I often get asked many questions regarding the so-called “coronavirus” spike protein, such as whether or not it actually exists and whether it is actually in the vaccine. Does this particle hold any biological relevance whatsoever or is it just another in a long line of illustrations used to generate fear? If anyone is unaware at this point, the spike protein is said to be the 9-12 nm protrusions seen in TEM images of the “virus” which gives it the spiked or “corona” appearance around the outside edges. According to mythology, these proteins allow the “virus” to penetrate the host cell and begin the infection process. The spike protein has risen to prominence due to the continued propaganda around the mRNA vaccines which are claimed to produce the spike in the body once injected. This is said to trigger an immune response which teaches the body how to prepare an army of antibodies to fight off any sneaky stealh variant…or not. It depends on the variant, the manufacturer, the dose, the schedule, the disease outcome, etc.
According to the WHO:
“Evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness and severe disease is expected to become available only when variant-updated vaccines have been introduced into broader use.”
“Currently available COVID-19 vaccines are based on the index virus (also referred to as the ancestral strain); however, there has been continuous and substantial SARS CoV-2 viral evolution, particularly in the spike (S) protein. These genomic changes in the virus have resulted in several VOC that have circulated in waves, with varying degrees of immune evasion, some of which have resulted in lower VE of existing COVID-19 vaccines compared to the initial VE against the index virus. The magnitude of the reduction in VE varies by product, schedule, disease outcome, VOC and time since last dose. From January to June 2022, the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant globally has been the Omicron variant, with emergence of additional sub-lineages (1). The Omicron variant is the most antigenically distinct variant from the index virus and has exhibited the highest degree of immune evasion to current COVID-19 vaccines, compared to the index virus. Current vaccines continue to perform well in preventing severe disease and death due to Omicron, particularly with the use of a booster dose(s). However, protection against infection and symptomatic illness due to the Omicron variant is lower than other variants and declines rapidly, even after a third (booster) dose. Those at highest risk for severe disease, hospitalization, and death remain older persons, those with comorbidities and immunocompromising conditions, and other vulnerable populations as described in the WHO Prioritization Roadmap (2).”
The WHO states that the failure of the vaccines is due to the continual and rapid changes to the spike protein as it evolves and evades the immune systems defenses. This amazing super power has left us exactly in the same state we were in before the use of the toxic jabs over two years ago: the “virus” is still running rampant, the 99% of the population that were never at risk remain not at risk, and those who were at an increased risk of disease remain so. However, now we have many who are needlessly being injured by a vaccine never proven to be safe and effective with no data on long-term safety. It is clear that there was never any protection offered by the vaccine. The story created around the way the theoretical spike protein supposedly works is nothing but pure fiction attributed to an unobservable process said to occur inside the body after injection.
According to the CDC:
“To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, mRNA vaccines use mRNA created in a laboratory to teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what helps protect us from getting sick from that germ in the future.
- First, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. After vaccination, the mRNA will enter the muscle cells. Once inside, they use the cells’ machinery to produce a harmless piece of what is called the spike protein. The spike protein is found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19. After the protein piece is made, our cells break down the mRNA and remove it.
- Next, our cells display the spike protein piece on their surface. Our immune system recognizes that the protein does not belong there. This triggers our immune system to produce antibodies and activate other immune cells to fight off what it thinks is an infection. This is what your body might do if you got sick with COVID-19.
- At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to help protect against future infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. The benefit is that people get this protection from a vaccine, without ever having to risk the potentially serious consequences of getting sick with COVID-19. Any side effects from getting the vaccine are normal signs the body is building protection.”
Fortunately for the WHO and the CDC, they have the convenient rescue device of “continued and rapid evolution” to explain away the contradictions and failures of the vaccines said to be based on this fictional piece of an imaginary “virus.” They want you to believe that the vaccines will never be 100% effective as long as the spike protein can magically change itself inside the comput…er, body. Thus, newer and better vaccines created for the evolved spike protein along with regular boosters will be needed to combat the elusive nature of this highly intelligent protein endowed with shape-changing super powers. Any failures are due to the evolving particle, not the fraudulent approach.
Obviously, there are quite a few problems with this story beyond the inability to observe the fictional spike protein production process play out inside a living organism as well as the fantastical evolutionary powers of this tiny protein. If one were to think about this critically and logically, one would ask the same questions that should be asked about the evidence for the existence of any “virus.” How was this spike protein discovered? Has this protein ever been observed in nature? Was it purified and isolated directly from the fluids of sick humans or was it a creation of the cell culture process? How was its functioning determined? Were proper controls carried out in any of the studies?
It should be clear to anyone who has ever looked into the original papers supplied as evidence for the “coronaviruses” that the spike protein is nothing but a creation based off of the staining patterns of random particles chosen as the representation for the alleged “virus.” Sometimes these spikes appear in the electron microscope images and other times they do not (even though they are said to be there):
If the spikes are not observed, sometimes the sample is manipulated until they appear such as was done in this recent “SARS-COV-2” study from Australia where trypsin, a protein digestor, was added to alter the appearance of the imaged particles so that they contained the spikes:
“Electron micrographs of the negatively stained supernatant showed spherical and pleomorphic virus‐like particles of 90–110 nm diameter; the particles displayed prominent spikes (9–12 nm), characteristic of viruses from the family Coronaviridae (Box 5, A). Electron micrographs of sectioned VERO/hSLAM cells showed cytoplasmic membrane‐bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles (Box 5, B) Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.”
One thing that is for certain in the case of the creation of these spiked proteins is that the particles observed do not come from purified and isolated “viruses” found directly in the fluids of sick organisms. In fact, they are not even specific to “coronaviruses” at all as they can be observed on many extracellular vesicles such as clathrin-coated vesicles and exosomes:
Even the 2009 H1N1 swine flu gets some spiked love:
The particles claimed to be spike proteins are a creation stemming from the cell culture process used to “isolate” the “viruses” as well as the preparations done in order to obtain the images by way of electron microscopy. As Harold Hillman said, the images obtained at the end of the process are far away removed from realty:
“For example, most cytologists know, but readers of elementary textbooks do not, that when one looks at an illustration of an electron micrograph: an animal has been killed; it cools down; its tissue is excised; the tissue is fixed (killed); it is stained with a heavy metal salt; it is dehydrated with increasing concentrations of alcohol; it shrinks; the alcohol is extracted with a fat solvent, propylene oxide; the latter is replaced by an epoxy resin; it hardens in a few days; sections one tenth of a millimetre thick, or less, are cut; they are placed in the electron microscope, nearly all the air of which is pumped out; a beam of electrons at 10,000 volts to 3,000,000 volts is directed at it; some electrons strike a phosphorescent screen; the electron microscopists select the field and the magnification which show the features they wish to demonstrate; the image may be enhanced; photographs are taken; some are selected as evidence. One can immediately see how far the tissue has travelled from life to an illustration in a book.”
It should be clear that if none of the “coronaviruses” (ranging in size from 60 to 150 nm) have ever been properly purified, isolated, and separated from everything else in order to be independently studied, the much smaller surface spikes of the “virus” (ranging from 9 to 12 nm) have also never been properly purified and isolated in order to be independently studied. To confirm this, I did some digging into just the so-called purification and isolation procedures relating to the spike itself. I came across a book by David Cavanagh, a man intimately tied to the study of this protein. He was involved in researching the “coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus (IBV),” focusing on the identification and molecular characterisation of the “virion” proteins. In his book, he laid out the foundational papers for its supposed purification and isolation:
The Coronavirus Surface
A. Electron Microscope Observations
“Coronaviruses are frequently claimed to have a characteristic morphology, including the possession of a “club-shaped” surface projection or spike (S) glycoprotein. However, in common with other aspects of the coronaviruses, the group exhibits variation with respect to the shape, size, and distribution of the S protein on the virion surface. Davies and Macnaughton (1979) described the spikes of infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) and human coronavirus (HCV) 229E as being “tear-drop” shaped and widely spaced, whereas those of murine hepatitis virus (MHV) type 3 were mostly “cone-shaped” and closely spaced, although in some MHV-3 preparations the spikes were more bulbous. Dimensions of S vary not only among the coronaviruses but also depending on the staining procedure; following potassium phosphotungstate staining all three
viruses had spikes approximately 20 nm long and 10 nm wide at the bulbous end, except for the cone-shaped spikes of MHV, which had a diameter of only 5 nm (Davies and Macnaughton, 1979). The entire S protein has been observed after solubilization and purification (Sturman et 01., 1980; Cavanagh, 1983c). The nonenvelope-associated SI subunit of the IBV S protein can become detached from the virion (Stern and Sefton, 1982a; Cavanagh and Davis, 1986).
B. Sedimentation Characteristics
Purification of the S protein of MHV, IBV, HCV strain 229E, bovine coronavirus (BCV), and porcine hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEV) has been achieved using a combination of nonionic detergent and sucrose gradient centrifugation (Sturman et a1., 1980; Hasony and Macnaughton, 1981; Cavanagh, 1983b; Schultze et a1., 1990, 1991). When milligram quantities of IBV were used, it was neeessary to dissociate and sediment the virus proteins in the presence of 1 M NaCI; otherwise the M protein cosedimented with S (Cavanagh, 1983b). Spike has also been purified by affinity chromatography (Mockett, 1985; Daniel and Talbot, 1990). Sedimentation studies have been variously interpreted as indicating that S from virions is a homodimer or homotrimer (IBV: Cavanagh, 1983eL homodimer (MHV: Vennema et a1., 1990b), or homotrimer (TGEV: Delmas and Laude, 1990).”
Click to access 10.1007%2F978-1-4899-1531-3_5.pdf
It is not my intention to completely deconstruct each of the purification/isolation papers listed as it seems rather ridiculous to do so when the “viruses” these spike proteins supposedly come from have never been scientifically proven to exist. However, I do want to share some brief highlights from each paper so that it is abundantly clear the amount of manipulations and alterations that the sample must be put through in order to get the desired results. These “proteins” stem from the unpurified cell culture process where many substances are added and nothing is isolated. It will be clear to see how far removed from reality the sample has travelled in order to become an image published in a study. It stretches beyond belief to assume that the representative particles, imaged in a heavily altered dead and fixed state, have any bearing on actual biological processes. They are nothing but a creation from the numerous processes utilized in order to obtain the final results.
First up is the initial spike protein purification and isolation paper presented as evidence by Cavanagh. I highlighted the full methods section from this study in order to showcase the numerous steps involved to get to the final outcome. Many of the ensuing papers follow similar procedures in order to generate their outcomes so feel free to dig into each for more detailed accounts of the pseudoscientific processes employed.
What you will see in this paper is that the “virus” is a cell culture creation supplemented with the usual medium along with fetal bovine serum and antibiotics. The fetal bovine serum itself is a source of foreign genetic material along with other substances and compounds. The cell line used was the murine fibroblast cell line 17Cl-1, which, according to BEI Resources, was “derived by spontaneous transformation of 3T3 cells. 3T3 is a nontumorigenic cell line established from 14- to 17-day-old embryos of the Balb/c mouse strain. 17Cl-1 cells are used for cultivation of murine coronaviruses, including murine hepatitis virus.” Thus, we can see that this is already an unpurified concoction.
