Coronavirus 2020



NY TIMES: Up to 90% Who’ve Tested COVID-Positive Wrongly Diagnosed! TRUTH: A Whole Lot Worse! (Pt 3/3)

By Michael Thau | Sep 03, 2020 11:30 AM ET

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it.”
― H.L. Mencken

In the previous entry, we learned how a process invented to increase the size of research samples of DNA called polymerase chain reaction is used to test for viruses even though the guy who received a Nobel Prize for inventing it said using it that way doesn’t work.

Kary Mullis’s PCR process takes segments of DNA through a “cycle” that doubles the amount. If you run a single segment of DNA through just 40 cycles, you’ll end up with 1 x 240, which is over a trillion copies. Remember that number, it’s going to be important later.

We also saw that the COVID-19 virus, like any other virus, is just some genetic code surrounded by a shell that acts as a “Trojan horse,” allowing the virus to invade the cells of living organisms. Once inside, the genetic code exits the shell, hijacking the cell’s functions to make it produce more copies of the virus.

The genetic code inside the COVID-19 virus’s shell is RNA. So, since the PCR cycle only works on DNA, before a sample is tested for COVID-19 another process is used to convert the former into the latter. Once that’s done, the sample is run through a number of PCR cycles to amplify the amount of any converted-viral-RNA that was originally in it so there’s enough be detected.

But two factors are responsible for creating the massive unreliability of PCR testing that, as we saw in part 1, the New York Times reported on but downplayed to push for mass testing of a different kind without discrediting the whole concept.

  1. The bits of genetic material whose amount is being amplified ARE NOT viruses. They’re just small segments of inert genetic material found inside a virus’s shell. Without the shell, they don’t have any ability to infect a cell and reproduce. The PCR test doesn’t detect “live” viruses, at best it only detects their “remains.”
  2. The detection of viral remains involves massively amplifying the amount in the original sample by running it through successive PCR cycles. And nothing about the PCR test itself will tell you if there was actually any “live” virus in the original sample.

The number of PCR cycles it takes to amplify a sample containing viral remains to the point where they can be detected is called its cycle threshold.

And if the New York Times were interested in producing journalism rather than shilling for mandatory testing, they would have focused their whole story on something you have to read three-fourths of the way in to even find out.

The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures “for policy decisions.” The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures “can be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean.”

So the FDA and CDC have spent months hyping a test that involves amplifying tiny samples of viral remains until there’s enough to detect. But, according to the New York Times, there are no rules or even any guidelines for how much amplification the testing companies do…

Read Full Text Here:



@jmc 's post is the earliest post among the many that deals with the accuracy concerns and implications around PCR testing.



An excited video cast outlining some of the AstraZeneca’s vaccine ingredients.

“…Is everybody ok with having that (MRC-5) injected into themselves or their children…”

Video Link:

Wiki’s entry on MRC-5


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search


MERS coronavirus particles found in the lumen of the endoplasmic reticulumin an infected MRC-5 cell

MRC-5 (Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts, originally developed from research deriving lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted Caucasian male fetus.[1][2] The cell line was isolated by J.P. Jacobs and colleagues in September 1966 from the seventh population doubling of the original strain, and MRC-5 cells themselves are known to reach senescence in around 45 population doublings.[2][3][4]

Also links to this tender at the end of the video which Ivor Cummins linked ot on Nov 11th:

II.1)Scope of the procurement


SafetyConnect — AI

II.1.2)Main CPV code

48000000 Software package and information systems

II.1.3)Type of contract


II.1.4)Short description:

The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed.

II.1.6)Information about lots

Full tender doc here:


Turns out I was only half right back then. The actual story is much much worse. In fact RT/PCR fails all the basic requirements of a reliable medicinal diagnostic screening test. Which is why the guy who invented it said so.

