Part 3 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
In this installment, I address a sub-topic related to viruses and vaccines. For the purpose of this analysis, I will not debate whether a virus has been properly purified and isolated (see this compilation of FOIs and responses on SARS-CoV-2 isolation, last updated on February 7, 2021), or whether a virus is a “virus,” or an exosome, or some other phage-like entity. If you want to explore this, see this January 2021 discussion with Dr. Thomas Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman, which was facilitated by Derrick Broze, of The Conscious Resistance. Additionally, to consider an alternative perspective that questions traditional viral contagion, see The Contagion Myth, by Dr. Thomas Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell. For an enhanced understanding of mRNA vaccine methodology, listen to Tom Cowan’s recent explanation (and for a juxtaposed mainstream position, see Endnote 1). Dr. Cowan reminds viewers that Moderna did not require a physical sample isolate of a virus to manufacture their vaccine, as directly claimed by its developers.
When reading my exploratory essay, below are questions readers may want to reflect upon:
- Can a self-spreading vaccine be mistaken as a self-spreading infectious virus (a curious case of stolen identity)?
- Why would a self-spreading vaccine be used to mimic a virus?
- What could questions #1 and #2 have to do with digitalization and virtualization?
- If there was a situation in which non-consensual vaccination were to be intentionally utilized among the human population (as it has in animal populations), should there be an opportunity beforehand for public discourse to discuss the ethical issues?
Before delving into my presentation, it may help to consider that some reported epidemics, including the 1918 Influenza epidemic, may have had an iatrogenic cause (unconfirmed by mainstream allopathic scientists), as opposed to a true, wild-type source of contagion.
Along the lines of this iatrogenic hypothetical premise, I am proposing an alternative framework of contagion within the context of a purported pandemic— which may initially appear to be paradoxical. Accordingly, can a transmissible physical agent (a biomarker, such as an antigen) be spread throughout the global population via a recombinant vaccine-based vector (such as an influenza vaccine), along with a virtual agent (being called a virus) that mirrors the physical biomarker (which has been “tagged” to enable traceability) to reflect its movement through said population? Please note that I have not referred to this biomarker as a pathogen, nor infectious (in ways previously taught in school/medical school). Also, when I consider that a vaccine may be transmissible (AKA “contagious”), I am NOT referring to the “shedding of a virus,” NOR am I referring to “gain-of-function” research (see Endnote 2). Contrary to the concept of gain-of-function studies, there are studies (see here, here, and here) indicating that self-spreading vaccines may involve the application of synthetic biology and genetic engineering (including recombination) methods to enable the transmissible vaccines to be LESS virulent, with “subdued” effects in its serial transfer among a population. Lastly, within my hypothetical framework, I am NOT implying that previously identified influenza cases would be re-categorized as a novel infectious disease, although it does not rule out that possibility. In fact, my theory could potentially offer an alternative explanation to the seeming disappearance of a reportedly common infectious disease, such as the flu.
So what then could I be talking about? Let’s drill down a bit.
In the July 10, 2020 video (see below), to launch the book, Aftershocks and Opportunities: Scenarios for a Post-Pandemic Future, award-winning television and radio producer, Jerry Edling (also a speaker for the World Future Society, the National Space Society, and the Berlin International Freedom of Expression Forum), presented his take on the current pandemic and the ensuing “medical enlightenment.”
Beginning around the 5-minute time stamp, Edling described the alleged function of traditional vaccines for viruses, and then spoke about the new version of “vaccines” (emphasis added):
“A more recent way is the so-called RNA vaccine involving the code for the development of the virus. So what you would do is you would take the messenger RNA code for a particular virus, such as the one for COVID-19, introduce it to the body, and an antigen is created in the body of that particular virus, and then the body, in turn, creates the antibodies to that virus. So that’s the later one and the advantage of RNA vaccines is they can be digitized.”
“Now a couple of other developments in vaccinating people, a couple of areas of research . . . Number one, a quite active area right now is the area of harvesting the plasma of people who have already had COVID-19, and . . . have already recovered from it. And . . . taking that plasma and introduce it into other aspects of the population, so you . . . inject it into healthy volunteers and they, in turn, spread that to the community. A similar development is the study of the so-called self-spreading vaccine. And this kind of research is being done at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in the U.S., as well as elsewhere. And basically the term I like . . . this is not original, but well yeah, this one is original . . . is it’s sort of an ‘epidemic of antibodies’ that would be created. And self-spreading vaccines would . . . spread the vaccine sort of like pathogens. So again, you have vaccines that spread rapidly in a community, and you don’t have to individually vaccinate everybody. So this, so what I’m thinking is one of these two techniques could be combined into an epidemic event of antibodies, and could rapidly create this herd immunity that we’re all striving for. Well, it opens up a couple of ironic possibilities down the road. If we had these techniques perfected, we could do things like have movie screenings to which select people are invited, and spread the vaccine that way, or have restaurants open later into a pandemic and encourage people to self-congregate as opposed to isolate. And develop the immunity to the vaccines that way, or the immunity to the viruses that way. And so it opens up a number of interesting possibilities.”
Edling went on to explain the process of 3D printing manufacturing hubs for automobiles that may be coming in the near future. He elaborated that these automobiles would be custom fabricated at each of these local hubs. Comparing this process to public health, he stated, “You could take an RNA vaccine distributed in the network. It could be digitized and then you use a device which is currently in development called the digital to biological converter. And that converter could take this RNA code and download it and make it into a vaccine using synthetic biology. And that, again, could be distributed all over the world. So you could have what I call . . . RRIs – Rapid Response Immunizations. And even the poorest countries, you could have these regional manufacturing hubs located in. So that would solve some of the problem of distributing a vaccine, and we could do it for a number of different diseases, or whatever pandemic came up” (see Endnote 3).