After culturing the “virus,” it was “harvested” from the sample before significant amounts of cytopathic changes such as cell fusion or lysis had occurred (the very criteria used to determine a “virus” is present) and then it was centrifuged. The sample was precipitated by the addition of 5.0 g of NaCl per 150 ml of clarified supernatant followed by a half volume of 30% polyethylene glycol. The “virus” was then put through a series of centrifugation steps with different chemicals and it was eventually radiolabeled with a uridine and amino acid mixture. NP40 was added to disrupt the “virions.” According to this manufacturer, NP40 is a “non-ionic surfactant useful for the isolation and purification of functional membrane protein complexes. This detergent has been purified to reduce levels of contaminating aldehydes, metals, peroxides, and salts.” In other words, more contaminants/foreign substances were added to “purify/isolate” the proteins.
Afterwards, the sample was subjected to the usual electron microscopy preparation procedures. The sample was also put through gel electrophoresis with a slew of additional treatment-mixture chemicals and then charged under high voltage for 4 hours in order to separate the proteins. Eventually, the researchers used theoretical antibodies created in similar unpurified manners to label and claim that the particles observed were the spiked ones that they were searching for. As is usually the case, no proper controls were outlined in this study:
Isolation of coronavirus envelope glycoproteins and interaction with the viral nucleocapsid
“Studies of the virion polypeptides of a number of different coronaviruses in several laboratories have led to reports of three to a dozen or more polypeptide species associated with virions (1, 3, 7, 11, 16, 19, 23, 24, 28-31, 33,35, 44, 45, 48; 0. W. Schmidt and G. E. Kenny, Fed. Proc. 38:910, 1979). The reasons for the apparent diversity in the polypeptide patterns of coronaviruses are not fully understood. Differences in technique and imperfect discrimination of virion polypeptides from those of host origin may account for some of the disparities. However, even when the same gel systems and conditions are employed in the same laboratory, significant differences in the number and size of virion polypeptides of different coronavirus strains have been observed (30). We propose that some of this apparent dissimilarity in the polypeptide patterns of coronaviruses may be the result of unusual characteristics of their envelope glycoproteins.”
MATERIALS AND METHODS
“Cells and virus. A spontaneously transformed derivative of the BALB/c 3T3 cell line, designated 17 Cl 1, and the L2 derivation of the L929 cell line were grown in Dulbecco medium supplemented with 10% unheated fetal bovine serum, penicillin (100 U/ml), and streptomycin (100 ,ug/ml). The A59. strain of mouse hepatitis virus was produced in 17 Cl 1 cells and assayed by plaque titration in L2 cells as described previously (46).
Virus production and purification. 17 Cl 1 cell monolayers in glass roller bottles (120 by 260 mm; 690-cm2 cell surface area) were inoculated with A59 virus at a multiplicity of 1 to 10 PFU/cell. After an adsorption period of 1 h at 37°C, 50 ml of Eagle minimal essential medium with 10% unheated fetal bovine serum was added to each roller bottle. Cells were incubated at 37°C.
Released virus was usually harvested 24 to 26 h after inoculation, after several cycles of infection, when high yields were obtained and well before significant amounts of cytopathic changes such as cell fusion or lysis had occurred. Released virus was centrifuged at 10,000 x g (average) in a Sorvall GSA rotor for 30 min at 4°C to remove debris. For optimal preservation of virus infectivity, freshly harvested virus was purified immediately at 4°C without freezing or storage.
The virus was precipitated by the addition of 5.0 g of NaCl per 150 ml of clarified supernatant followed by a half volume of 30% polyethylene glycol to give a final concentration of 10% polyethylene glycol and 2.2% NaCl. The precipitate was collected by centrifugation at 10,000 x g (average) for 30 min at 4°C, resuspended in TMEN 6 buffer (5 ml/3 roller bottles of original virus) containing 0.05 M Tris-maleate-0.001 M EDTA-0.1 ml NaCl (pH 6.0) at 4°C, and layered over a discontinuous gradient of 4 ml of each of 30 and 50% (wt/wt) sucrose in TMEN 6 buffer in a 17.5-ml centrifuge tube or 3 ml of 30% and 2 ml of 50% (wt/wt) sucrose in TMEN 6 in a 12.5-ml centrifuge tube. After centrifugation for 4 h at 25,000 rpm in a Spinco SW 27.1 rotor (82,000 x g, average) or 3 h at 30,000 rpm in a Spinco SW 41 rotor (110,000 x g, average) at 4°C the narrow white virus band at the interface between 30 and 50% sucrose was collected, diluted 2.5-fold with TMEN 6 buffer, and layered over a 7.5- or 12-ml continuous gradient of 20 to 50% sucrose in TMEN 6 buffer. This gradient was centrifuged for 18 h at 25,000 rpm (82,000 x g, average) at 4°C on a Spinco SW 27.1 rotor or 30,000 rpm in a Spinco SW 41 rotor (110,000 x g, average), and the virus band at 1.17 to 1.19 g/ml was collected. The virus was then diluted with TMEN 6 buffer and either used directly, pelleted in an SW 50.1 Spinco rotor, or dialyzed against buffer or water. Data from a representative virus purification (Table 2) shows a 50- to 100-fold reduction in volume and greater than 100-fold decrease in total protein, with 60 to 100% recovery of virus infectivity. The final specific infectivity achieved was 5 x 10’0 to 10 x 1010 PFU/ml of protein.
As a routine practice, up to 900 ml of virus was purified at one time. This is the volume obtained from 18 roller bottles of infected cells. Virus harvested at 24 h had a titer of 2 x 10^8 to 5 x 10^8 PFU/rnl, and at 42 to 48 h the titer was 0.5 x 10^9 to 2 x 10^9 PFU/ml. Thus, depending on the time of harvest, yields of released virus were 10^10 to 10^11 PFU/roller bottle.
Radiolabeling of virus. Radiolabeled compounds were added to the medium in final concentration of 2 to 4 uCi of L-3H-amino acid mixture, or [5-3H]uridine per ml, 3 uCi of [6-3H]fucose per ml, and 1 to 4 uCi of [35S]methionine per ml. Infected cultures were incubated in the presence of these compounds from approximately 1 h after virus inoculation until virus was harvested. Labeled uridine and amino acid mixture were purchased from New England Nuclear Corp., Boston; labeled methionine and fucose were obtained from Amersham Corp., Arlington Heights, Ill [3H]-uridine-labeled 28S HeLa cell rRNA was kindly provided by N. K. Chatterjee.
Disruption of virions with NP40. Purified virions from three or fewer roller bottles were usually pelleted and resuspended in 1 to 2 ml of TMEN 6 buffer at 4°C. NP40, kindly provided by Shell, Inc., was added to a final concentration of 0.25 to 1%, and the mixture was shaken vigorously by hand at least 20 times. In some experiments a portion of the detergent-treated virus was incubated at 37°C for 30 min at this stage. The detergent-treated virions were then layered at 4°C over 15 to 50% sucrose gradients in TMEN 6 buffer containing 0.1% NP40 or at 10°C over 30 to 75% sucrose gradients in TMEN 6 buffer containing 0.1% NP40. A cushion of 76% Renografin or 65 to 75% sucrose was placed beneath the 15 to 50% sucrose gradient. Unless otherwise indicated, the gradients were sedimented at 38,000 rpm (180,000 x g, average) for 16 to 20 h in an SW 41 rotor at 4 or 10°C. Gradient fractions were collected from the top of the gradient with an ISCO fractionating device or from the bottom by displacement with light paraffin oil delivered with a Cornwall syringe. Gradient fractions were collected into chilled tubes and held at 4°C. Samples for radioisotopic counting were prepared by transferring 50- to 450-pd portions of each gradient fraction into 1 ml of water-10 ml of Aquasol (New England Nuclear). The refractive indexes of gradient fractions were determined with a Bausch and Lomb Abbe refractometer. Continuous 20 to 50% gradients of Renografin-76 (E. R. Squibb & Sons, Princeton, N.J.) containing 0.1% NP40 were employed for dissociation of nucleocapsid complexes. Sedimentation was carried out at 25,000 rpm (82,000 x g, average) for 16 h in an SW 27.1 rotor at 4°C.
Electron microscopy. Samples of purified glycoprotein preparations were placed on carbon-coated Formvar-covered 400-mesh copper grids, negatively stained with 2% phosphotungstic acid at pH 7.2 and examined with a Philips 400 transmission electron microscope.
SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The method of high-pH discontinuous buffer SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in cylindrical gels employed in this study has been described previously (44). Because the El polypeptide aggregates after boiling with SDS in the presence of mercaptoethanol (44), samples of viral polypeptides for this study were prepared for electrophoresis by heating at 37°C for 30 min in the absence of mercaptoethanol. Five to twenty percent polyacrylamide gradient slab gels 1.5 mm thick and 10 cm long were prepared by the method of Laemmli in a Hoeffer slab gel electrophoresis apparatus. Each well was loaded with approximately 40 ul of a radiolabeled sample which had been heated to 37°C for 15 min with an equal volume of sample treatment mixture composed of 6 M urea, 4% SDS, 0.05% bromophenol blue in 0.0625 M Tris-chloride, pH 6.7. Gels were run at 125 V for about 4 h under constant voltage from a Savant power supply. Gels were impregnated with PPO (2,5-diphenyloxazole; Sigma) in dimethyl sulfoxide by the method of Bonner and Laskey (4), dried with a Savant gel drier onto Whatman no. 17 chromatography paper, exposed to Kodak XR-5 film at -70°C for 1 to 4 weeks, and developed with Kodak X-ray chemicals.
Preparation of antisera. Antiserum directed against A59 virion polypeptides were prepared by purifying released virus through discontinuous and continuous sucrose gradients as described above without prior precipitation with PEG. Purified, concentrated A59 virus was disrupted with 1% NP40 and frozen at -75°C in aliquots. A 0.1-ml amount of the virus preparation was inoculated with complete Freund adjuvant into rabbit footpads, followed after 2 weeks with a second footpad injection of an additional 0.1 ml with incomplete Freund adjuvant (Difco) and 1 week later by an intravenous injection of another 0.4 ml of detergent-treated virus. After the third injection, rabbits
were bled from the ear at 1-week intervals for 1 month. This antibody specifically immunoprecipitated radiolabeled El, N, and E2 and no cellular polypeptides from NP40 extracts of infected 17 Cl 1 cells.
Antisera against the isolated El and E2 proteins were prepared by a similar schedule of rabbit inoculations of El obtained from sucrose gradient sedimentation of A59 virions disrupted with NP40 at 4°C and of E2 from NP40-disrupted virus that had been incubated at 37°C before sucrose gradient sedimentation. These antisera were each passed through immunosorbent columns of Affigel 10 charged with the other viral glycoprotein. The specificity of the antisera was determined by immunoprecipitation of radiolabeled viral polypeptides from NP40 extracts of A59-infected cells.
Immunoprecipitation of viral polypeptides. Immunoprecipitates of radiolabeled viral polypeptides
from extracts of infected cells, purified virions, or gradient-purified El or E2 were made by the method of Kessler (26). A 25-ul amount of rabbit serum was incubated with 25 to 200 ul of radiolabeled sample in phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.1% NP40 at 0°C for 1 h. Antigen-antibody complexes and antibody were precipitated with an excess of purified, Formalin-fixed staphylococci (Cowan 1 strain) for 10 min at 4°C, pelleted at 3,000 rpm for 10 min, washed three times in 1 ml of 0.05% NP40 with phosphate-buffered saline and then solubilized in sample treatment mixture by boiling for 1 min or treatment at 37°C for 15-30 min.”
