They're coming for our T-cells next.
Adding ORFab1 to the mix. What could possibly go wrong ...
@a_nineties @my2pups2 @Clucky92864053 @Kevin_McKernan @Jikkyleaks @PlanZip @villagerssn @KathMLee1 @janiesaysyay cell.com/cell/fulltext/… @JCPEREZCODEX @Daoyu15 @Biorealism @merogenomics @real_GGoswami @deNutrients @LieselWeppen @TurdFur58439807 @overcatbe @NestCommander @IceAgeGardener @BretWeinstein @Wezuwezu @CanningPharm @ch_zimmer @breakfast_dogs @AllTheRisks @jengleruk @DrLorieF @Fynnderella1

Soo many things wrong …
1) fragmented RNA
2) late polyadenation = polyadenation of the fragments making them viable = we have no idea what could be created
3) truncated RNA of spike could easily make S w/o NTD
…
H/t @Kevin_McKernan for all the work and write-up!

https://twitter.com/kevin_mckernan/status/1633680773331943426

4)combined with 2) this means cells can produce unanchored S or S without intended 2p mod = free floating, cleavable S
5) down same road: if only S1 is encoded in faulty RNA = free floating S1
6) m1Ψ prevents degradation of this faulty RNA so can keep on spreading or in exosomes

Just in case you forgot:
Perlman, Baker, Baric, Drosten, Fouchier
MERS, closely related to bat-Covs
Could unlikely spill from bat to human, so lets assume an intermediary host species ...
sounds all too familiar, doesn't it? journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.11… from the same bunch:
DPP4 (CD26) T-cell receptor, is a receptor for MERS nature.com/articles/natur…

You may want to have a look at this one @gerdosi @villagerssn @prima__facie @3Annoyed @Dr_MacGyvrette @TheJikky @ThingsHiddenn @jengleruk @dr_SDRK @BretWeinstein @ssayssayssay

https://twitter.com/biorxivpreprint/status/1592989933177798656

Note, all 14 subjects were transfected and later boostered.

Pfew! Luckily all of the events noted are either same a "background signal"(even if never encountered before)! So control 6%, bnt 12% = meaningless because in range. Nice if this was for only 1 occurrence. However, if your entire paper is littered with it: pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/110122/1… Again, background to the rescue! Also, complaining about the number being too low wrt to sample size means your sample size sucks! Underpowered trial. But again, just a coincidence the numbers are worse in the bnt part. Just sheer bad luck! (and of course: background).

On first glance, this looks like a promising situation: take a bunch of lab animals, dose 1, dose 2 and dose 3, then bivalent WIV1/B4/5 booster = lots of "neutralizing antibody titers" Yay!!! /1 biorxiv.org/content/10.110… Now let's have a look into what actually is going on:
1) They start out with BALB/c mice (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BALB/c), which in a matter of minutes turn into hamsters. I assume in Taiwan a mice= a hamster, so I'll leave it at that. /2

With the immunosuppressive/-compromising effects of 💉3/4/5 increasing, expect a breakdown of the epi-/endemicity of regular viral and bacterial infections. This will result in rolling waves of common illness recurring every few weeks/months non stop. /1 As large swaths of the population have their immune reactions compromised, clearing and keeping at bay all kind of infections will diminish resulting in an environment where you are surrounded by constantly infectious people. /2

Oh look ... Anti-science conspiracy theories ... where are the factcheckers?
"As SARS-CoV-2 is actively mutating due to poor immunity, drug, and vaccine pressures, it resulted in the accumulation of >1000 unique mutations at the Mpro" /1

https://twitter.com/biorxivpreprint/status/1546974210525990912

But it gets better:
"Notably, while this manuscript was being prepared, a preprint article experimentally reported 11 mutants at the drug-binding site of Mpro that are resistant to nirmatrelvir" /2

In illo tempore non suspecto sciencedirect.com/science/articl… /1 something something GP120 ... elicit broadly neutralizing antibodies /2

La-di-da-di-day! Not only do we have viral exosomes, we seem to have transmissible antibodies also.
But it gets better: 💉ABs transmitted from parent to child
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

So, where to begin ... 1/n First off: this seems to indicate immunity is transmissible, explaining a series of things:
- the low infection rate in households (<20%) maybe due to simultaneous viral and soon after immunity shedding, so you get free immunity from your housemates infection
2/n

🧵on discussing the 💉with people who received it.
Ever had to tell someone bad news they are suffering a disease like HIV or cancer? This is my issue with talking to people about why I am sceptical of the 💉 as this entails explaining the risks I see based on the info I have. /1 It boils down to telling it may impair your health lifelong. How do I come to this conclusion? First let's start with the current 💉 used, mainly divided in 3 types: mRNA delivered through lipid nano particles (LNP), Adenovector based DNA/RNA vaccines and inactivated viruses. /2

I sooo hope that we are ruled by gross incompetence, especially from the medical/academical world. Imagine this were not the case. Assume for a second all those epidemiologist, virologist, vaccine specialist and pandemic modellers did a perfect job and knew 100% what happened. /1 That they knew perfectly well what kind of virus this was, how it spreads, what was the toxic component of it and how pandemics spread in society and what (not) to do in case of one (a bit was was written down in a lot of pandemic guidelines actually). They would realise that /2