Edling concluded his presentation with a brief discussion of a digital immune system (see Endnote 4): “It could actually lead to the development of a synthetic immune system. That would involve a little bit of big data . . . You could take the individual’s immune system and his or her responses to various diseases and digitize that into an individual’s database. Then use that database to create a vaccine to all these diseases that’s customized to the individual. It’s customized in the sense that it’s individualized based on that individual’s immune response. But it’s also a sort of universal vaccine because it would use breakthroughs in the discoveries of cures for these diseases to then rapidly immunize populations.”
So, do you think that self-spreading vaccines only exist in the future? Once I opened up the Pandora’s box of self-spreading vaccines, I discovered there was a good deal of research on them, and they have already been implemented in animal subjects (both wild and domesticated), in addition to reportedly being utilized as one component in a covert biological warfare program on non-consenting human subjects (see this April 2008 report in Endeavor, “Project Coast: eugenics in apartheid South Africa”). Additionally, virologist and quantitative biologist Leor Weinberger, in his TEDMED 2020 talk, claimed that there is a precedent of self-spreading vaccines in human subjects: “. . . we already inadvertently use therapies that transmit. The vaccine that eradicated polio in the US, the oral polio vaccine, transmits between people. It’s not well-known, but the fact that this vaccine transmits is part of the reason that it was chosen for the worldwide eradication effort despite its safety issues.” Weinberger continued, “In fact, oral polio vaccine faced such an effective misinformation campaign that most people still don’t know that it transmits, that it successfully eradicated polio in many countries or that this vaccine is the basis for new vaccines.” Further, there has been recent buzz in the media noting that this technology is currently available (see the August 19, 2020, New Scientist article, “We now have the technology to develop vaccines that spread themselves”), and also referring to the possibility of instituting a self-spreading vaccine within the context of COVID-19 (see “Coronavirus cure: Scientists plan bizarre ‘self-spreading vaccine’ to fight pandemic,” September 26, 2020).
Incidentally, amidst my research, I discovered that anosmia (loss of smell) has been reported as a side effect after administration of influenza vaccines. Granted, this study was published in 1979, and there was only one other similar study I could find (from 2014) that attempted to investigate this connection, but it was less conclusive (see “Influenza vaccinations and chemosensory function,” Jan-Feb 2014, Am J Rhinol Allergy). I don’t think we can rule out the possibility that a common vaccine side effect could be pre-programmed technologically to be induced in a certain human population — particularly in younger adults and reported “milder cases” — in the hypothetical situation of a self-spreading vaccine being mistaken as a virus pandemic (see this January 6, 2021, article, “Mild Covid-19 Cases More Likely to Lose Their Sense of Smell, Study Finds, along with the referenced study). Could the prevalence of anosmia indicate a “side-effect” of being not only a primary host (one who was injected), but possibly a secondary host (not directly injected) of a transmissible influenza vaccine?
Before we continue, let’s define a few discussion terms (in “science-speak”):
What is an antigen? “An antigen is any substance that causes your immune system to produce antibodies against it. This means your immune system does not recognize the substance, and is trying to fight it off. An antigen may be a substance from the environment, such as chemicals, bacteria, viruses, or pollen. An antigen may also form inside the body.” Examples of antigens include microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses) and chemicals. See here for more detailed information on antigens.
What is Immunolabeling? “Immunolabeling is a biochemical process that enables the detection and localization of an antigen to a particular site within a cell, tissue, or organ. These antigens can be visualized using a combination of antigen-specific antibody as well as a means of detection, called a tag, that is covalently linked to the antibody.” See here for more information on fluorescent-tagged antibodies.
What is an antibody? “An antibody is a protein produced by the body’s immune system when it detects harmful substances, called antigens.”
To distinguish between an antigen and an antibody, this may be a helpful read as well.
What is an epitope? An epitope is a “localized region on the surface of an antigen capable of eliciting an immune response and of combining with a specific antibody to counter that response.” Epitopes are biomolecules that can evoke the formation of antibodies.
See Endnote 5 for references on antigen-antibody interaction and the use of biomarkers, nanotechnology, and biosensors with respect to Influenza vaccines. You may also want to review here how scientists define and differentiate between immunization and vaccination, as well as inoculation. Within the context of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the New York Times article, “How the Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine Works,” by Jonathan Corum and Carl Zimmer (updated Jan. 21, 2021) offers a helpful description (with graphics) of how a chosen antigen (AKA spike protein) creates corresponding antibodies.
Finally, one reminder (placing infection-jargon aside), when it comes to an over-simplified explanation (in terms of the composition and function of a virus): a “virus” is comprised of proteins that are packaged (or encoded) within proteins, which enable it to transport and transmit information, thereby producing more proteins.
Keep in mind, the above definitions are based on mainstream scientific dogma. For an alternative explanation of antibodies, I refer you to an article written by Dr. Stefan Lanka (and kindly translated by Northern Tracey and John Blaid), titled “The Misinterpretation of the Antibodies.” Therein, Lanka presents an inversion of the mainstream interpretation of antibodies: instead of indicating immunity (protection), he considers that the detection of so-called antibodies may indicate damage (poisoning) to the body. Lanka’s particular analysis is crucial moving forward in my theoretical conceptualization.
Could a planned release of an immunolabeled protein-based antigen (via a vaccine-vector), that results in vaccine-induced antibodies, be part of a covert R&D program?