First problem. Its a molecular test. And it was already well know that human corona-viruses only produce enough of a molecular footprint for about 2 or 3 days of the 10 to 15 day infection cycle to have any chance of getting above a 50% detection rate when using nasal swabs. Its mostly somewhere between 0% and 20%. During the SARs 1 outbreak in 2003 only antigen and antibody test were considered reliable. Not the rapid tests, which are even less reliable than RT/PCR for detecting true positives.

Second problem. The prevalence problem. If the prevalence of what you are testing for is one order of magnitude less than the error rate of the test then almost all positives are false positives. For SARs CoV 2 the test would have to have a complete testing cycle failure rate of less than 0.2% to 0.4% for the majority of all positives to be true positives. Its more in the 2% to 5% range. On a good day. The upshot is that unless at least 10% of the population at any given time have a SARs CoV 2 infections all current tests are meaningless for epidemic management or public health policy.

Third problem. The false negative rate. For all rapid tests the false negative rate with human corona-viruses starts at about 50%. So at least 50% of those tested who actual have a SARs CoV 2 infection will not test positive. And the more times you test a person the detection rate gets halved every cycle.

So with RT/PCR due its inherent test error rate, the low prevalence of what they are testing for, and the high false negative rate, by the time you get the Type II Error rate down to 5%, which is the lowest considered acceptable for a medically significant diagnostic test, the Type I Error Rate is over 90%. In other words the RT/PCR fails to detect over 90% of those with an active SARs CoV 2 infection at the normal minim acceptable error rate for these sort of medical diagnostic tests.

In case you are wondering the numbers with the immunochromatographic strip rapid antigen test are just as bad. For pretty much the same reasons. High error rate, low prevalence, and in this case much lower sensitivity than RT/PCR.

These tests should only ever be used for initial screening of people who already show active symptoms. Where the probability of a high prevalence rate is good. So far far fewer false positives. For mass screening these tests are both irresponsible and very dangerous given just how many people will die due to the severe disruption caused by the lock-downs and lives ruined by the overwhelming number of false positives.

Mass testing is a political stunt. Nothing more.


TBH I do not believe most of the Irish population in normal times apply quite that level of rational, because I do not believe they are aware vaccinations are not 100% effective per application , i.e. not everyones dose/inoculation sticks as such - a crude perhaps facetious guess would be 111+% or higher application of a vaccination might guarantee real world 99% protection, because even close to 99% is not infallible afaict. :ninja:

Meanwhile, the Danes have taken a very different and pro-active view on the subject it appears Denmark - The people resist Medical Tyranny with 9 Days of protest


Exactly and I created a dedicated topic on the matter in April of this year_ Coronavirus Testing - Reliable and Accurate? - linking to a story covering the inventors intentions and dire warning that it was only ever designed to be Manufacturing process not a diagnostic test, which originates from it’s early use to diagnose an AIDS virus.

Here is an outtake from an article I published in SPIN, in 1994, about Kary Mullis, PCR, HIV and…Tony Fauci…

“PCR has also had a great impact on the field of AIDS, or rather, HIV research. PCR can, among other things, detect HIV in people who test negative to the HIV antibody test.

…Kary Mullis was a scientist. He never spoke like a globalist, and said once, memorably, when accused of making statements about HIV that could endanger lives: “I’m a scientist. I’m not a lifeguard.” That’s a very important line in the sand. Somebody who goes around claiming they are “saving lives,” is a very dangerous animal, and you should run in the opposite direction when you encounter them. Their weapon is fear, and their favorite word is “could.” They entrap you with a form of bio-debt, creating simulations of every imaginable thing that “could” happen, yet hasn’t. Bill Gates has been waiting a long time for a virus with this much, as he put it, “pandemic potential.” But Gates has a problem, and it’s called PCR.

Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR.

If it quacks like a duck, then… :duck:


Some might find this a useful resource:



In a rapid review report, Professor Mills argues, ‘Online scare stories and misinformed concern over a COVID-19 vaccination are a threat to take-up, but open dialogue and public engagement can help fill ‘knowledge voids about vaccines’ and ensure confidence.’

