goes to review and what doesn’t.
This is how we get Surgisphere, Proximal Origins, SSRI, Statins, Alzheimers Tau protein, Vioxx etc.
We need a more transparent and decentralized approach

Some will claim you should delete your post if one iota of info is misleading.
Not a chance. It’s important to see how conclusions were drawn and hypothesis nullified. Show your work. Don’t just spoon feed a conclusion, even if that at times bruises your ego.

90% of science is bruised ego and humility and the public only gets shown the times you are correct through peer review.

This is unproductive.

We have better communication tools now.

What happened to Gutenberg?

From chatGPT:

Gutenberg’s printing press, developed around 1440–1450, was not immediately adopted or co-opted by the Church, but the Church did come to both utilize and regulate it relatively quickly.

Initial Adoption:

•Secular beginnings: Gutenberg’s first major work, the Gutenberg Bible (c. 1455), was a religious text, but it was produced independently by Gutenberg as a commercial venture—not under Church sponsorship.
•Slow initial spread: The printing press spread gradually at first, mainly through private entrepreneurs and secular universities.

Church Reaction:

•Positive Utilization: Once its potential was recognized, the Catholic Church embraced the press to print Bibles, indulgences, and theological texts. Printed indulgences were among the earliest mass-produced items.
•Censorship and Control: The Church also moved quickly to regulate printing. By the late 15th century, it began issuing indexes of prohibited books, particularly after the Reformation began (1517), when Martin Luther’s use of the press to spread dissent alarmed Church authorities.
•Institutional involvement: Religious orders and bishops established printing presses, particularly in major religious centers like Rome and Cologne.

Summary:

The Church did not co-opt Gutenberg directly, but within a few decades it became both a major user and regulator of printing. Ironically, the same technology that helped spread official doctrine also enabled the Protestant Reformation, making control difficult.