According to a study published by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) on February 2, 2021, the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was measured by seroprevalence of antibodies in a strictly-Orthodox Jewish community in the UK. The high rate of antibodies (seroprevalence) was implied to be indicative of the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Interestingly, as reported by Bloomberg on December 17, 2020, blood tests (manufactured by Roche Diagnostics) are being distributed to individuals who have received the Moderna vaccine, that allege to quantitatively measure antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. How do we know whether an antibody assay (as applied in the LSHTM study noted above) is indicating vaccine-induced seropositivity (VISP) or the presence of antibodies resulting from a purported virus? As noted by the Center for Clinical and Translational Science, in the case of a “spike antibody,” it could be difficult for health care providers to correctly interpret whether the detection of an antibody indicates a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a response to a vaccine (reportedly to prevent SARS-CoV-2).
As reported in February 2015, in Trends in Biotechnology, with the purpose of constructing artificial signaling systems in the context of synthetic biology, engineered protein “switches” can be used in situ to sense and actuate cellular functions, “enabling cells to sense and respond to a variety of molecular queues in a rapid, specific, and integrated fashion.” Could a designated protein (such as a designer/synthetic antigen), that has induced bio-fluorescent or bio-luminescent attributes be a potential source of bio-molecular signaling, resulting in what appears to be “contagion?” Given that tagged proteins emit wavelengths, could their biophoton emission enable the propagation/transmission of an antigen (or expression of an antigen) among a species? Further, could this bio-molecular signaling be detected (and possibly steered) in real-time by interfacing with electronics, that can enable interactive data-streams that sync up to computers, phones, and the Internet?
If you are not convinced that my hypothetical theory of a vaccine-induced outbreak (elicited from a self-spreading vaccine) is viable within the context a purported pandemic event, see this April 2019 paper: “Modelling self spreading vaccines in a reasonable worst case influenza pandemic in the UK,” in which Peter Clark of the UK Department of Health and Social Care, outlines a scenario in which a self-spreading influenza vaccine could be released into the human population. Clark’s work was sponsored by The Operational Research Society (OR Society). I highly recommend you take a look at the ‘ORigin Story’ of the OR Society which explains how their scientific research was used to improve military operations in both world wars “with huge success.” The OR Society states that it advises on matters of “strategy and tactics” in the sectors of business, government, public services, defense and beyond, to help people make evidence-based decisions. The April 2019 paper is presented in outline format, and includes subtopics such as “What is a self spreading vaccine,” “Constructing a pandemic flu self spreading vaccine,” “Genes of Interest,” “Parameters,” “Starting Conditions,” “Implementation,” “Ethics and Implications,” and “Potential for Further Work.” Curiously, Clark wrote in his proposal paper, under the category of “Implementation,” “How I’m getting my mad science badge!” I would like to quote some salient bullet points that appear under the aforementioned categories (emphasis added):
What is a self spreading vaccine?
- Spreads like a disease
- Does very little harm (compared to the pandemic)
- Acquired immunity to vaccine also confers immunity to the pandemic.
Constructing a pandemic flu self spreading vaccine:
- Genetically modify pandemic to replace high lethality genes with low lethality counterparts
- Release into general population
Genes of interest:
- Replacing polymerase gene PB1 in H5N1 with a high-fidelity mutant gene . . .
- case fatality rate 2.5% for pandemic . . . 0.4% for self spreading vaccine . . .
- We assume 1.8m to 2.8m doses
- First official day of pandemic calculated as average day first fatality enters infectious phase
- Mostly in age group where vaccine most beneficial.
- Mostly have 2nd homes to go to spreading the vaccine.
Ethics and Implications:
- Self spreading vaccine is less lethal not non lethal. It can still kill.
- For most people infection reduces risk of death.
- No consent possible from majority of patients.
- Some people will die who would other wise have lived even though fewer people die over all.” (trolley problem)
Potential for further work:
- Age structured models.
- Models addressing geographical spread.
- Models that take into account the application of antivirals and antibiotics.”
In September 2020, authors Filippa Lentzos and Guy Reeves wrote an informative article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists titled, “Scientists are working on vaccines that spread like a disease. What could possibly go wrong?” Within the context of the Lentzos/Reeves article, and the consideration of dual-use applications of self-spreading vaccines, could one dual-use application be to create a global false-flag pandemic event?
This August 24, 2020, article in Quanta magazine, is helpful to understand the concept of self-disseminating vaccines, including transferable vaccines (in which a vaccinated individual passes on the vaccine to other individuals through physical contact) and transmissible vaccines (in which, theoretically, a live “modified” virus propagates a weakened form of a “disease”). The article expounds on the notion of wildlife populations of bats as an ideal population to apply self-spreading vaccines. One example mentioned was with respect to a transferable vaccine, in which 20 to 60 bats within three separate colonies (each comprised of 200 bats) were smeared on their backs with a gel containing a biomarker that made their hair fluoresce if they ingested it. Within days, at least 84% of the bats glowed in two of the three colonies, which suggested that a transferable vaccine could be successfully applied this way. If interested, see this similar study conducted on wild bats.
For a more academic presentation with regard to transmissible vaccines, please read this peer-reviewed research article, “Controlling epidemics with transmissible vaccines,” published on May 10, 2018, in PLOS ONE by Scott L. Nuismer et al.
This opinion paper, “Transmissible Viral Vaccines,” published in January 2018 in Trends in Microbiology, refers to both “pathogen-infected hosts,” as well as “vaccine-infected hosts.” In this context, the vaccine is considered an “infection” that can be spread similarly to a pathogen. As stated therein, “The vaccine may be for humans or wildlife, and transmission may be intentional or accidental.”