Professor Mills argues good communications are essential to build public support and beat an ‘infodemic’ of misinformation, and she calls for influencers and local ambassadors to spearhead a campaign aimed at encouraging support for the vaccine, so the community achieves 80% protection.

Professor Mills, who produced a key report earlier in the year, on the wearing of face coverings, says, ‘There needs to be a frank conversation with the public about just how long it will take and that things will not immediately go back to normal when vaccines arrive.

‘We need to move away from the one-way provision of information and generate an open dialogue that addresses misinformation and does not dismiss people’s real vaccine concerns and hesitancy. And, critically, when the time comes, we need to make vaccination itself convenient.’

… gee I wonder where I heard this before, oh yea back in Feb on this thread from the 2019 preparation during the Attack of the Virus global LARP aka EVENT 201

2019 LARP

Interestingly enough, such moves were very aptly provided for or suggested as being problematic and outlined in Event 201 documentation.


Prepared by Marc Trotochaud and Divya Hosangadi

Effective communication during public health events can be critical to public health response efforts. Public health messages help inform the public about risks and protective actions and, done correctly, are a critical component of community en> gagement and the buildup of public trust. Yet, true information about public health concerns is increasingly competing with false messages that can damage public confidence in health interventions and health authorities. These false messages are often defined as misinformation, erroneous information shared through various channels, and disinformation, purposefully spread false or misleading information. The information environment is increasingly made up of a mix of information coming from web sources and other media, in addition to historical sources such as print and TV news media. However, the influence of social media has made the spread of false information even more pernicious.

Over the past 15 years, there has been a global surge in the adoption of social media technologies. In 2019, 6 social media companies had more than 1 billion active monthly users.1 Although originally designed for virtual engagement with personal networks, social media platforms have grown rapidly to share major roles in the economy and the transfer of information. According to the Pew Research Center, social media officially outpaced print newspaper as a source of news among the entire United States population.2 Furthermore, across countries, regardless of a nation’s socioeconomic status, younger populations rely even more heavily on social media as a news source.3

Disinformation campaigns are widely recognized in the political world but have been identified in the public health realm as well.

In the fall of 2018, a team of researchers systematically identified a concerted effort to spread disinformation and discord about vaccine safety.4 Public health response efforts for the currently ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have been challenged by disruptive rumors that have occasionally targeted public health responders.5,6 Misinformation during a public health emergency is a particularly concerning threat, because of the time-dependent nature of outbreak response and the corrosive effect misinformation can have on public trust. Current solutions to the spread of mis- and disinformation are limited. Social media platforms have attempted to change their algorithms to limit the spread of false

information and promote correct information, but the problem of misinformation continues.7,8 Many misinformation response actions have been developed to be used against political misinformation and disinformation but may be applied in response to an epidemic. More than 50 countries globally have taken different government-led actions that, in theory, aim to combat misinformation.9 These actions can range from media literacy campaigns and fact-checking websites to more extreme measures, such as jailing users for publishing content deemed to be misinformation. In some cases, authorities have shut down social media sites or the internet entirely.10-12

However, censoring social media content and denying a population access to the internet has serious consequences. In addition to ethical considerations, there is mounting evidence to suggest that there are serious economic consequences to shutting down the internet. According to the Indian Council for Research on International Economic relations, the estimated 16,000 hours of international internet shutdown in India resulted in around US$3 billion in economic losses.12

Misinformation and disinformation are likely to be serious threats during a public health emergency. Unfortunately, thus far, there are limited ways to control the propagation of misinformation, leading to potentially draconian methods to manage this problem.

Remember folks, the internet and all the wonderful freedom of information and revolutionary benefits of human connectivity is as or more dangerous than the dangerous things lurking out in the big bad scary real world, so dangerous in fact it is really a very bad thing, the worst… so we need to join in the fight and stop this open borders “infodemic” to save lives! "Cause it’s about Saving lives. Ok. Lives SAVED is a LIFE Saved.