This next study followed similar procedures as the first. I’ve highlighted the “virus” growth and “purification” methods in order to show that this purification/isolation claim does not hold up under scrutiny. The “virus” was grown in mouse embryonic fibroblasts and incubated in Eagle’s minimal essential medium with fetal calf serum. The “virus” was centrifuged and “purified” by methods “previously discussed.” The rest of the techniques used are similar to those listed in the 1981 study and the results are heavily reliant on serological data where it was apparently difficult to ensure similar antibody responses in the mice tested as there was considerable variation observed. No EM images of the “purified/isolated” spike proteins accompany the study:
Antigenieity of Mouse Hepatitis Virus Strain 3 Subeomponents in C57 Strain Mice
Materials and Methods
“MHV3 was grown in confluent secondary mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Monolayers were infected at an input multiplicity of 0.1 infectious particles per cell and following an adsorption period of 1.5 hours at 37 ° C, were incubated for 72 hours at 37 ° C in Eagle’s MEM with 2 percent foetal calf serum (13). Aliquots of this virus suspension were stored at –70°C and used for the preparation of purified virus particles and subcomponents.
Preparation of Purified Virus
Virus was purified at 0 ° to 4 ° C as described previously (13). The virus was pelleted at 75,000 × g for 1 hour and then resuspended in 1 ml Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline “A” (PBSA). The resuspended virus was overlaid on to a linear 25 to 55 percent (w/w) sucrose gradient in PBSA and centrifuged for 16 hours at 90,000 × g. The virus peak at 1.18 g/ml was collected.”
“In this paper we report the isolation and purification of MHV 3 subviral components and have shown the role of each subcomponent in the protection of immnnised mice against challenge with infectious MHV 3. It was difficult to ensure that mice immunised with different virus subcomponent preparations all produced comparable amounts of antibody, as there was considerable variation in the immunogenieity of the subeomponents. The highest antibody rises detected by ELISA were directed against surface projections, while lower antibody rises were observed against membrane and RNP, suggesting that the most immunogenic part of the virus is an antigen(s) associated with the surface projections. Similar results have been obtained previously with human eoronaviruses (14) and the porcine coronavirus transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) (5).”
In this study, the “virus” was grown in the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) cells of de-embryonated chicken eggs and radiolabelled IBV-M41 was prepared in pairs of de-embryonated eggs and treated. The same ultracentrifugation of impure cultured material was utilized to claim purity and isolation even though it is well known that this technique can not separate particles of the same size, shape, and density from one another. It is admitted in the study that there is less agreement among researchers on the composition of the S protein. It was also admitted that other polypeptides of 110K and 75K were detected in “virus” preparations which they assumed were probably host polypeptides. No EM images of the purified and isolated particles accompanied the study nor were proper controls carried out:
Coronavirus IBV: Further Evidence that the Surface Projections are
Associated with Two Glycopolypeptides
“The avian infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) particle, like other coronaviruses, contains three
major protein structures, the surface projection or peplomer (S), nucleocapsid (N) and matrix (M) proteins (Cavanagh, 1981 ; Siddell et al., 1982). The M protein comprises a polypeptide of mol. wt. 23 000 (23K) which is glycosylated to different extents to form glycopolypeptides of mol. wt. up to 36K (Stern et al., 1982; Stern & Sefton, 1982; Cavanagh, 1983). A polypeptide of 50K to 54K forms the N protein (Macnaughton et al., 1977). There is less agreement on the composition of the S protein. Since the presumptive S polypeptides of all coronaviruses examined have mol. wt. greater than that of the N polypeptide, the following account refers only to such IBV polypeptides.”
“Radiolabelled IBV-M41 was prepared in pairs of de-embryonated eggs (Cavanagh, 1981); each egg received 125 uCi [35S]methionine (sp. act. > 800 Ci/mmol) or [35S]methionine plus 165 uCi of a mixture of 15 3H-labelled amino acids (code TRK 440, Amersham International). Unlabelled virus was grown in batches of 200 11-day-old embryonated eggs which were inoculated with approx. 3-5 log10 median ciliostatic dose50 of IBV-M41. After 24 h at 37 °C the eggs were chilled at 4 °C overnight. Allantoic fluid was collected, clarified at 4000 g for 30 min and the virus pelleted at 35000 g for 2-5 h. The pellet was resuspended in NET buffer (100 mM- NaC1, 1 mM-EDTA, 10 mM-Tris-HCl pH 7.4) to a vol. of 20 ml and sonicated at maximum amplitude for 10 s with the 3 mm probe of an MSE ultrasonic disintegrator. The suspension was placed on two discontinuous gradients comprising 20 m125% (w/w) sucrose and 5 m160% (w/w) sucrose in NET in a 6 x 38 MSE swing-out rotor. After centrifugation at 65,000 gmax for 2.5 h at 4 °C, the gradients were fractionated. Fractions which contained virus at the 25/60% sucrose interphase were pooled, diluted threefold, placed on a 25 to 55 % (w/w) sucrose gradient in NET and centrifuged at 50000 gay for 16 h at 4 °C in a 6 x 38 rotor. Fractions of 1 ml were collected and those of density 1.16 to 1.22 g/ml were pooled, diluted to 20% (w/w) sucrose and the virus pelleted at 90000g for 3 h at 4 °C in an MSE 3 x 25 swing-out rotor. Pelleted virus (2 to 4 mg protein) was resuspended in 1 ml I M-KCI or 1 M-NaC1 in NET and 1 ml 4% (v/v) Nonidet P40 (NP40) in NET containing 1 M-KCI or 1 M-NaCI, followed by sonication for 2 to 3 s and incubation at 25 °C for 1 h. Undissolved material was removed by low-speed centrifugation and the supernatant placed on a 10 to 55% (w/w) sucrose gradient in NET containing 1 M-KC1 or 1 M-NaC1 and 0.1 ~ NP40. After centrifugation in an MSE 6 x 38 swing-out rotor at 85,000 gav for 16 h at 4 °C fractions of 500 pi were collected. These were dialysed to remove KCI where appropriate prior to electrophoresis. SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) was performed in tubes and slabs with a 10% acrylamide resolving gel (Cavanagh, 1981). Samples were dissociated at room temperature with 2% SDS and 2% (v/v) 2-mercaptoethanol. Unlabelled markers used were phosphorylase b, bovine serum albumin and carbonic anhydrase; some phosphorylase was pre-stained with Drimarine brilliant blue K-BL (Bosshard & Datyner, 1977) and the apparent mol. wt. was 110K.”
“Thus, these studies show that the peplomers of IBV comprise two glycopolypeptides of 90K and 84K in equimolar proportion. The polypeptides of 110K and 75K, variably detected in virus preparations, are probably host polypeptides.”
In this study, affinity chromatography was used to “purify” cell cultured “viruses.” However, keep in mind that it is known that this technique can not separate “viruses” from exosomes or other particles with the same size, shape, and density. The researchers also rely on theoretical monoclonal antibody reactions to identify the “viral” proteins from within a crude mixture of other proteins which are said not to be “viral” proteins based on the non-specific measurement of the theoretical antibodies. It is mentioned that the there were other stained bands present during gel electrophoresis and that these are artifacts sometimes observed, even in the absence of protein, with this staining procedure. No proper controls were outlined and the only image was of the bands from the gel electrophoresis experiments:
Envelope proteins of avian infectious bronchitis virus: Purification and biological properties
The Massachusetts M41 strain of IBV was grown in the allantoic cavities of 11-day-old embryonated chicken eggs and purified on isopycnic sucrose gradients as described by Cavanagh (1981).
Preparation of material for affinity chromatography
Purified virus was pelleted in a 6 X 14 ml rotor at 70,000 X g for 3 h at 4°C and resuspended phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). An equal volume of PBS containing 4% (wt./vol.) NP40 was added, mixed using a Dounce homogeniser and incubated for 2 h at 25°C. The material was centrifuged for 5 min in an Eppendorf microcentrifuge and the resulting supernatant, containing soluble viral components, was used for the affinity chromatography purification.
Monoclonal antibodies (designated A38 and C24) to the spike and membrane proteins respectively of IBV strain M41 were prepared (Mockett et al., 1984). The
gammaglobulin fraction of ascitic fluids containing either anti-spike or anti-membrane monoclonal antibodies was isolated by salt precipitation using a final concentration of 18% (wt./vol.) Na2SO4. For the spike immunoadsorbent 5.6 mg of gammaglobulin was coupled to 0.75 mg of CNBr-Sepharose 4B (Pharmacia) according to the manufacturers’ instructions and for the membranc immunoadsorbent 5.5 mg was coupled to the same amount of gel. Unreactive groups on the gel were blocked using 1 M ethanolamine, pit 8.0, and any non-covalently bound proteins were removed by repeated washings with 0.1 M NaHCO~ buffer, pH 8.3, containing0.5 M NaCI and 0.1 M acetic acid buffer, pH 4.4, containing 0.5 M NaCI. The immunoadsorbent was stored in PBS containing 0.2% NaN3 at 4°C until used. It was washed twice with 3 M NH4SCN in PBS containing 0.1% octylglucoside, four times with PBS and twice with PBS containing 2% NP40 before use. All wash volumes were 10 ml.
The solubilised virus preparation was mixed with the immunoadsorbent for 16 h at 4°C using a rotary stirrer. The gel was poured into a chromatography column and washed with PBS containing 0.1% NP40 (40 ml) and PBS containing 0.1% octylglucoside (10 ml). 3 M NH,SCN in PBS containing 0.1% octylglucoside was added and 10 fractions of 1 ml collected. The absorbance at 280 nm of each of the fractions was read using a SP1800 PyeUnicam spectrophotometer. The fractions in the absorbance peak were dialysed against PBS. A sample of each fraction was then subjected to electrophoresis in a polyacrylamide gel. Those fractions containing detectable viral protein were pooled and constituted the purified protein preparation.”
“The viral proteins purified by affinity chromatography are shown in Fig. 1. The spike protein, which is composed of two polypeptides, was the only protein detected in the two fractions shown using the sensitive silver staining procedure. Similarly the membrane protein was not contaminated with other proteins, although this protein did not stain as well as the spike. There were other stained bands present, but these are artifacts sometimes observed, even in the absence of protein, with this staining procedure.”
This paper describes the application of affinity chromatography using monoclonal antibodies for the purification of the two viral structural proteins present at the surface of the IB virion – spike and membrane. A previous report has described procedures for the purification of these viral proteins and also nucleocapsid protein, the only other major structural protein (Cavanagh, 1983). IBV was solubilised in NP40 detergent and centrifuged in a sucrose gradient containing this detergent in order to purify the nucleocapsid protein. The addition of 1 M NaCI to the sucrose solutions was required for the purification of the spike and membrane proteins, as they co-migrated in gradients containing low salt concentrations. However, the nucleocapsid protein could not be purified in gradients containing high salt concentrations. The yield of material from these gradients was relatively low, due to the limited number of fractions which contained purified viral components. In other studies (Cavanagh, 1984) purified spike material contained some nucleocapsid protein and the membrane preparation contained other proteins which were thought to be of cellular origin.