Finally, on the topic of transmissible vaccines, there is one report that was issued in October 2018 by the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, called “Technologies to Address Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.” This lengthy report with many references therein could be a topic for a POM blog post all unto its own. However, for the purpose of my essay, one of the 15 technologies (including mRNA vaccines) explored in the report was self-spreading vaccines (p. 45-47). Of significant note, with regard to informed consent, the report states, “In the case of self-spreading vaccines, the individuals directly vaccinated would have this option, but those to whom the vaccine subsequently spreads would not. Additionally, self-spreading vaccines would potentially infect individuals with contraindications, such as allergies, that could be life-threatening. The ethical and regulatory challenges surrounding informed consent and prevention and monitoring of adverse events would be critical challenges to implementing this approach even in an extreme event.”
In my hypothetical scenario of a self-spreading vaccine, what if the R&D committee would NOT want everyone to get a vaccine? Rather, certain people in specific areas would be encouraged to get an injection (for example, a flu vaccine), to then see how it could spread within households and geographic areas (to those non-injected)— as if it were a pathogen? As implied by the LSHTM study discussed earlier in my analysis, a tightly-knit community such as Orthodox Jews could be ideal in studying the transmissibility dynamics of a self-spreading vaccine. Could such a hypothetical scenario offer an explanation as to why college campuses may be reported to be novel infectious disease superspreaders?
As I wrote in Part 1 of my series, Singapore in September 2020 reportedly had the lowest rate of COVID-19 in the world. Interestingly, it was reported in an October 2019 study in the academic journal, Vaccine, that Singaporeans have one of the lowest uptake rates of influenza vaccines compared to other developed countries, as those aged above 50 years had only a 15.2% uptake rate. Compare this to what was reported in May 2020, indicating that the influenza vaccination uptake rate in countries with high reported COVID-19 death rates (Belgium, Spain, Italy, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, and USA) was greater than 50 percent of their senior population. Interestingly, in the linked article from May 2020, the author discussed that there may be a potential correlation between the rate of influenza vaccine uptake and the reported COVID-19 mortality rate, with a few exceptions.
In Part 2 of my series, I mentioned that GSK (a global healthcare company that manufactures flu vaccines), expects to supply more than 50 million doses of its influenza vaccines to the US market in 2020-21, and will distribute more than 1 billion doses globally. I also explained that GSK reported that their flu vaccine already has an existing digital twin in the virtual cloud. They reported that this virtualization of the flu vaccine is necessary for scenario analyses.
Why has it been crucial for the controllers to implement in the past few years institutionalized and digitalized public health surveillance of the human population, such as Influenzanet in Europe? . . . Could massive data mining for enhancing modes of public health surveillance be one goal?
Within my hypothetical framework I have presented herein:
- There is NO need for any virus — only a need for what is being termed by virologists and immunologists as an antigen (and a subsequent antibody)
- Any mention of a “virus” could be supplanted with the term “vaccine” — given that the circulation of the “pathogen” spreading would be the vaccine
- The collected antigen/antibody (protein) material (from all the RT-PCR amplification runs) could potentially be utilized for any omics R&D (i.e., synthetic genomics, functional genomics, computational proteomics, etc)
- Transmissible vaccines could explain why masks may not be effective in preventing suspected contagion (see here and here).
If there was such an R&D project of global magnitude, could it be specifically designed for adult populations (age 18+), with a target cohort of seniors (age 65+, who typically receive a specific influenza vaccine), and particularly those living in nursing homes who may be required to get flu vaccines? With this in mind, I find it interesting that this report demonstrates a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide, as well as the fact that, according to the CDC, influenza vaccines (in this case for 2020-2021) are categorized and distributed within specific age categories. For example, Flublok Quadrivalent (RIV4) is intended for 18 years and older, while Fluad Quadrivalent (aIIV4) is intended only for 65 years and older. I also find it curious that COVID symptoms reported in the older population have been different (and worse) than those reported in younger adults, like college students who are also urged to get their flu shots.
In a hypothetical scenario, I would add that there could be an antigen epidemic, and a corresponding antibody epidemic — with no definitive “whole” virus necessary in order to elicit such a phenomenon. If an antigen was tagged and traced, then a digital representation (in this case, being termed a virus) could be created to track virtually on a digital data dashboard. This virtual virus could be used for the purpose of an R&D experiment that incorporates agent-based modeling, as any virtual agent would do (see Endnote 6).
Oddly, as reported in January 2021, researchers found that peptides in the SARS-CoV-2 proteome were homologous to peptide sequences in the human proteome and the Plasmodium falciparum proteome. Even more curious, as reported in July 2018, antigens selected from Plasmodium falciparum — reported to be the parasite responsible for human malaria — have been delivered via recombinant influenza A virus (IAV) vaccine vectors, utilizing reverse genetics technology. Additionally, a transgenic Plasmodium falciparum strain has been produced that expresses luciferase (an enzyme that emits light) for tracing purposes when studying drug interventions. Could a foreign protein (most likely, transgenic and immunolabeled) such as a Plasmodium falciparum antigen be encoded in a transmissible vaccine? Is it uncanny that malaria means “bad air,” and that it has been reported that drugs used to treat malaria may be effective in treating COVID cases? It has even been suggested that a vector-based vaccine made of “mosquito spit” could help stop the next epidemic, by “protect[ing] against all of the pathogens the insects ingest into humans.”