RTE pumpin’ the Bill & Melinda Gates mRNA final solution.

Archived link -

“Moderna Therapeutics’ research has considerable potential for the development of an effective prevention intervention for HIV, and potentially other infectious diseases that disproportionately affect the world’s poorest people.” – Trevor Mundel, president of Global Health at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

In January 2016, we entered a global health project framework agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to advance mRNA-based development projects for various infectious diseases. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has committed up to $20.0 million in grant funding to support our initial project related to the evaluation of antibody combinations in a preclinical setting as well as the conduct of a first-in-human Phase 1 clinical trial of a potential mRNA medicine to help prevent human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, infections. Follow-on projects which could bring total potential funding under the framework agreement up to $100.0 million (including the HIV antibody project) to support the development of additional mRNA-based projects for various infectious diseases can be proposed and approved until the sixth anniversary of the framework agreement, subject to the terms of the framework agreement, including our obligation to grant to the Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation certain non-exclusive licenses.

Warp factor 11!



I thought from interviews on the BBC earlier two of the three vaccines then announced i.e. Johnson & Johnson and Oxford University/AstraZeneca are ‘traditional’ technology. Effectively described as a ‘common cold’ coronavirus that has been disarmed.

So presumably the ‘frontline’ workers who will be forced into taking one of these in the coming months can try to reduce their risks by going for a plain vanilla jab. Why run additional risks with Bill Gates DnA altering jabs if you don’t have to.

I’m sure the usual earlier adaptors can sign up to the ‘new tech’ to their hearts content.


It’s funny how they claim success rate out of such small number of cases. Statistical error to me.


My reading is 93~ cases out of 43~k vaccinations, 43k is small I suppose but we can hardly wait for years?


Here is a simple model looking at government statements that
a) one can have the virus for two weeks without knowing, and
b) the virus is highly infectious.
The model ignores death by virus, but assumes that ‘highly infectious’ means each infected person infects two other people. Each infectee has the virus for two weeks (asymptomatic) before simultaneously falling ill (and retreating from contact with others) and passing it on to two others
The model starts in mid-Feb this year with the arrival in Dublin of an asymptomatic Chinaman from Wuhan. He explores Dublin for two weeks, then on 1st March falls ill and simultaneously passes the virus on to two Dubliners.
(Note: by always passing on the virus at the end of the two week asymptomatic period, we play down the 'infectiousness of the virus, since the possible passing on after day 1, 2 , 3 etc. would increase the number of infectees, which the model aims to play down.)
On 16th March, the two Dubliners fall ill and simultaneously pass on the virus to four others.
And so on, the first of each month, the sixteenth of each month, the number of infectees doubling.
Today is 16th November. By the above reckoning, 262,144 should now have got the virus in this country. This does not need to align with government figures since government only knows which tested or ill people have or got the virus.
In another month, by this model, over 1 million should have got the virus, say 1/4 or 1/5 of the country.
A sample of our friends and family, or any sample, in different parts of the country should reflect this national trend, so we should be able to say in another month 1/4 or 1/5 of our contacts have got the virus (regardless mildly or badly).
The current indicators are most of us will not be anywhere close to able to say 1/4 or 1/5 of our family and friends got the virus by this time next month, which means either the model is plain wrong or RTE/the Government (RTG) is deliberately distorting the facts and must stop routinely telling listeners coronavirus is ‘highly infectious’.


or a more plausible answer is that the virus arrived much earlier and ripped through the population between December and late January infecting large sectors of the general (working & mobile) population.
My wife for one had a right dose around early January and so did many others I posed the question"did you have a dose of something around the new year?" A large number said yes they did.

So therefore by the time the panic button was pressed in March, the main pandemic had passed through the general population and was now hitting the vulnerable in nursing homes and the less mobile people along with the spike in deaths associated with weak or already sick people getting a nasty virus.