There are a number of advantages in using affinity chromatography. By making use of the specificity of the antibody pure material can be isolated, even from a crude mixture of proteins. The method is very quick and easy and the immunoadsorbent can be used several times. Thus, relatively large amounts of purificd material can be obtained. The availability of spike and membrane proteins in a highly purified form will allow more biochemical, structural and immunological studies to be done.”
In this first of two studies from 1990, affinity chromatography is once again used to attempt “purification” from cell culture supernatant. This time the cells used were in the form of DBT which are mouse brain tumor cells said to be transformed by Rous Sarcoma “virus.” The MHV “virus” was passaged four times and was produced in medium containing fetal calf serum which, again, is a source of many host/cellular components itself. Various other chemical additives were used throughout the processes and in the end, it was admitted that “non-viral” host material was reproducibly present in the samples. No EM images of the purified/isolated spike proteins were shown beyond gel electrophoresis stains:
Protection of Mice from Lethal Coronavirus MHV-A59 Infection by Monoclonal Affinity-Purified Spike Glycoprotein
“Cells and virus
The A59 strain of MHV (MHV-A59), obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD, U.S.A.), was plaque-purified twice and passaged four times at a multiplicity of infection (MOl) ofO.Ol on DBT cells.
Virus was produced as described previously in culture medium containing 1 % (v/v) FCS. DBT cell monolayers were infected with MHV-AS9 at an MOl of 0.01 and medium was harvested 16 hrs post-infection. Cell debris were pelleted and virus concentrated by precipitation with 10% (w/v) polyethyleneglycol in O.S M NaCl. Viral antigens were resuspended and dialyzed against TMEN buffer (0.1 M Tris-acid-maleate, pH 6.2, 0.1 M NaC!, 1 mM EDTA), and kept at -70°C until used. In some experiments, virus was labeled by adding 4 mCi of [3SS]methionine (ICN Biochemicals Canada, Ville St-Laurent, PQ, Canada) to culture medium at 6 hrs post-infection.
The E2/S-immunoadsorbent was prepared by coupling five milligrams of purified MAb 7-10A 11 to 1 g of CNBr-activated Sepharose 4B (Pharmacia, Dorval, PQ, Canada), all steps performed according to manufacturer’s instructions. For affinity chromatography, concentrated virus was solubilized with 2% (v/v) Nonidet P-40 (NP-40) for 2 hrs at room temperature (RT), and soluble proteins were mixed with the 7-lOA-Sepharose gel and incubated end-over-end for 16 hrs at 4°C. The gel specificity was determined by immunoadsorption of radiolabeled antigen, extensive washing with 0.1 % (v/v) NP-40 (in 0.2 M phosphate buffer, pH 6.2, 0.1 M NaC!, 1mM EDTA), and elution of adsorbed proteins into electrophoresis sample buffer. Otherwise, the gel was poured into a column and washed until the absorbance at 280 nm had dropped to baseline level, after which the column was washed with 4 gel volumes of the same buffer containing 0.1 % (w/v) of octylglucoside for detergent replacement. Elution was carried out by adding 3 M ammonium isothiocyanate to the latter solution. Fractions of 1 ml were collected and dialyzed against O.O5 M ammonium bicarbonate, pH 7.4. A sample of each fraction was lyophilized, resuspended in electrophoresis sample buffer, and analyzed on a 7-1S% linear polyacrylamide gel, prior to fluorography with Enlightning® (Dupont Canada, Lachine, PQ, Canada) for radiolabeled antigen or silver stainingl2. Fractions containing purified E2/S were pooled and used for immunological studies.”
Purification and immunogenicity of E2/S glycoprotein
The E2/S glycoprotein used for immunogenicity studies was purified from viral antigens concentrated from 1.8 liters of culture medium from MHV -A59-infected DBT cells. Fractions eluted after immunoaffinity chromatography were analyzed by SDS-PAOE and silver staining. Figure 2 shows that the dimeric and monomeric forms of E2/S were purified without detectable contamination from other viral proteins. However, a contaminant (30 kDa), which was probably of cellular origin, was reproducibly observed. The purified glycoprotein was partially denaturated, as confirmed by its loss of reactivity with the MAb 7-10A (data not shown).”
This second study from 1990 is mostly a serolgical study which also used cell culturing techniques to aquire the “virus” being studied. HEV was said to be “isolated” by nasal swab from a pig where it was grown in MDCK I cells from a dog and “purified” by centrifugation through a sucrose gradient. Keep in mind that sucrose gradient centrifugation, even though it is considered the “gold standard,” can not completely purify/isolate particles of the same size, shape, and density. There were no EM images of the spike proteins beyond the gel electrophoresis ink blots presented below. The proteins were claimed to be detected serologically based on stains. The methods used to obtain the results were also poorly defined with no apparent controls:
Isolation and characterization of the acetylesterase of hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEV).
“HEV is related to BCV both serologically and in its
hemagglutinating properties. We analyzed whether HEV also has acetylesterase activity like BCV strain NT-9 of HEV, which has been isolated by nasal swab from a pig (Heb and Bachmann, 1978), was grown in MDCK I cells and purified by centrifugation through a sucrose gradient. The purified virus was analyzed for its ability to release acetate from p-nitrophenylacetate (PNPA).”
“Purified HEV was incubated with 3H- DFP for 30 min at 4°C and then analyzed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The result is shown in Fig. 2. Following staining with Coomassie Brilliant Blue the viral proteins N, M, S, and HE became visible. The radioactive label was found to comigrate only with the latter glycoprotein. The identity of the 3H-DFP-labeled protein was confirmed by analyzing the sample in the absence and presence of reducing agents. Under non-reducing conditions the labeled protein was detected in a position expected for a protein with a molecular weight of about 140 kDal. In the presence of dithiotreitol the apparent size is reduced to about 65 kDal indicating that in the native protein monomers are connected by disulfide bonds to form a dimeric
structure. This migration behavior is characteristic for the viral protein involved in the hemagglutinating activity of HEV (Callebaut and Pensaert, 1980) and therefore, in analogy to BCV, is designated HE.
In order to isolate the esterase of HEV from the viral membrane, purified virions were treated with 1% octylglucoside (OG). The nucleocapsid as well as the M-protein were pelleted by centrifugation for 30 min at 25.000 x g (not shown). The glycoproteins remaining in the supernatant (S and HE) were loaded onto a 10-30% sucrose gradient in PBS containing 1% OG. Following centrifugation at 42.000 rpm for 16 h in SW55 rotor, fractions were collected from the bottom of the tube and analyzed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. As shown in Fig. 3, S-protein was detected in fraction 3, while most of HE was recovered from fraction 6. Analysis of the fractions for acetylesterase activity revealed that only fractions containing HE were able to release acetate from PNPA. This result confirms that HE is responsible for the esterase
activity of HEV.”
In this last study, BCV was grown in MDCK I cells, a subline of
Madin-Darby canine kidney cells. Once again, ultracentrifugation was used to “purify” the already contaminated and impure concoction with the addition of phosphate buffered saline and other chemicals such as n-octylglucopyranoside, a nonionic detergent used for membrane protein solubilization. The researchers then used EM images to determine that the S protein, designated as the long projection arm of the “virus,” must be reasonably assumed to be used by the “virus” to attach to cells in order to hijack them as it will encounter the cell first…as it is longer.
The S Protein of Bovine Coronavirus Is a Hemagglutinin
Recognizing 9-0-Acetylated Sialic Acid as a Receptor Determinant
“Viruses and cells. Strain L-9 of BCV was obtained from R.Rott (Giessen, Germany). MDCK I cells, a subline of Madin-Darby canine kidney cells, were maintained as described previously (6).
Growth and purification of virus. BCV was grown in MDCK I cells as reported recently (20). Virus was harvested from the supernatant of infected MDCK I cells 48 h postinfection. After clarification of the medium by low-speed centrifugation (2,000 x g, 10 min), virus was sedimented by ultracentrifugation at 112,000 x g for 1 h. The pellet was resuspended in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and layered on a sucrose gradient (5 to 50% [wt/wt] in PBS). After centrifugation at 148,000 x g for 40 min, the virus band was collected, diluted with PBS, and sedimented under the same centrifugation conditions. The virus pellet was resuspended in PBS and used for purification of the viral glycoproteins.
Isolation and purification of viral glycoproteins. Viral glycoproteins were isolated by treatment with n-octylglucopyranoside and purified by sucrose-gradient centrifugation as described recently (21).”
“Because of the efficiency of S
protein in recognizing Neu5,9Ac2-containing receptors, it is reasonable to assume that the primary attachment of these coronaviruses is mediated by S protein rather than by HE. This conclusion is in accord with the electron microscopic observation of the viral glycoproteins. They are visible as a double fringe of projections on the virion surface (4). HE protein, which is smaller in size, forms the inner layer of projections. The peplomers, which are characteristic of coronaviruses, form the outer layer of spikes and are made up of S protein. Thus, whenever a virus particle approaches a cell, the cellular receptors will first encounter S protein. For coronaviruses that lack an HE protein, such as avian infectious bronchitis virus, it has been shown that S is the attachment protein (1). From the results presented here, we propose that attachment of all coronaviruses to cell surfaces is mediated by S protein irrespective of the type of receptors recognized.”
- Evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness and severe disease is expected to become available only when variant-updated vaccines have been introduced into broader use
- In other words, they won’t know how well their vaccine works until enough of the fearful and gullible roll up their sleeves and take the plunge…SCIENCE!!!