Why do many countries with the lowest incidence of COVID-19 reportedly have the highest incidence of malaria infections (see this November 2020 study in New Microbes and New Infections and this December 2020 study in Malaria Journal)? Could this reported inverse relationship be correlated to an increase in malaria vaccine uptake in these geographic regions?
As explored in my hypothetical, a circulating, self-spreading virus could be used as a cover story for an antigen. In this instance, a “subunit vaccine” — which is a protein-based vaccine that does not contain a whole virus, but rather one or more antigens — could be synthetically produced with a capsid protein (AKA “spike protein”), that serves as a carrier for the antigen. Accordingly, the steered capsid protein would adhere to a target receptor or molecule, and then the immunolabeled antigen (with its virtual virus representation tagging along on a digital dashboard) could deliver its desired cargo. This, in turn, would theoretically result in the production of an antibody, which again, is tagged, so it can be tracked through its continued supply chain (inside the human body), and resulting in antigen-antibody recognition (bound as a complex unit). Remember, this process does not require everyone to get the injection of the antigen, as the process is theoretically self-spreading.
A self-spreading vaccine could appear to look like a virus, as it can check the same boxes:
- Spreads like a pathogen
- Can be “detected” by a biomarker that could be amplified via RT-PCR
- Would result in “antibodies” that could be detected on antibody tests (and potentially indistinguishable from antibodies theoretically resulting from a viral infection, as previously noted)
- Could make some people (particularly the elderly and those with co-morbidity) very ill, and others asymptomatic
- Could explain why it seems to spread within households and gatherings (like choir practices and college parties)
- Could explain why aggressive, rapid testing would be instituted (so as to track “success” with transmissibility, that may dissipate over time)
- Explains how mutations can arise – as, theoretically, transmissible vaccines can mutate as they spread (see the Results section in “Recombinant vector vaccine evolution,” July 19, 2019, PLOS Computational Biology)
- Could explain the emphasis on Reproduction number (R naught), as this concept features heavily in transmissible vaccines as well as the reporting of transmissible viruses
Could a similar experiment with self-spreading vaccines be initiated with primates — such as gorillas in captivity? Interestingly, on January 12, 2021, it was reported in USA Today that two gorillas at the San Diego Zoo tested positive for COVID. Did you know that gorillas in zoos (in the U.S.) get flu vaccinations? (see this December 23, 2011 article, “Zoo Gives Gorillas Flu Shots…and Bananas For Their Trouble”).
Speaking of primates and bananas, bananas have been genetically engineered to produce edible vaccines against various human diseases. What if vaccines could be tracked, traced, and transmitted via edible vaccines, in addition to an injectable vaccine (within the context of a covert R&D project)? I can not help but consider this, in light of a papaya reportedly testing “positive” for COVID, and papayas are one of the fruits that are being studied for edible vaccines (see Endnote 7).
In the aforementioned papaya article, it also reported that a quail tested positive. Incidentally, quail are raised (along with chickens) to culture their embryos and eggs for vaccines, including influenza.
I find it interesting that humans, gorillas, papayas, and quail can test positive for a virus, and that they can all be encoded with vaccines reportedly for respiratory viruses (including influenza). I remind you that wild bats could theoretically also be vaccinated, as implied in the Quanta article above.
Rather than conferring immunity to an alleged virus, could self-spreading vaccines transfer new genetic material (new programming) into the human genome (see Endnote 8 on how this has already been done in animals)? If so, could that be for digitally controlling biomolecules, and subsequently, our immune systems, and ultimately, our bodies?
For plug-’n’-play researchers consumed with virtual tracking and data dashboards, could they track a traceable antigen like playing a game of tag (see Endnote 9)? Could they watch the game being played out on their virtual screens, as an antigen-injected host interacts with a non-injected host, and unknowingly “tags” the unsuspecting, uninformed, non-consenting individual? Would this be a form of non-consensual bio-molecular assault among an unsuspecting population, in which the perpetrator has no idea the crime he or she is committing, as the game would be observed (and potentially steered) by data scientists and/or computational biologists? We need to begin talking about the ethical and consent issues of such an experiment NOW, before any such scenario plays out, if it hasn’t already . . .
If, let’s say, an R&D global experiment could transmit a designer antigen/capsid protein (which, potentially relevant, can have natural or induced electrostatic/electromagnetic properties), that could then translate into the presence of an antibody (in this case, one that matches with its paired antigen), then I would refer to such a scenario as an ‘epidemic of antibodies.’ If all of these antibodies produced were tagged and tracked (on a blockchain), then it could be quite simple to build an “Internet of Antibodies” — not much different than the current development of the Internet of Bodies. For more detailed information, read the July 2020 Briefing Paper by the World Economic Forum (WEF), “Shaping the Future of the Internet of Bodies: New challenges of technology governance,” in which the WEF explains how the Internet of Things (IoT) is “increasingly entangling with human bodies.” Could this hypothetical Internet of Antibodies (most likely, synthetically produced) be utilized to construct digital immune systems?
Of great concern to me, if we circle back to Stefan Lanka’s interpretation of antibodies (antibodies may reflect poisoning of the body), is that if the mainstream medical framework of antibodies is applied, it may be counter-intuitive and counter-productive to incorporate antibodies into a purported global healing paradigm, as these antibodies may be more akin to being anti-body (our bodies).
It should be noted that the antibody marketplace is highly lucrative. In 2018, it was estimated that 3 million antibodies were available for purchase, and as per a research report by Market Data Forecast, the global antibodies market was valued at $130.9 billion in 2020, and projected to grow to $223.7 billion by the end of 2025.