The Government and NPHET now in panic mode. Only a few days ago they were saying we were Best In Class. Now it looks like they’re scrambling around looking for easy scapegoats for the sudden turnaround in Covid fortunes (They found one in that video from South William St and the hysterical response to it.)

Looks like tonight they’ve backtracked on the plan to ban take-away sales. (Barry Cowan among the critics of the knee-jerk rush to change the rules.)

They never, ever learn…


Three extended family members have had it over the past 2 weeks. 6 members in the same family unit. Mother and 2 sons have it/had it. Father and 2 daughters havent had it. For all who contracted it has consisted of a headache and general flu like symptoms for a few days each. One also reported hia tea tasting funny at one point.

A friend’s daughter had it also 2 weeks ago. Same symptoms ie headaches and flu for a few days and asymptomatic thereafter.

In both instances, none of those involved would have even bothered going near a doctor without the wall to wall media hype. In both instances also, the likely source was the kids schools.

Make of it what you will but there is zero rationale for this blanket lockdown at this point.

Beyind that, National Geographic have run a story that is highly critical of the proposed Pfizer vaccine which is apparently getting zero traction across social media searches on google, twiter etc.

Apparently there is some manner of protest planned for the 28th of November. Assuming its not simply a collection of Chemtrails tyoes, it may be time to start lending public support to whatever opposition to this madness exists out there


When I read this then think of all the medic-pimps on Irish media pushing the vaccine 24/7 it makes me start thinking of extreme actions…



arkancide_is_real Profile picture


15 Nov, 43 tweets, 18 min read


Save as PDF

My Authors

OK folks I can’t put this off any longer.

You aren’t getting the #CoronavirusVaccine that is being sold to you by @pfizerbecause the story isn’t what you are being told.

And I don’t care if @POTUSbelieves in it.

There is no #Covid19 vaccine. Let’s unpick it.

OK so @pfizer are telling you that they have a new mRNA vaccine that they have tested on 43,000 people and with a 90% efficacy.

It’s not true.

The @guardian pretend to play it down whilst whetting your appetite. Standard #mockingbirdmedia tactics.

Pfizer Covid vaccine: what has the trial found and is this a breakthrough? Early results from phase 3 trial look promising but there are still many questions to be answered

So what’s the study?

It’s supposed to be a concurrent phase 1-2-3 study.

We don’t do those. Why? Because you need the phase 1 study to see if your new drug is not going to kill people.

Remember what happened in the UK? That was phase 1 study gone wrong. Image

There was huge publicity for this and this prompted big changes in the way phase 1 studies are conducted. Not just in the UK.

Phase 1 studies are highly controlled, particularly for new classes of drugs - like mRNA VACCINES…Image

Ten years after the ‘Elephant Man’ drug trial | Lexology In March 2006, six Young healthy men participated in a clinical trial for the drug TGN1412; within 16 hours all had been transferred to the intensive…

But, hey, we have “Operation Warp Speed” so that doesn’t matter I guess…

So what is the Pfizer study?

Here is the European registry entry. Note it was first registered in the EudraCT in August - 3 months ago.…

The protocol is here if you want to read it……

It’s 146 pages. That’s pretty typical for a drug study. Image

You’ll notice it’s a phase 1-2-3 together, so there is no way to ascertain the safe dose of the drug before rolling it out to phase 2 and 3.

The protocol should be clearly dated with version number and it isn’t. It’s a document-in-flux (contravenes #ICHGCP)

7th November 2020? Image

Maybe Nick Kitchin can take a break from his work at Pfizer and comment. Anyway getting back to the subject…

Pfizer reported the Phase 1 part of the study in August, hence why the European phase was initiated then (US regs less stringent)

Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults - PubMed In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)1, a pandemic…

Briefly a couple of interesting points.

First, that there was a toxic dose - 100mcg.