- Since the first mRNA vaccines, there has been continuous and substantial “SARS CoV-2 viral” evolution, particularly in the spike (S) protein
- These genomic changes in the “virus” have resulted in several VOC that have circulated in waves, with varying degrees of immune evasion, some of which have resulted in lower VE of existing “COVID-19” vaccines compared to the initial VE against the index “virus”
- The magnitude of the reduction in vaccine effectiveness varies by:
- Disease outcome
- Variant of concern (VOC)
- Time since last dose
- Protection against infection and symptomatic illness due to the Omicron variant is lower than other variants and declines rapidly, even after a third (booster) dose
- Those at highest risk for severe disease, hospitalization, and death remain:
- Older persons
- Those with comorbidities and immunocompromising conditions
- Other vulnerable populations
- In other words, the vaccines have changed absolutely nothing as the 99% of the people who were not at risk are still not and those who were at risk of disease remain so
- According to the CDC, mRNA vaccines use mRNA created in a laboratory to teach our cells (because the body is apparently stupid) how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies
- That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what helps protect us from getting sick from that germ in the future (except that it doesn’t and people still get sick after “infection”)
- The process is outlined as such:
- After vaccination, the mRNA will enter the muscle cells and once inside, they use the cells’ machinery to produce a harmless piece of what is called the spike protein
- After the protein piece is made, our cells break down the mRNA and remove it (which is assumed but never observed)
- Next, our cells display the spike protein piece on their surface and our immune system recognizes that the protein does not belong there
- At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to help protect against future infection with the “virus that causes COVID-19” (except that it doesn’t as vaccinated people are continually “re-infected”)
- Any side effects from getting the vaccine are normal signs the body is building protection (i.e. side effects are a normal sign that the body has been poisoned and is working to rid itself of the poison)
- “Coronaviruses” are frequently claimed to have a characteristic morphology, including the possession of a “club-shaped” surface projection or spike (S) glycoprotein
- However, in common with other aspects of the “coronaviruses,” the group exhibits variation with respect to the shape, size, and distribution of the S protein on the “virion” surface
- Dimensions of S vary not only among the “coronaviruses” but also depending on the staining procedure
- Purification of the S protein of MHV, IBV, HCV strain 229E, bovine “coronavirus” (BCV), and porcine hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis “virus” (HEV) was said to be achieved using a combination of nonionic detergent and sucrose gradient centrifugation and by affinity chromatography
- In the initial spike protein purification/isolation paper from 1980 listed by David Cavanagh, we can see:
- The reasons for the apparent diversity in the polypeptide patterns of “coronaviruses” are not fully understood
- Differences in technique and imperfect discrimination of “virion” polypeptides from those of host origin may account for some of the disparities
- However, even when the same gel systems and conditions are employed in the same laboratory, significant differences in the number and size of ‘virion” polypeptides of different “coronavirus” strains have been observed
- A spontaneously transformed derivative of the BALB/c 3T3 cell line, designated 17 Cl 1, and the L2 derivation of the L929 cell line were grown in Dulbecco medium supplemented with 10% unheated fetal bovine serum, penicillin (100 U/ml), and streptomycin (100 ,ug/ml)
- The A59. strain of mouse hepatitis “virus” was produced in 17 Cl 1 cells
- 17 Cl 1 cell monolayers in glass roller bottles were inoculated with A59 “virus” at a multiplicity of 1 to 10 PFU/cell and after an adsorption period of 1 h at 37°C, 50 ml of Eagle minimal essential medium with 10% unheated fetal bovine serum was added to each roller bottle and the cells were incubated at 37°C
- Released “virus” was usually harvested 24 to 26 h after inoculation, after several cycles of infection, when high yields were obtained and well before significant amounts of cytopathic changes such as cell fusion or lysis had occurred (i.e. they did not look for the required CPE/lysis to identify if any “virus” was present as it was assumed to be in there)
- The “virus” was precipitated by the addition of 5.0 g of NaCl per 150 ml of clarified supernatant followed by a half volume of 30% polyethylene glycol to give a final concentration of 10% polyethylene glycol and 2.2% NaCl
- After multiple centrifugation steps using various chemicals, radiolabeled compounds were added to the medium in final concentration of 2 to 4 uCi of L-3H-amino acid mixture, or [5-3H]uridine per ml, 3 uCi of [6-3H]fucose per ml, and 1 to 4 uCi of [35S]methionine per ml
- “Purified virions” from three or fewer roller bottles were usually pelleted and resuspended in 1 to 2 ml of TMEN 6 buffer at 4°C
- NP40, kindly provided by Shell, Inc., was added to a final concentration of 0.25 to 1%, and the mixture was shaken vigorously by hand at least 20 times
- The detergent-treated “virions” were then layered at 4°C over 15 to 50% sucrose gradients in TMEN 6 buffer containing 0.1% NP40 or at 10°C over 30 to 75% sucrose gradients in TMEN 6 buffer containing 0.1% NP40
- Continuous 20 to 50% gradients of Renografin-76 containing 0.1% NP40 were employed for dissociation of nucleocapsid complexes
- For gel electrophoresis used to separate the proteins, each well was loaded with approximately 40 ul of a radiolabeled sample which had been heated to 37°C for 15 min with an equal volume of sample treatment mixture composed of 6 M urea, 4% SDS, 0.05% bromophenol blue in 0.0625 M Tris-chloride, pH 6.7
- Gels were run at 125 V for about 4 h under constant voltage from a Savant power supply
- Gels were impregnated with PPO (2,5-diphenyloxazole; Sigma) in dimethyl sulfoxide by the method of Bonner and Laskey, dried with a Savant gel drier onto Whatman no. 17 chromatography paper, exposed to Kodak XR-5 film at -70°C for 1 to 4 weeks, and developed with Kodak X-ray chemicals
- “Purified, concentrated A59 virus” was disrupted with 1% NP40 and frozen at -75°C in aliquots
- A 0.1-ml amount of the “virus” preparation was inoculated with complete Freund adjuvant into rabbit footpads, followed after 2 weeks with a second footpad injection of an additional 0.1 ml with incomplete Freund adjuvant (Difco) and 1 week later by an intravenous injection of another 0.4 ml of detergent-treated “virus”
- “There are two types of Freund’s adjuvant: complete and incomplete. Complete Freund’s Adjuvant, or CFA, is a water in oil emulsion, which also contains inactivated mycobacteria (Mycobacterium tuberculosis is most frequently used). Incomplete Freund’s Adjuvant, or IFA, is the same water in oil emulsion, but does not contain the mycobacteria pathogen.” https://prosci-services.com/antibody-development-guide/freunds-adjuvant/
- After the third injection, rabbits were bled from the ear at 1-week intervals for 1 month
- For immunoprecipitates of radiolabeled “viral” polypeptides, a 25-ul amount of rabbit serum was incubated with 25 to 200 ul of radiolabeled sample in phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.1% NP40 at 0°C for 1 h
- Antigen-antibody complexes and antibody were precipitated with an excess of purified, Formalin-fixed staphylococci (Cowan 1 strain) for 10 min at 4°C, pelleted at 3,000 rpm for 10 min, washed three times in 1 ml of 0.05% NP40 with phosphate-buffered saline and then solubilized in sample treatment mixture by boiling for 1 min or treatment at 37°C for 15-30 min
- Do not feel bad if much of the previous outline went over your head as it is shared in order to show the numerous procedures, manipulations, and alterations the sample must go through to get the desired result
- In the 1981 purification study, the “virus” once again was a creation from the cell culture process:
- MHV3 was grown in confluent secondary mouse embryonic fibroblasts
- Monolayers were infected at an input multiplicity of 0.1 infectious particles per cell and following an adsorption period of 1.5 hours at 37 ° C, were incubated for 72 hours at 37 ° C in Eagle’s MEM with 2 percent foetal calf serum
- Aliquots of this “virus” suspension were stored at –70°C and used for the preparation of “purified virus” particles and subcomponents
- The “virus” was pelleted at 75,000 × g for 1 hour and then resuspended in 1 ml Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline “A” (PBSA)
- In the 1983 study, the “virus” is another cell-cultured creation:
- The “virus” was grown in the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) cells of de-embryonated chicken eggs
- It is stated that there is less agreement on the composition of the S protein
- The presumptive S polypeptides of all “coronaviruses” examined were said to have mol. wt. greater than that of the N polypeptide
- Radiolabelled IBV-M41 was prepared in pairs of de-embryonated eggs; each egg received 125 uCi [35S]methionine (sp. act. > 800 Ci/mmol) or [35S]methionine plus 165 uCi of a mixture of 15 3H-labelled amino acids
- Unlabelled “virus” was grown in batches of 200 11-day-old embryonated eggs which were inoculated with approx. 3-5 log10 median ciliostatic dose50 of IBV-M41
- After centrifugation, the pellet was resuspended in NET buffer (100 mM- NaC1, 1 mM-EDTA, 10 mM-Tris-HCl pH 7.4) to a vol. of 20 ml and sonicated at maximum amplitude for 10 s with the 3 mm probe of an MSE ultrasonic disintegrator
- Unlabelled markers used were phosphorylase b, bovine serum albumin and carbonic anhydrase; some phosphorylase was pre-stained with Drimarine brilliant blue K-BL and the apparent mol. wt. was 110K
- These studies were said to show that the peplomers of IBV comprise two glycopolypeptides of 90K and 84K in equimolar proportion while the polypeptides of 110K and 75K, variably detected in “virus” preparations, are probably host polypeptides (in other words, they could not separate out the host material)
- In 1985, a study was done attempting to purify cell cultured “virus” by way of affinity chromatography:
- The Massachusetts M41 strain of IBV was grown in the allantoic cavities of 11-day-old embryonated chicken eggs and “purified” on isopycnic sucrose gradients as described by Cavanagh (1981)
- ‘Purified virus” was pelleted in a 6 X 14 ml rotor at 70,000 X g for 3 h at 4°C and resuspended iphosphate-buffered saline (PBS)
- An equal volume of PBS containing 4% (wt./vol.) NP40 was added, mixed using a Dounce homogeniser and incubated for 2 h at 25°C
- The immunoadsorbent was stored in PBS containing 0.2% NaN3 at 4°C until used
- It was washed twice with 3 M NH4SCN in PBS containing 0.1% octylglucoside, four times with PBS and twice with PBS containing 2% NP40 before use
- The solubilised “virus” preparation was mixed with the immunoadsorbent for 16 h at 4°C using a rotary stirrer
- The gel was poured into a chromatography column and washed with PBS containing 0.1% NP40 (40 ml) and PBS containing 0.1% octylglucoside (10 ml)
- 3 M NH,SCN in PBS containing 0.1% octylglucoside was added and 10 fractions of 1 ml collected
- Those fractions from gel electrophoresis containing detectable “viral” protein were pooled and constituted the “purified” protein preparation
- There were other stained bands present, but these are artifacts sometimes observed, even in the absence of protein, with this staining procedure
- This paper describes the application of affinity chromatography using monoclonal antibodies for the “purification” of the two “viral” structural proteins present at the surface of the IB “virion” – spike and membrane
- IBV was solubilised in NP40 detergent and centrifuged in a sucrose gradient containing this detergent in order to “purify” the nucleocapsid protein
- The addition of 1 M NaCI to the sucrose solutions was required for the “purification” of the spike and membrane proteins, as they co-migrated in gradients containing low salt concentrations
- However, the nucleocapsid protein could not be purified in gradients containing high salt concentrations
- In other studies (Cavanagh, 1984) “purified” spike material contained some nucleocapsid protein and the membrane preparation contained other proteins which were thought to be of cellular origin
- It is stated that there are a number of advantages in using affinity chromatography and that by making use of the specificity of the antibody pure material can be isolated, even from a crude mixture of proteins
- In other words, they used theoretical entities to stain the proteins and claimed those were the ones they wanted from within a crude mixture of other proteins…i.e. not purified/isolated at all
- In the first of two studies from 1990, we again get a cell cultured “virus” grown in DBT cells, a mouse brain tumor cells transformed by Rous Sarcoma “virus:”
- The A59 strain of MHV (MHV-A59), obtained from the American Type Culture Collection, was plaque-purified twice and passaged four times at a multiplicity of infection (MOl) of O.Ol on DBT cells
- “Virus” was produced as described previously in culture medium containing 1 % (v/v) FCS (fetal calf serum)
- Cell debris were pelleted and “virus” concentrated by precipitation with 10% (w/v) polyethyleneglycol in O.S M NaCl
- “Viral” antigens were resuspended and dialyzed against TMEN buffer (0.1 M Tris-acid-maleate, pH 6.2, 0.1 M NaC!, 1 mM EDTA), and kept at -70°C until used
- In some experiments, “virus” was labeled by adding 4 mCi of [3SS]methionine to culture medium at 6 hrs post-infection
- For affinity chromatography, concentrated “virus” was solubilized with 2% (v/v) Nonidet P-40 (NP-40) for 2 hrs at room temperature (RT), and soluble proteins were mixed with the 7-lOA-Sepharose gel and incubated end-over-end for 16 hrs at 4°C
- The gel specificity was determined by immunoadsorption of radiolabeled antigen, extensive washing with 0.1 % (v/v) NP-40 (in 0.2 M phosphate buffer, pH 6.2, 0.1 M NaC!, 1mM EDTA), and elution of adsorbed proteins into electrophoresis sample buffer
- Fractions containing “purified” E2/S were pooled and used for immunological studies
- The E2/S glycoprotein used for immunogenicity studies was “purified” from “viral” antigens concentrated from 1.8 liters of culture medium from MHV -A59-infected DBT cells
- The dimeric and monomeric forms of E2/S were “purified” without detectable contamination from other “viral” proteins, however, a contaminant which was probably of cellular origin, was reproducibly observed
- In the second study from 1990, the nose swab from a pig was grown in MDCK cells from a dog:
- “Purified” HEV was incubated with 3H- DFP for 30 min at 4°C and then analyzed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
- Following staining with Coomassie Brilliant Blue the “viral” proteins N, M, S, and HE became visible
- In order to isolate the esterase of HEV from the “viral” membrane, “purified virions” were treated with 1% octylglucoside (OG)
- The nucleocapsid as well as the M-protein were pelleted by centrifugation for 30 min at 25.000 x g and the glycoproteins remaining in the supernatant (S and HE) were loaded onto a 10-30% sucrose gradient in PBS containing 1% OG
- Following centrifugation at 42.000 rpm for 16 h in SW55 rotor, fractions were collected from the bottom of the tube and analyzed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
- S-protein was said to be detected in fraction 3, while most of HE was recovered from fraction 6
- In the last study from 1991, BCV was cultured and grown in MDCK I cells, a subline of Madin-Darby canine kidney cells:
- “Virus” was harvested from the supernatant of infected MDCK I cells 48 h postinfection
- After clarification of the medium by low-speed centrifugation (2,000 x g, 10 min), “virus” was sedimented by ultracentrifugation at 112,000 x g for 1 h and the pellet was resuspended in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and layered on a sucrose gradient (5 to 50% [wt/wt] in PBS)
- After centrifugation at 148,000 x g for 40 min, the assumed “virus” band was collected, diluted with PBS, and sedimented under the same centrifugation conditions
- The “virus” pellet was resuspended in PBS and used for purification of the “viral” glycoproteins
- “Viral” glycoproteins were isolated by treatment with n-octylglucopyranoside and “purified” by sucrose-gradient centrifugation
- The researchers state that because of the efficiency of S protein in recognizing Neu5,9Ac2-containing receptors, it is reasonable to assume that the primary attachment of these “coronaviruses” is mediated by S protein rather than by HE
- This conclusion was in accord with the electron microscopic observation of the “viral” glycoproteins
- In other words, because the S protein was said to be the longer spikes in the EM images, it can be assumed to be used to attach to cells to infect them
- Thus, whenever a “virus” particle approaches a cell, the cellular receptors will first encounter S protein
- From the results presented here, they proposed that the attachment of all “coronaviruses” to cell surfaces is mediated by S protein irrespective of the type of receptors recognized
How far away removed from reality does a substance need to get before any information gained from it becomes utterly meaningless? In the case of any biological sample, is it the moment the fluid is removed from the living organism in order to be studied in a lab under artificial conditions? Is it the moment that the sample is subjected to unnatural chemicals claimed to keep it alive? Is it when the sample is mixed with foreign genetic materials from other species which it would never come into contact with inside the living organism? Is it when the sample is subjected to unnatural g-forces it would never encounter as it is spun numerous times through ultracentrifugation in order to separate its components? Is it the moment the sample is chemically fixed, dehydrated with ethanol, stained with heavy metals, encased in resin, and blasted with electrons? Or is it the moment the sample is added to a gel and electrocuted for 4 hours until the particles are said to separate? At what point does the biological sample lose itself and become nothing but an illustration in a book?
Concerning the “virus” and its assumed subcomponents including the S protein, the invisible particles are subjected to numerous processes that damage and alter the sample in unmeasurable ways. These include but are not limited to:
- The artificial chemicals and conditions encountered during cell culturing the supposed “virus”
- The unnatural forces applied to the sample during any purification procedures
- The various altercations done during electron microscopy preparation
- The high voltages the sample is subjected to during gel electrophoresis
If you do not think that these processes would damage and alter the biological sample with the assumed “virus” beyond recognition to the point that it loses all biological relevance, you obviously do not know how soap is said to destroy “virus” particles and need to take 2 minutes out of your day to watch the short clip below:
Now that you know how hand soap completely destroys the “virus” from this beautifully animated clip, ask yourself how the “virus” and its subcomponents, including the spike protein, supposedly survive the bombardment of added chemicals, compounds, forces, etc. in order to be studied. How do the remnants of particles left after these processes hold any significance to what goes on inside a living organism? How can the assumed “viral” particles within a mixed sample containing foreign genetic material from numerous sources, which are then broken into many smaller intermixed particles of the same size, density, and shape, even be claimed to be coming from the same “viral” source?
It’s a 100% guarantee that any living organism would not survive nor remain in the same state it was in if put through similar procedures that these “viral” samples are subjected to. Once you realize this, and once you know that the researchers have admitted numerous times that the current technology not only damages the materials but can also not purify and isolate particles of the same size, shape, and density away from each other, it becomes clear that any information gleaned from these heavily altered and mixed populations hold no significance whatsoever. At best, the particles created serve only as an illustration. A work of twisted art created in a lab. The picture used to sell the story, the fear, and the vaccine. The “coronavirus” and the “spike protein” are just the latest marketing mascots successfully utilized for yet another profitable fear campaign.
Hype the narrative, investors follow when they see a profit, captured stakeholders wont challenge the mutating narrative of their investments that also run cover story against culpability for harms. mRNA supposedly needs to penetrate the cell’s protective boundary – hence the application of hydrogels containing nanoparticles that self organise within our biofield to operate somewhat like the original theme of an external hijacking of our body…
One fact is clear to me; if a weapon is believed to exist, it doesn’t actually have to exist, for the mind to react as if it does and suffer its own reactions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely. The mental aspect is very damaging. Couple that with toxic pharmaceuticals/vaccines and it is a recipe for disaster. They have run a very successful fear campaign psyop.
Indeed, this is like 9/11 without the WTC or Pentagon events, completely media-induced panic leading to deeply embedded fear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That the virus has no 3 dimensional presence in the real world is now obvious.
We fear an invasion of mutant killer unicorns.
It does seem the so-called “vaccine” has very real toxic effects.
We are required to believe in the existence of the nonexistent,
and to make nonexistent the obviously existent vaccine damage.
Our lives play out within narratives. Time to question everything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“𝑁𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 ℎ𝑜𝑤 ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑎𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑦𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 “𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑢𝑠” 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠…𝑎𝑠𝑘 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑒 “𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑢𝑠” 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛, 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑙𝑦 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑠, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠, 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠, 𝑒𝑡𝑐. 𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑑”
Chuckle! I would have put this question at the top of your article as it succinctly makes the point you have been hammering away on with all your articles. Keep hammering away Mike. Miracles may happen yet, the covid zombies and sheep have to wake up some time.
Thanks Mike. Another in-depth article.
From a recent interview with Dr Lanka.
Spike Protein and AC2 receptor
At minute approx. 1hr 18 min 45 sec. ( German)https://www.bitchute.com/video/494eQLlXcxHC/
Rough translation/ interpretation .
We observe artefacts under EM.
The spike protein that they claim and you have people like Bhakti who cause unnecessary fear , fear of death, claiming they are living time-bombs.
There is no viral spike protein or ACE 2 receptor.
The spike protein is in reality an enzyme .
It is found in highest concentration the placenta , in the phase when the seed impregnates the placenta.
Something similar based on the nucleic acid of that protein, the virologist integrated as spike protein when they constructed the coronavirus.
And the ACE2 receptor ?
ACE 2 receptor does not exist – see Harold Hillman videos on youtube ther are no receptors.
They have taken the ACE2 enzyme *as a receptor .
It was a women who discovered ACE2 and Pfizer bought her to keep her quiet.
The virologist use this ACE2 enzyme which , same as ACE 1 , plays a role in BP but it does not even express itself in the lung.
She figured that out but she was paid well by Pfizer so kept quiet.*
It was in 2003 that the virologist used a protein that exist in reality as they could take it out of cell cultures and claimed it was the receptor. And unluckily they took the AC2 that is never expressed in the lung.
Does the AC2 receptor exists in other cells?
AC2 is an enzyme that plays and important role in BP regulation and in others function .
ACE we know ,ACE 2 plays a role in form of an isomer.
( “Isomers are molecules with the same molecular formulas, but different arrangements of atoms. “ https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_Kentucky/UK%3A_CHE_103_- _Chemistry_for_Allied_Health_(Soult)/Chapters/Chapter_5%3A_Properties_of_Compo unds/5.1%3A_Isomers
That was misused by the virologist to give the corona a receptor that was needed for the model. But stupidly, it was the Chinese who had no idea what the others were doing .
There are too many test tube shakers.
Today , they do not even do it in the lab , it is more in vitro, in silico , on computers. They used an enzyme that exists in reality , same as with the spike protein.
And now you have studies saying that Bhakti is correct , we now find by the jabbed the RNA from spike protein. But those you can find in anyone including the ‘non- vaccinated ‘.
Meanwhile Bhakti suppresses the fact that is even available in main stream science , in MIT literature that these are complete artefact.
(* “ Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) is well known for its dual actions to convert inactive Ang I to active Ang II, and degrades active bradykinin (BK), which plays an important role in controlling blood pressure. “
A detailed account of ACE1 and ACE2 enzyme –https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/angiotensin-converting-enzyme-ace-inhibitors-and- angiotensin-receptor-blockers-in-covid-19/
So it seems somehow the enzyme was turned into a receptor to fit the fabricated model
Q-What about the Ribosomes? Do they even exist?
Must read Harold Hillman.
Starting with the ‘70 he showed that the whole cellular biology is false.
The EM ( electron microscope ) pictures are all false, there are no receptors, there is no water inside the cell, etc.
The Ribosomes are supposed to unfold the book of life. There is the famous RNA and that is supposed to get transformed into protein in the ribosome.
Ribosome – translated by Dr Tom Cowan , a genial thinker , recognised that rib -o -soma means , rib of the body ( greek – soma). The idiots used mythology and incorporated it into pseudoscience.
But they have never seen ribosomes in most tissues.
What they see in some tissues Hillman shows with mathematical precision ie. geometry , that what they say can be seen in a cross section should also be seen in other sections and
this does not happen regardless of the angle.*
That is why ribosome , Golgi apparatus, cell membrane are artefacts that are produced at the time when in a high vacuum a completely dry sample embedded in a solution where there are heavy metals as colouring an electron beam hits the sample , it reached a minimum of 600 Grade ( C?) and at that moment that area evaporates. This evaporation leaves marks that are interpreted as reality.