Sure enough, the booming domain of antibodies is already a militarized space, as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated an Antibody Technology Program (ATP) to develop and standardize antibody testing for use in biodetection platforms, as well as to establish methods for rapidly engineering antibody reagents that exhibit enhanced physical and functional properties (involving “higher-affinity antibodies,” “operational scenarios,” and “multiplex sensors”). If readers remain curious of my hyper-focus on antibodies, and are not convinced that these molecules are of particular military interest, see the DARPA-funded study at the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University (ASU), which led to a spin-off company called Synbody Biotechnology (now defunct). As a component of DARPA’s Accelerated Manufacturing of Pharmaceuticals (AMP) initiative, ASU’s Biodesign Institute began developing a vaccine that could “inoculate against unknown pathogens,” by theoretically injecting thousands of synthetic antibodies (“synbodies”) into the human body, to “create an immunity toolkit that can be combined in myriad ways to tackle virtually any pathogen.” As asserted in an article featuring ASU’s lead researcher, Dr. Stephen Albert Johnston, “Synbodies against the selected pathogen can then be rapidly produced and stockpiled using high-throughput technologies . . . enabling researchers to rapidly construct a custom-tailored therapeutic against virtually any disease-associated protein.” For an erudite, comprehensive analysis of DARPA’s role in developing controversial vaccines and potentially weaponized biotech (involving nanotechnology and synthetic biology, as well as the agency’s previous funding of Moderna), I encourage reading Whitney Webb’s “Coronavirus Gives A Dangerous Boost To DARPA’s Darkest Agenda,” published in May 2020.
To develop an Internet of Antibodies (and digital immune systems), as well as to construct a stealth apparatus for antibody capture, there already exists databases, portals, and pipelines of antibodies, including Antibodypedia, the Proteome Epitope Tag Antibody Library (PETAL), the ‘Antibody Factory’ of the German National Genome Research Network, the Atlas Antibodies portal, and an Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB). In fact, there is even an Antibody Society (I suggest reviewing their corporate sponsors) whose collaborative goal is to develop a metrics initiative to generate and analyze datasets of antibodies. Is this harvested antibody data going to be encoded with respective blockchain identities for ease of interoperability and digital tracing, as could potentially be implied here (within the context of COVID-19)? Akin to a blockchain identity, the Antibody Registry (an antibody portal) already incorporates a permanent identifier for each antibody (called a Research Resource Identifier or RRID) to ensure its traceability as each antibody is produced and consumed for biomedical research applications. Finally, antibodies can be digitally formatted by integrating Digital Spatial Profiling (DSP), which incorporates barcoding technology developed by NanoString (based in Seattle, WA).
Along similar lines, as stated in this March 22, 2020, article in Blockchain News, within the context of a new COVID-19 vaccine, “Various healthcare professionals and service providers accessing this vaccine can use Blockchain to record the performance and effectiveness of the vaccine which can be used by multiple stakeholders in this ecosystem to get a first-hand, real-time view of vaccine efficacy.”
I conclude with an excerpt from Eglin’s chapter in Aftershocks and Opportunities (amidst his future scenario when discussing the global supply chain of vaccines):
“Around 2028, when the devices that could transform digitized genetic code into synthetic biological material were added to these regional manufacturing hubs, antibodies could now be coded and sent anywhere in the world. The manufacturing hubs were nicknamed ATMs for Antibodies, and Rapid Response Immunizations (RRIs) became possible. For the first time in the history of immunizations, virtually no one was left behind.”
I submit that, in the futuristic scenario presented above, no guinea pig would be left behind.
1) In Moderna’s presentation by Dave Johnson, Ph.D. (Senior Director, Informatics at Moderna) at the 2019 Amazon Web Services (AWS) Healthcare & Life Sciences Cloud Symposium, “High Throughput Production of mRNA,” at around the 1:40 time stamp, the presenter explains that Moderna can encode antigens (encapsulated within the mRNA) to create vaccines. An even more detailed (and longer) explanation of mRNA design, manufacturing, and its applications was presented at the May 2018 TIDES Conference Workshop in Boston by Dr. Anton McCaffrey (Senior Director of Research and Development Biology at TriLink Biotechnologies).
2) Gain-of-Function Research
While I think it is possible that a bioweapon virus developed from gain-of-function research could be unleashed on the public via a vaccine (transmissible or direct injection), I do NOT think that would be in the best interest of the controllers, and based on strict regulations, would not be permitted. In my opinion, gain-of-function research within the narrative of COVID-19 is a red herring. Conversely, I DO think that loss-of-function products WOULD be permitted (and more willingly applied by R&D scientists), and would be completely sufficient for a desired antigen-antibody response — without causing excess lethality. I also think the notion of an airborne virus is not viable. When I refer to a virus in a bioweapon context, I consider the “virus” a lab-developed synthetic creation.
3) RE: Digital to Biological Converter
Edling explained that this device is “currently in development.” However, Andrew Hessel, President of Humane Genomics, explained in his presentation at Exponential Medicine 2015 that he is already using his version of this device. It should be noted that Humane Genomics claims to develop synthetic viruses for animal and human health. In Hessel’s 2015 presentation, within his framework of designer bio-nanotechnology, he looks at biological cells in all living things as a type of computing and manufacturing hardware that self-assembles. He elaborated that it has a programming language — DNA. He said that he does nanotechnology digitally, and in a way that scales and then he can share the code. He emphasized that one has to consider programming living cells to do the work, and that he uses DNA to do this.