That’s fine. That’s what phase 1 studies are for and why they specifically must be on fit healthy young people (unless you are trying to kill your subjects) Image

Second - and importantly - confirmation that the drug is stored at -80C.

It has to be if it’s mRNA because mRNA degrades outside of a biological host at any higher temperature. Anybody that’s worked in a lab with this stuff will confirm how unstable it is. Image

Why so important? I’ll come back to it later but storing at -80c is no mean feat.

It usually requires liquid nitrogen or heavy duty freezers. You can’t do it in a standard clinic.

Dry ice will get you down to -78C, and evaporates.

Why Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine will be a nightmare to distribute Pfizer’s promising new COVID-19 vaccine could become a logistical nightmare to distribute to Americans — all because of the ultra-cold temperatures in which it must be stored, experts s…

Something else a bit fishy about the Phase 1 study report. The accession number.

The group say that they have deposited MN908947.3 with GenBank. This should be an RNA fragment.

This is what GenBank says……

@Ayjchan @flavinkins @LynnFynn3Image

The fact that they have reported the whole #SARSCOV2 genome as their “drug” might be important later. It certainly isn’t what I would consider mRNA.

Maybe it explains the cold storage anomaly. Viral ss-RNA (i.e. the virus genome) is a lot more stable than mRNA… Image

Anyway back to the main study - the phase 2/3 study.

Pfizer report that 43,000 patients have received the “vaccine”

OK let’s unpick that. Back to the protocol. Here is the schedule for a single patient. 3 pages ImageImageImage

Most people don’t realise how intensive these studies are. They require multiple attendances and for each attendance a form needs to be filled in and all the protocols checked.

Each person involved has to know the 146-page protocol inside out.

For a study like this a small unit with doctor, research nurse and administrator could handle maybe 20 patients. A large centre maybe 100 patients. Beyond that this paperwork is unmanageable.

Pfizer said 43000 people have been recruited…

So there should be 400 - 4000 recruiting centres around, all with -80C storage facilities in the same place that there are nurses, doctors and established clinical researchers.

If you belong to one of these centres please join the conversation. I have some questions for you…

Just as an aside some of these apparently highly advanced medical centres are in the World Bank “Tier 2” category.

I have medical and scientific colleagues from these countries who tell me what the health systems are like. ImageImageImage

I guess it’s possible that they have many health centres with all these facilities and -80C freezers in these places.

Just like’s it possible to catch a live cicada.

Anything is possible.

On the subject of statistics let’s look at why a #covid19 vaccine study is problematic Image

Let’s assume that there are 100,000 cases a day (so we are being told) of #covid19 in the US, a population of 350m, with a disease that lasts about a week.

At the peak therefore:
700,000 infected at any one time = 0.2%
Transmission rate (various studies) <= 10%

This gives a susceptible prevalent population of 0.02%.

At 0.2% (peak) the numbers needs to show a 50% effect are around the magical Pfizer numbers Image

But this is a dwindling disease in most regions (actually it probably dwindled months ago but that’s a thread for another day).

Add in the limited transmission rate and you now need 10x or more patients - possibly millions ImageImage

Most people don’t realise that the “epidemic” that you are seeing on TV still has a prevalence of less than 0.1% in most regions.

It’s impossible to recruit this many patients in a short time. enough to see a difference.

You’ll need fewer patients for a 90% effect… Image

But very few vaccines have that kind of effectiveness in real world use, i.e. out in the community.

We saw this in the HPV studies - which BTW took years to conclude - for a super effective vaccine with 98% efficacy to only have 44% effectiveness in the population Image

[taking a break here]

OK resuming now. In case you don’t believe me about the prevalence issue check out Brazil - another “hotspot”. Averages 30000 cases/day = 210,000 cases/wk
Population 213m
Prevalence = 0.1%
Susceptible population = 0.01%

Most other countries have a lower prevalence. ImageImage

There is another factor. Pfizer are one of many in a race to produce a working vaccine. Reportedly there are 157 vaccine candidates.

