Important New Study On Mechanism Of mRNA Injections

This morning Karl Denninger posted an explanation of an article that appeared in Nature magazine: N¹-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting. If that doesn’t mean much to you, you’ll want to read KD’s translation—it’s fairly riveting. It’s all about why the creators of the Covid injections used “pseudo-uridine” instead of the naturally occurring “uridine.” Those of us who followed the Covid saga will recall that Dr. Robert Malone stressed the importance of this use of pseudo-uridine, and this article explains that. Or, rather, KD explains that.

A Smoking Gun?

Here’s the basic idea. For years pharma companies had been trying to get mRNA injections to work—they originally targeted the use of mRNA technology for cancer treatment. The problem was that the immune system identified the injections as “foreign” and attacked them before they could do what they were intended to do:

The protein encodings that the body uses, in some cases, would cause the body's immune system to identify the shot as "foreign" and destroy the contents of the injection before it could do anything. Therefore the mRNA jabs changed one of those protein encodings slightly so as to evade the immune system's identification of them as "foreign", thus permitting the shot to do what was intended without being destroyed.

The way they did this was by substituting pseudo-uridine for uridine. Pseudo-uridine doesn’t occur in nature but was claimed to act just like uridine when it came to handling protein encodings. Bingo! But wait.

Apparently nobody bothered to consider that there might be other effects associated with this substitution. In fact, prior research had suggested exactly that, but that research was ignored:

We do, however, know from prior work that doing this might cause the cell to incorrectly read the encoding that was intended. In other words we knew, before this was done, that using this technique would increase the error rate in the cells compared to what was intended to occur.

Those who used this technique, in short, knew it was unstable.

As I understand KD’s explanation, the result was that the errors that are generated cause an inflammatory response in the body, which the immune system then attacks. In other words, yes, the mRNA stuff gets through the body’s immune system without being attacked, but the body goes on to basically attack itself due to the errors that were generated. What’s key here is that the study determined that the elevated inflammatory response was noted only in mRNA injected people.

I may have got some of that slightly off, but the basic idea is valid, I believe. KD goes through the steps taken in the study to confirm all this: in vitro, in mice, in humans. You’ll want to follow the link and read it all, but here’s KD’s conclusion. First he quotes the study:

Although there is no evidence that frameshifted products in humans generated from BNT162b2 vaccination are associated with adverse outcomes

Then he tears into the authors:

You mean, other than the significantly-increased inflammatory response, which is incidentally systemic since we're talking about an injection here and we already know the mRNA goes everywhere, including as documented by the studies submitted to the Japanese Government, the ovaries?

The paper then goes on to put forth a theorem for how to reduce this problem, which might or might not work -- that's yet to be determined.  That, of course, does exactly nothing for the couple of billion people worldwide who already took this crap.

Yes, they claim in the paper that there's "no evidence" of adverse outcomes.  Yeah, ok, if you don't believe the materially-higher IFNγ response, denoting an immune attack on the body, never mind that this is a pathway that involves various disease processes including cancer, is enough to call a full stop until and unless that can be localized and proved not to impact anything important over a long period of time (decades) -- like your heart or, in a woman, her ovaries, to be specific about two rather important examples of places where you don't want your body to attack itself.

And then he gets to the bottom line, the summary:

Moderna has been trying to make mRNA work for over 10 years with the original targeting being for cancer.  None of the previous trials worked.  All the mRNA shot makers substituted pseudo-uridine for uridine because with the "natural" encoding in previous attempts the immune system immediately identified the mRNA material as foreign and destroyed it before it could produce the desired result.

It appears that in order to prevent what had previously looked like a dead end, in short, they cheated despite knowing their "solution" was unstable. Oh, and they got themselves shielded from any legal consequences in advance -- how convenient.

So no, I ain't buying -- without further and extremely strong evidence -- that this is fixable.  Nor am I going to accept any excuses from anyone involved in developing or promoting this crap since, by this paper, it was known within the profession that making this substitution had a propensity to produce replication errors.

This paper puts forward an entirely-plausible explanation for inflammatory adverse effects in people who took the jabs, including specifically but certainly not only myocarditis, which is in fact inflammation of the heart.

What a world.