Around the 7:40 time stamp, Hessel described a nano printer he uses called the DNA synthesizer that has specialized bio-nano digital design software: “It is a printer that prints the DNA molecule . . . chemical bit by chemical bit by chemical bit, and strings it together to write code. It’s really the only printer that I’m interested in, for the most part, because it’s really the only chemical printer you can have sitting on a desk that can do so many different things because it can reprogram the cell — which is essentially a 3D printer for millions of chemicals all in one go.” Please note that at the 7:43 timestamp, he displayed a graphic showing a DNA printer that prints engineered viruses and engineered organisms, that he claimed is currently available and goes beyond the capabilities of 3D printing prosthetics, tissues, and organs for human bodies. At the conclusion of his talk, there was a brief Q&A, in which Hessel opined that “viruses are the apps for the body,” such that viruses are what allow “genetic code to move between species and through the world.”
Note: In Hessel’s 2015 talk, he refers to the work of Moderna at time stamps: 9:03 and 18:52, in the context of reprogramming cells with synthetic proteins, peptides, and polymerases which may be able to self-assemble and be electronically controlled to write DNA.
In June 2017, VICE Media published an article, “Craig Venter’s ‘Digital-to-Biological Converter’ Is Real.” The author, Jordan Pearson, described the tabletop device called the Digital-to-Biological Converter (DBC), that received digital representations of DNA over the Internet and then reconstructs them using adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Craig Venter, founder of Synthetic Genomics, explained that the precursor of his device was used to synthesize an avian flu vaccine in 2013. According to Venter, the current iteration can print DNA, RNA, viruses, vaccines and bacteriophages.
As stated by VICE author, Pearson, “The idea, as Venter describes it, is for every major hospital, clinic, and corporation in the world to own a DBC. If a viral outbreak hits, the vaccine could be sent around the world in a digital file in minutes and produced locally, instead of being stockpiled and shipped out. ‘We could stop pandemics in their tracks,’ Venter said.”
4) RE: Digital Immune Systems
Digital immune systems operate under the assumption that our inherent biological immune system is not sufficient to ward off illness on its own, and needs to be supplanted artificially.
David Lipman, Director of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a developer of the original BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) algorithm for rapidly identifiying biological sequences, reportedly coined the term “digital immune system.” He was also one of the originators of the Influenza Genome Sequencing Project, a project that purportedly sequenced and made available the genomes of thousands of influenza virus isolates.
For further reading:
5) RE: Antibody-Antigen Interactions and the Use of Biomarkers, Nanotech, Rewired Signaling and Tracking Sensors in Influenza Vaccines
For further reading:
“Profusa and Partners Announce Initiation of Study to Measure Early Signs of Influenza Through Biosensor Technology,” March 3, 2020 (DARPA-funded study)
“Development of an Accurate Precise and Robust Method for Determination of the Protein Content of Biopharmaceutical Therapeutics,” Protagen Protein Services, White Paper, August 2020
“Identification and Use of Biomarkers to Advance Development of Preventive Vaccines,” FDA/NIH/CEPI Biomarkers Workshop, September 16 & 17, 2019 (featured Anthony Fauci as a speaker)
“Diagnostic Nano-sensors Using Nanowire” Researchers have created sensors by bonding antibodies to nanowire. “When biological molecules that indicate the presence of a particular disease attach to matching antibodies, they change the resistance of the nanowire. Because a nanowire is so small, with a diameter of about 10 nanometers, even a small change like bonding an additional molecule to the nanowire can make a noticeable change in its electrical properties.”
“New Technologies for Influenza Vaccines,” Microorganisms, November 2020 “This commentary outlines the most promising of the next generation of non-egg-based influenza vaccines including new manufacturing platforms, structure-based antigen design/computational biology, protein-based vaccines including recombinant technologies, nanoparticles, gene- and vector-based technologies, as well as an update on activities around a universal influenza vaccine.”
“A virus-like particle vaccine candidate for influenza A virus based on multiple conserved antigens presented on hepatitis B tandem core particles,” Vaccine, Volume 36, Issue 6, February 1, 2018
“Engineered proteins for fighting flu,” The Scientist, May 14, 2011 by Cristina Luiggi “In a feat of computational biology, researchers design novel proteins capable of neutralizing a key influenza protein.”
“Enhancing Neuraminidase Immunogenicity of Influenza A Viruses by Rewiring RNA Packaging Signals,” Journal of Virology, June 2020
6) RE: Agent-Based Modeling
Back in June 2020, I presented Part 2 of “A New Superimposed Reality – Moving Forward.” I never got around to finishing and publishing Part 3, in which I had intended to connect the work of Joshua Epstein and Robert Axtell, and their book Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science From the Bottom Up. No time like the present, as it directly connects to my theoretical model herein.
Chapter V in Growing Artificial Societies is called “Disease Processes,” in which the authors analyze a disease transmission network (AKA epidemic) within the context of agent-based modeling. Their model is predicated on the mainstream assumption that viruses are foreign invaders in which a person’s immune system must mount a defensive response. So this assumed behavior of infectious pathogenic agents is built into the modeling system, which could then be used to inform future healthcare policy, including vaccination programs. Authors Epstein and Axtell emphasized therein that they could “grow” a story within a model whereby immune systems would be unable to code in order to confront a novel strain of an infectious virus, and therefore it would take a terrifying toll on the simulated population. Could this notion that a natural human immune system is incapable and inept in the midst of an outside attack from a virus imply that, in the future, a digital immune system is coming to the rescue?
In his presentation (see video above) at the OR Society Beale Lecture 2019 (hosted by the Royal Society), Dr. Itamar Megiddo, of the Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde, explained that agent-based modeling is a “bottom-up modelling approach in which the systems’ behaviour emerges from actions and interactions of autonomous agents with each other and the environment over time.” This experimental approach incorporates simulations and scenario analyses that help to collect data to test hypotheses of real world patterns, and guide decisions with respect to a population. Megiddo’s infectious disease and vaccination model, called IndiaSim, was an agent-based model to prioritize policies and interventions in India, with the goal of increasing vaccination uptake among the Indian population, and subsequently, to inform vaccination policy on a global scale. Dr. Megiddo claimed that the universal immunization program in India already vaccinates 27 million newborns every year.
In my hypothetical scenario (spreading a synthetic tagged antigen as it spreads throughout a human population via a transmissible vaccine vector) an agent-based modeling approach is the ideal way to train AI to detect this antigen as indication of a pathogenic virus, so machine learning will continue to code for this health-care narrative. In this sense, it does NOT matter if the science is accurate, as long as it abides by a mainstream allopathic dogma that has already prevailed for the past century. In other words, regardless of the true cause of an epidemiological presentation, the AI will always code for what mainstream immunologists and virologists perceive to be the cause, and will further ensure that researchers do not stray from the AI-imposed, unified top down model. Further, the AI will serve to propagate this desired dogma for the purpose of stakeholder profit gain, as well as to build out a steady stream of data that supports the plan to exponentially grow emerging fields of technology — that ultimately may lead to the construction of a fully synthetic, bio-engineered human that is completely merged cybernetically with the virtual cloud.
7) RE: Edible Vaccines
The term edible vaccines was reportedly first used in 1990 by Charles Arntzen, referring to any foods (typically plants) that produce vitamins or proteins that act as a vaccine against a certain disease. Arntzen pioneered the development of plant-based vaccines for human disease prevention, and served as chairman of the National Biotechnology Policy Board of the National Institutes of Health
For further reading:
“Plant Vaccines: An Overview,” Microbial Bioprospecting for Sustainable Development (pp.249-263), September 2018
“GMO tomato as edible COVID vaccine? Mexican scientists work to make it a reality” by Daniel Norero, May 6, 2020
“FruitVaccine: Biting into the future of medicine,” February 6, 2018 by Gabe Mitchell
8) RE: Redesigning genetic code/genetic programming in animals
“Animal’s genetic code redesigned” by Roland Pease, BBC Radio Science, August 11, 2011
“Researchers say they have created the first ever animal with artificial information in its genetic code.” They claim the technique “could give biologists ‘atom-by-atom control’ over the molecules in living organisms,” and that the technique would be seized upon by “the entire biology community,” and could be applied to a wide range of animals. “What makes the newly created animals different is that their genetic code has been extended to create biological molecules not known in the natural world.”
“. . . Sebastian Greiss and Jason Chin have re-engineered the nematode worm’s gene-reading machinery to include a 21st amino acid, not found in nature.”
“Dr Chin of the Medical Research Council’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology (where Francis Crick and James Watson first cracked the structure of DNA) describes the technique as ‘potentially transformational’: designer proteins could be created that are entirely under the researchers’ control.” (emphasis added)
The artificial protein that was produced contained a fluorescent dye that “glows cherry red under ultraviolet light.” As explained by researchers, “If the genetic trick failed, there would be no glow.” (emphasis added)
Apparently, according to Dr Chin, “any artificial amino acid could be chosen to produce specific new properties.” (emphasis added) Another researcher, Dr. Mario de Bono, suggested “the approach could now be used to introduce into organisms designer proteins that could be controlled by light.” (emphasis added).
“Genetic code expansion in the mouse brain,” Nature Chemical Biology, August 29, 2016, Jason W. Chin et al. (abstract only) The use of adeno-associated viral delivery enabled the genetic code expansion in live mice. “Site-specific incorporation of non-natural amino acids into proteins, via genetic code expansion . . . forms the basis of powerful approaches to probe and control protein function in cells and invertebrate organisms.”
9) RE: Game of Tag
Interestingly, the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” that is used in testing is attributed to the virus stock 2019-nCoV/USA-WA1/2020, which is purported to arise from the first patient in the U.S. who was positive for COVID-19. The first COVID patient allegedly resided in the greater Seattle area (Kirkland, WA), which, while four hours from where the “Tag Brothers” initially met (Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA), is now home to several of the men (see here, here, and here).
Is it a coincidence that one of the Tag Brothers, Mike Konesky, who also currently resides and works in Seattle, WA, works for Tableau Software, which is the company responsible for producing the data dashboard (looks like a virtual “tag” game) called the global COVID tracker? Tableau had already contracted prior to the COVID event with the CDC to build data visualization tools, and works in defense and intelligence analytics.
Incidentally, I recall another individual from the greater Seattle area who also works for Tableau. In fact, here is the gentleman on March 5, 2020 (at the very beginning of the reported coronavirus outbreak), as he discussed the situation among grieving families, and that his father-in-law was living at the Life Care Center in Kirkland, WA (the first reported epicenter of the epidemic). Oddly, this Tableau employee expressed (watch first 6 minutes) what he described as “incompetence” of the CDC, and yet the company he works for has a repetitive history of collaborating with the CDC (as noted above).
For further reading:
“The Real Tag Brothers’ Story is Better Than the Movie,” National Catholic Register, June 15, 2018
“The Real ‘Tag’ Story is Even More Unbelievable Than the Movie,”Bustle, June 13, 2018
“An epic game of tag,” CBS News, June 10, 2018