Endoplasmic reticulum ( ER)
‘“ The ER can be classified in two functionally distinct forms: smooth endoplasmic
reticulum (SER) and rough endoplasmic reticulum (RER). The morphological distinction
between the two is the presence of protein-synthesizing particles, called ribosomes, attached to the outer surface of the RER.”https://www.britannica.com/science/endoplasmic-reticulum
*“ Isotropic’ shape of the endoplasmic reticulum:
« … the endoplasmic reticulum seems to be only in the plane of the picture, whenever it can be seen clearly on a micrograph. If it were either a net or a series of flattened sacs, one would expect to see it in a number of orientations, beside that in the plane of the sections. A section would cut portions of the reticulum randomly orientated within a cell. […] It is quite impossible to conceive of a three dimensional object, which can always have the same appearance in two dimensions when section is made of it in any orientation. »https://minorinput.wordpress.com/2021/07/26/the-case-of-the-late-harold-hillman-and-the- problem-of-cellular-structure/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t fkin stand people who:
1) insist the spike is hurting people, assuming as if this mRNA works
2) says it’s graphene or nano devices
Some of the worst offenders are against the jabs, but lack common sense
MODERNA had issues years before convid with their Gene therapy, not because of the genetic stuff, but the LIPID ENCAPSULATION NANOPARTICLES, which are the same or close to the stuff they’re using today.
BTW, same thing with MMR, gardasil, hepB shots… It’s not the “virus” protein that caused sickness, but the chemicals used as preservatives and adjuvants.
Take any of that crap and inject it without mRNA or virus or whatever and you’ll get the same results!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree the lipid nanoparticles and any adjuvants are most likely the main causes of illness from these toxic injections. Everything else related to mRNA is pure science fiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’d need to explain what Dr Robin Wakeling showed Dr Mark Bailey, stuff he filmed via his microscope. See Dr Sam Bailey’s Odysee channel, April 18th. (Pfizer under the microscope). Def not spike protein, but i would certainly not rule out nano devices.
I would rule nanomachines out. Too expensive, way too easy to discover and the vaccines are very widely available, and no need when the same old poison-your-way-to-health boondoggle continues to be the goose the lays the golden eggs for Big Pharma and even the forcible depopulation agenda if that’s a thing. There may be a few that have special items in them for some transhumanist experimentation but they can’t have gone wide due to the ease of being caught out by anyone with a microscope.
I gather that herd immunity is more bs fed into the virus rumor-mill. These medical bozos have an answer for everything and every answer defies logical logic. If all these viruses are so deadly, then how did anyone survive before vaccines? Certainly 100-200 years ago, environmental conditions were much more supportive of deadly “germs” yet humanity flourished.
However, one could argue that environment conditions are now more toxic than ever. I am 100% convinced that mRNA gene therapy injections have only one purpose…to maim and murder. Oh, and to provide monstrous profits for the entire medical mafia.
I am reading a great article by Ashmedai called The Political Weaponization of Medicine on a site called Resisting the Intellectual Illiteratti.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the injections definitely are intended to maim and kill as well as increase profit. There is no value whatsoever, unless you are on the board of directors for Pfizer and Moderna.
Many (probably most) anti-jabs activists feel like they’re getting so much mileage from hyping the spike protein that they may be some of the hardest people to convince that there is no evidence for such a protein, let alone that the shots cause the bodies of the jabbed to create it. Thanks a LOT for this, Mike!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed Jeffrey! Sadly, most accept the spike protein as fact and do not look below the surface to see if it truly was scientifically proven to exist. They parrot what they hear and perpetuate a myth. It is a hard but necessary road to travel trying to show them otherwise.
This article is complicated and it should be because we are dealing with a complex subject that mixes theoretical and factual concepts. And until we have a subject that contains only factual concepts we will not be able to come to a reliable conclusion. Nevertheless, I am going to give an opinion about the subject to the extent that I am able based on my understanding, which may or may not be correct or may be partially correct and is therefore rightly subject to scrutiny and criticism.
The viral particle itself is said to contain spike proteins on its surface. Next, the viral particle is said to enter the cell and release its RNA, which in turn hijacks the ribosome and causes it to produce more viral particles. These newly created particles then escape the cell to move on to penetrate other cells whereby the process is repeated.
In view of this why can’t virologists extract these cells, which have been hijacked and are actively producing viral particles, with spike proteins on their surface, directly from the human host and apply the EM preparation to the extracted material and produce EM micrographs showing the viral particles? Maybe they did try this but were unable to produce viral particles because they don’t exist.
Let me provide an example here to what I think is analogous to the current situation.
On occasion a chess grandmaster will play an amateur and remove a major piece from the board to compensate the amateur for his lack of experience and skill at the game. The grandmaster, like these virologist, know they are starting with a lost position due to their lack of material. The grandmaster knows if he plays passively that he will lose the game to the amateur. So what does he do? He immediately proceeds to complicate the position and wait for the amateur to make an error in judgment, at which point the grandmaster will proceed to gain a decisive advantage and with it win the game.
Our friendly virologists are doing exactly the same thing – they complicate the position by introducing all of these indirect methods with a plethora of complex results in an effort to confound the judgment of those with little knowledge of the game – namely virology, which begins with a lost position due to the absence of material.
Chess grandmasters do not play casual games. They play for money, because this is how they make their living. After all they are professionals at their game. It is the same with the virologist. He too has money riding on the game – a lot of money. He knows he cannot sell his vaccines if viruses are not real. He has to obscure that fact at all costs. So he will continue to complicate the position. That much we can be sure of.
Now let us take an assessment of the position.
1) do cells contain ribosomes?
2) can these ribosomes, if they exist, be programmed by synthetic mRNA to produce spike proteins?
3) are there antibodies and if so do they attack spike proteins if they exist?
3) do the mRNA vaccines in fact have mRNA inside of their lipid nanoparticles?
4) could these nanoparticles be constructed from graphene oxide nanotubes with a polyethylene glycol coating?
5) if so, is it necessary for them to contain mRNA or are they sufficiently cytotoxic to cause cell death with the consequent production of exosomes with surface spike characteristics?
In answer to these questions:
1) we don’t know
2) we don’t know
3) we don’t know
4) it is possible because the technology exists.
5) graphene oxide nanoparticles
are cytotoxic without synthetic mRNA.
Based on analysis of the position it is certainly not necessary that anyone take an mRNA vaccine or any kind of vaccine through an error in judgment.
Up to this point we have taken a secular view of the current situation regarding the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus and the so-called vaccines created to combat it. But since man is a spiritual being we must not neglect to analyze the matter from a spiritual worldview.
The first scripture that came to my mind in regard to this matter was, “God is not mocked, whatsoever a man is sowing that he will also reap.” In other words if viruses are not real and the human body does not function the way virologists claim it functions then their vaccines can do no good. On the contrary, they could do much harm, and may in fact have been designed to do so for nefarious purposes. In view of this it would be foolish to act in ignorance or even in a presumptuous ignorance by trusting in the pseudoscience of virologists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said George! 👏 I completely agree that they overcomplicate the processes as well as the terminology in order to confuse outsiders from looking in. They don’t even want the amateur to play the game. They want the amateur to take one look at the board and immediately turn away.
I agree 100% with your devastating analysis that the “spike protein” component of a hypothetical SARS-COV-2 “virus” hasn’t been proven to exist in nature. However, there are patents for computer models of the spike protein. Dr. Lee Merrit has a compromise position- she’s become a virus skeptic but she also thinks it’s possible a non-infectious “spike protein” bioweapon was manufactured and sprayed in some areas to make people sick. (The vast majority of COVID “cases”, though, were undeniably reclassifications of ordinary illnesses as “COVID” due to the invalid PCR test.)
Keep up the great work!
Having a patent merely means an “expert” in the field reviewed the invention and found it to be a novel and theoretically createable based on their knowledge (beliefs) of what is possible in the field.
Patents mean little until they’re defended in court, and even then it is likely that the complaint in this case would be from a fellow microbiology scientismo so wouldn’t be disputing any of the foundational science. It takes a case like the OMSJ’s or Stefan Lanka’s where a party (and their counsel) are willing and able to challenge the scientific basis for the claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How can something which is “non infectious” make anyone sick? A non-infectious “bio-weapon” is like bullets which burst harmlessly upon hitting the target. Dr Merritt is just clinging on to a “bio-weapon” narrative because she thinks that narrative influences people/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe she means a poisonous toxin, not a viral infection. Spike protein in chemtrails?
Fear is the Bioweapon.
Fear is the bioweapon
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! It sounds like Dr. Merrit is speculating. Patents don’t really prove much of anything as there are many that are submitted and never see the light of day. That being said, I do believe they are poisoning our air. I’m not sure there is any evidence it is something new in the air, however, it is clear our air is being polluted and unclean air will definitely contribute to respiratory disease.
I collated multiple sources to show the pollution aspects were deliberately left out back in 2020, probably good as references.
There were also dust storms galore which continued into 2021 and this year as well, there was so much pollution I really didn’t get back to these pieces to update the events as they happened so they only cover 2020.
The solar aspect of increased nitrogen dioxide smog is very leftfield but also fits the data better than seafood markets in Wuhan
The Bizarre Silence On Pollution 2020
Sandstorms and the Coughing 2020
Are We Blaming The Wrong Thing? Nitrogen Dioxide Coughing
The very high proton levels are rapidly reducing as the sun gets more active but that will get replaced by radiation events from CME’s (:
Pandemics, Solar Flares, Cosmic Rays and Nitric Oxide
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I remember the dust storms and the warnings we got about “haze” from these storns that drifted over from continents away. They always have a good cover story for the pollution. Thanks for the links! I look forward to reading them. 🙂
Omicron is tested for by leaving the spike protein s-gene test off the PCR so it doesn’t have a spike protein if that is the definition? Wasn’t it all a scam to keep the PCR test in the market after it was due to be taken out of sale last New Year?
That means being injected with spike protein mRNA to make antibodies is pointless against Omicron and won’t work and that Omicron is not remotely related to SAR-COV-2.
All looks like gibberish to me, I will leave the links as others might understand better.
‘The number of cases of this variant appears to be increasing in almost all provinces in South Africa. Current SARS-CoV-2 PCR diagnostics continue to detect this variant. Several labs have indicated that for one widely used PCR test, one of the three target genes is not detected (called S gene dropout or S gene target failure) and this test can therefore be used as marker for this variant, pending sequencing confirmation. Using this approach, this variant has been detected at faster rates than previous surges in infection, suggesting that this variant may have a growth advantage.’
Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern
‘After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.’
07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
I also wrote this in 2020 after seeing reports that the spike protein is similar to Syncytin which is a cell fusion piece of RNA which holds cells together. By creating spike proteins from our DNA the expected results should be either cell fusion events such as cancer or immune reactions which could get muddled against Syncytin which is just as problematic.
Retroviruses/Pregnancy and Coronavirus Vaccines
I believe the S gene dropout was a rescue device used to explain away the inaccurate PCR results and to claim more tests, which would have been negative, were positive instead. I did an article on it in the past:
But yes, by their own narrative, this means PCR is not detecting the very protein said to cause infections. It played right into their other rescue device that the spike protein rapidly evolves and leads to variants which evade immunity, thus covering up the ineffectiveness of the vaccines.
They always have their excuses at the ready. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes spot on, commercial adjustments to sell tests, sadly everyone has just gone along with it, if you mention the S-gene drop out people eyes glaze over.
Right at the start of Omicron or Comicron as I call it, this was written by Paul Taylor in South Africa, may interest, ‘he worked as a keyboard player and programmer with artists including Paul McCartney, Bryan Ferry, Bill Withers, the Verve, Texas, and Primal Scream.’ (: https://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/2021/12/the-omicron-variant-deliberately-raising-the-global-state-of-panic/
I really think it was all to keep PCR on the market.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The whole “molecular biology” is based on so-called indirect evidence. The so-called indirect evidence can only tell us, at most, that there is something beyond what we see, that is, in the submicroscopic field. But the so-called indirect evidence does not have the intrinsic power to show us what exists and what happens in the submicroscopic field. The biggest scam related to so-called indirect evidence is so-called electron microscopy. As a scientific fraud, none of the other so-called laboratory techniques used in so-called molecular biology is equal in its efficiency in issuing scams compared to the scam called electron microscopy. In today’s so-called submicroscopic sciences, the combination of fraud called electron microscopy and computer-generated image fraud is wreaking havoc on the minds of the masses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is not a single direct, concrete, real and true proof of the existence of any of the so-called atomic and molecular structures that the so-called human sciences describe in such detail. In reality, all so-called atoms and all so-called molecules are pure inventions, pure fairy tales, pure myths. In fact, the so-called indirect evidence is just stupid nonsense, presented as the highest level of knowledge.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amazing work, Mike. My head is spinning at what they have to do to keep their fairy tales even remotely alive. They are experts at how to force things to create the results they want. It’s just incredible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, they definitely have worked it out to an art form. They overload these papers with many methods and pseudoscientific terminology in order to frustrate, confuse, and confound, IMO. They don’t want outsiders looking behind the curtain. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is so much deception in the so-called submicroscopic sciences that it would take ten infinite lives to unmask them all.
The so-called indirect evidence has no scientific value so that on its basis we can find out how existence is structured in the invisible, submicroscopic field.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I want to know, from so-called researchers in the field of so-called molecular biology, what are the DIRECT evidence (I repeat: DIRECT evidence) of the existence of so-called molecules: amino acids, proteins, 5-carbon sugar, phosphate group, nitrogenous base, nucleic acids, lipids and carbohydrates. (I repeat: DIRECT evidence)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I second this! 😁
What direct evidence do you have that your mother is your mother, your father is your father and — if you’re male and you have them — your children are your children? What direct evidence do you have that “only energy exists?”
You have none, Nike.
Beware of your continuing, hypocritical easy peasy flat earthism that kills your intelligence and washes you out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reante, why must I ask you once again to refrain from ad hominem attacks? If you disagree, do it based on evidence. Stop with the attacks. Some of us prefer that our evidence comes in the form of direct proof and is not based on indirect inferences which can easily lead to inaccurate and fraudulent conclusions. If you prefer circumstantial evidence and inferring conclusions, more power to you. Just because we prefer direct proof does not mean we are less intelligent. That is another logical fallacy on your part.
What exactly is the ad hominem, Mike? Exactly where did my hard, descriptive, argumentation become ad hominem?
As hominems have no argumentation accompanying them.
Personal criticism is not in and of itself as hominem. Know that you are misrepresenting that particular logical fallacy.
Adults should be able to stomach valid personal criticisms and feel free to endeavor to invalidate the criticism and let the chips fall where they may. That’s the free marketplace of ideas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.”
“Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.”
You are directing your argument at the person and roping in flat earth, which is irrelevant, rather than basing your argument on the validity of direct vs. indirect evidence. You are attempting to discredit without presenting any valid evidence against Nike’s position.
Wrong, Mike. I presented numerous reason-based counterexamples (evidence) that clearly highlighted Nike’s hypocritical and unrealistic requirements for ‘direct’ evidence and thereby excluding myself from the content less criticism that defines ad hominem territory, and then proceeded to upbraid Nike for being intellectuallly destructive, because destructiveness should be criticized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Asking for direct evidence that Nike’s mom is his mom or his children would be his are not valid counterexamples.
Of course they are. Nike’s standard of verification is five-sense experience. He has no five-sense direct evidence that they are biological family. Resemblance is not direct evidence. Proximity is not direct evidence.
We are discussing direct vs indirect evidence regarding invisible particles and theoretical processes ascribed to them. One can easily determine who their biological parents and their own children are by many means of evidence. This has nothing to do with unobservable phenomena.
Genesis is an unobservable phenomenon.
And your point?
Checkmate is my point Mike though I know we’re not looking at the same board.
You think throwing out Genesis, something you rightly admit is entirely an unobservable phenoma (or story), is checkmate? Please expand on how this helps you win your argument. I’m all ears.
Oh brother. Then let’s backtrack. What are the many means of direct scientific evidence of biological paternity?
I didn’t say many means of direct evidence. We do not always need direct evidence when dealing with people who are known to exist. However, direct evidence is absolutely needed for something never shown to exist (i.e. “viruses,” exosomes, antibodies, DNA, Santa Claus, unicorns, etc.) and can not be studied directly.
In any case, seeing the baby come from the womb of the mother is pretty direct evidence the baby is hers. Being in the delivery room and observing the birth is also direct proof.
Red herring. The holographs (‘people’) are known to exist but we’re talking about the biological/ancestral relationship between holographs.
Red herring #2: I only included paternal considerations for a reason.
You are making up you own criteria.
1. There is no evidence that the things you believe to be true (DNA, exosomes, etc) have any relation whatsoever to biological processes within a living being. That is the main problem.
2. What was your reason? As i stated, it is pretty easy to directly verify biological parents.
I’m not making up anything that Reason does not itself ‘make up.’ if you say I’m wrong about that then back it up with Reason.
1. DNA and exosomes are true insofar as they are reason-based (cumulative observation of cause and effect plus patterning) object modelings of holographic biology, until reasonably proven otherwise. You cannot see that because you have not achieved the patterning level required, because you fear loss. And that’s okay. Most people do.
2. How can you directly, scientifically verify that you are the biological father of your child/children, Mike? The answer is you can’t. You pattern that verification.
1. Where was the scientific method applied to DNA and exosomes? Please share any study that adhered to the scientific method using a valid isolated independent variable proven to exist.
2. I know my child is mine as, like most fathers, I was there for his conception and his birth.
1. Plus patterning.
2. You didn’t see his conception so you don’t directly know if you conceived him. But the pattern obviously fits that you did.
Again – you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
1. You evaded my request as usual.
2. I was there for his conception and I was there for his birth. I am a direct witness to and active participant in these events. You need to look at examples of direct evidence again.
1. You are projecting your evasions onto me.
2. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt. The timing of conception is unobservable. Unless you never left your wife’s side for the whole week that best correlates with when you guys discovered she was pregnant, you do not know if you were the only active participant; you can only pattern that you were.
That level of patterning is the level required for you to let go of your intellectual nihilism. And it’s not a level that’s out of your reach by any means because your an intelligent man. You’re just settling for a nihilistic ‘terrain’ subculture. Subcultures are how civilization controls people by channeling/co-opting their Dunbarian hard-wiring (tribalism) into a false sense of belonging. People (‘sheeple’) go through life moving from one social clique to another until hopefully they find one they can stick with. And the clique becomes more important to them than the truth of Reason.
True, unco-opted tribal whole-culture is our native, long-term survival structure. It has nothing to do with truth in and of itself. Elders, seers, shamans, leaders – they were the fundamental vehicles for the truth that demanded accountability to the truth as told by cause and effect in the ecology. If they didn’t then the culture was in danger of not persisting. Cliques/subcultures, on the other hand, have nothing to do with long-term survival and therefore they care too little for the truth. They’re just playgrounds for permanent adolescence.
1. No, I asked you for scientific evidence which you have not provided. Only excuses as usual.
2. I know my wife is faithful. It is not in doubt. Thus, we have two direct witnesses to the fact that I am my son’s biological father. That coupled with everything else I’ve stated is DIRECT evidence. Again, refer to the definition and examples of direct evidence:
“Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, SUCH AS TESTIMONY BY A WITNESS ABOUT WHAT THAT WITNESS PERSONALLY SAW OR HEARD OR DID. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.”
Thanks for the conversation:)
What direct evidence do you have that your mother is your mother, your father is your father and — if you’re male and you have them — your children are your children? What direct evidence do you have that “only energy exists?”
You have none, Nike.
Beware of your continuing, hypocritical easy peasy flat earthism that kills your intelligence and washes you out.
In the section, “In Summary,” second point down, it says “in other wprds …” Just in case you wanna correct that.
After reading your articles, I’m normally at a loss. To see the same method used, but the lack of insight into the inherent fallacy in the method … The blind obedience to such foolishness, noting down the numbers and chemical names, as if they add validity to a logical fallacy, blows my mind. I understand that, for the most, the common pleb is stupid. But for the writers of these papers who write in lengthy paragraphs with arcane language, and those who actually (or allegedly) perform the methods, who should use these weird chemicals and forms of apparatus, who could be believed to have intelligence (or maybe an ability to copy various complicated routines), it just blows my mind, in a way, that these people are so committed to the asinine that they still perform like trained monkeys. I guess I still have the programming that these technicians and writers, so-called scientists, are different to the common pleb when it is clear that they are not.
Thanx for continuing to fracture my sanity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol, you are most welcome 😉
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/spikes-and-knobs my shorter version!
The control opposites keep acting like virus is a real thing and talk about the danger of “spike protein” when one is vaccinated. This world is filled with Freemanson lies. The ball earth lie is the mother of all lies. NASA is a hoax same with “virology”. Dinosaur never existed. Nuclear weapons do not exist. Giant humans existed. All mountains are chopped off tree trunks. Our entire history of humankind is all rewritten by Freemansons. They have run this world for a very long time and they won’t stop. We know some of their agendas, like lgbt, climate change, veganism, etc. but we don’t know what their real goal is. They care about neither the humans nor the earth. If they cared for the earth they would not do chemtrails. Maybe they simply just want to destroy anything that God created. I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist but look up the things I mentioned and see for yourself.
Hi Mike, I saw somewhere you noted there’s no vax shedding. Sorry if I didn’t find a whole article to read.
Here this excellent article: International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(2), September 3, 2022 Page 468 it says van Welbergen draws attention to the bloodwork of “unvaccinated” children as young as three years old, claiming that shedding from the “vaccinated” has caused significant deterioration. For example, these images allegedly from the blood of an “unvaccinated” 3-year-old appears to show GO artefacts surrounded by damaged RBCs.
The article also says this is the only evidence of contamination of “unvaccinated” blood presented in this article; other researchers find healthy looking blood in “unvaccinated” patients. So, one wonders if van Welbergen is mistaken.
So, is the possibility of shedding still “unknown”?
I am not sure how that would be considered proof of shedding. There could be many reasons the 3-year olds blood has deterioration. I will have to take a look at the study. Thanks for sharing! 👍
True it’s not proof, but there is also no study of disproof that I know of.
It would be very difficult to prove or disprove shedding without a trial of persons on different vax shot numbers and over X no of months post shot sneezing into a closed cage with rats and testing the rats blood over some different time periods. That would be close to a proof if positive, but not a definitive no-proof if negative (ie, it wouldn’t test long-term close relations, or skin shedding unless skin scrapes were sprayed into cages, intrauterine transfer, etc).
A rat to rat study could also be done, that might test excrement exchange as well-I don’t know about graphene in human excrement from shots has been studied. If you can’t find the study email me as I have a pdf (that journal has changed the URLs around, no surprise).
Reblogged this on BertieS.
LikeLiked by 1 person