So you don’t just need 100,000 (phase 3) trial patients.

You need 15.7m

Well that’s a lot of forms.


I’ve had a look at this again and it might just be bad wording.

The alternative interpretation is that their mRNA encodes for the spike protein RBD fragment but they don’t specify the sequence. The GenBank number then relates to the full genome of the target (SARS-Cov2)

Not just that, but each mRNA candidate needs to be stored at -80C - for all those hundreds of thousands or millions of potential patients.

This is just not going to be possible.

But, even if we give the benefit of the doubt, there’s another problem

mRNA vaccines have never been shown to work in a population. It’s a totally experimental drug delivery system.

Papers as recently as this year were saying this.

Self-amplifying RNA vaccines for infectious diseases Vaccinology is shifting toward synthetic RNA platforms which allow for rapid, scalable, and cell-free manufacturing of prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines. The simple development pipeline is based o…

There are others but here’s a Zika candidate vaccine published last year which failed in an animal model. That is ten years away from getting a functioning vaccine in humans.

Immunogenicity and Protection Efficacy of a Naked Self-Replicating mRNA-Based Zika Virus Vaccine To combat emerging infectious diseases like Zika virus (ZIKV), synthetic messenger RNAs (mRNAs) encoding viral antigens are very attractive as they allow a rapid, generic, and flexible production of v…

So, let’s say this technique is miraculously made to work in humans (as the test subjects, because there don’t seem to be any valid animal models)

What are they trying to do?

The mRNA vaccine attempts to use the cells of the host to produce the antigen… Image

Pfizer says that they are encoding the #SARSCOV2 spike protein (the sticky out bits) using their mRNA.


So the idea is that the vaccine makes your cells produce this. Image

There is a bit of a problem with this though. There is one good reason why we have never been able to make a #coronavirusvaccine. We’ve been trying for 20 years.

ADE and related inflammatory over-responses.

A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2 - PubMed Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease is a general concern for the development of vaccines and antibody therapies because the mechanisms that underlie antibody protection against any virus h…

Essentially coronavirus vaccines have been plagued with this problem for years.

You give a fragment of the spike protein.
The host mounts an antibody response but it’s not a neutralising antibody.
You re-expose.
The host inflammatory system goes crazy - potentially lethal.

It’s a problem that has never been resolved yet the mRNA vaccine delivery system studies have no interest in it.


Gold nanoparticle-adjuvanted S protein induces a strong antigen-specific IgG response against severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus infection, but fails to induce protective antibodies and limit eosinophilic infiltration in lungs - PubMed The spike (S) protein of coronavirus, which binds to cellular receptors and mediates membrane fusion for cell entry, is a candidate vaccine target for blocking coronavirus infection. However, some ani…

The debate about ADE is still ongoing yet the mRNA vaccine systems (which in theory are merely a delivery system for a viral protein) don’t pay any attention to resolving it.…Image

News Feature: Avoiding pitfalls in the pursuit of a COVID-19 vaccine As they race to devise a vaccine, researchers are trying to ensure that their candidates don’t spur a counterproductive, even dangerous, immune system reaction known as immune enhancement. The teams…

Of course there is another aspect to the study sample size of the “huge” 43,000 Pfizer study. At 0.1% prevalence of covid (or less) the probability that the risk of ADE will be tested is low.

If the risk of ADE was 10% you would only see it in 2 patients in their study…

That risk would be presented as 2/43,000 and the vaccine would be considered “safe” because the risk of ADE was so low.

But it would still be far higher than the risk of an unvaccinated person dying of #SARSCOV2 in a post-covid environment.

It’s a numbers game for @pfizer and you can guarantee that the numbers will look favourable for them.

Especially the numbers in their bank account.


Just to labour the point about storage… Here’s how Pfizer say they’ll take care of it (without really explaining how)…

Unroll Sec:


Can you summarize post 3949? :confused: