I'm not sure if you are trying to ask a question or make a point by sharing this. If it's the former, great. I'll help you understand why this "paper" is bunk. However, I have to be clear that if it is the latter: this work is nonsense, it contains claims that were debunked by experiments performed before it was written, and it appears to be the work of a nonexistent person with no published works. It reads like--and frankly, is--disinformation. If your intent in posting on this newsletter's comment threads is to distribute disinformation, please be aware you will promptly be banned from commenting without further discussion.
That aside, let's walk through why this "paper" is nonsense.
There are a number of problems with this unpublished work. For one, I cannot find verification that the author is a real person of any kind, and their web footprint consists mostly of posts under the name "IKillForTheThrill" on hacker forums, in one case a post involving the doxxing of many Italian healthcare professionals. Their claimed real-life identity is as a security expert with "special warfare" expertise, except they also claim to have an MD, which is not typically a degree obtained by security experts or warfare specialists. Aside from those pieces of information, they have no other web footprint. They have written only unpublished and quite nonsensical works about COVID-19, none of which have successfully appeared in a peer-reviewed setting despite claims that they have been submitted. In other words, I think this "person" is a disinfo sock puppet, and their work bears that out in its details.
To speak to those details: the "paper" contains no data or actual analyses--there is no evidence presented, merely suppositions. Next, these suppositions do not track with basic facts about biology and the mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines function. For example, the paper suggests that "alternative splicing" may take place with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, except the splicing apparatus resides in the cell nucleus, and it has been well-established that introduced mRNA molecules do not enter the nucleus.
It has also been well-established that functional spike protein is made by the mRNA vaccines. For example, in the validation paper for SpikeVax, the authors provide Extended Data Figure 3, which demonstrates the expression of functional spike protein on the surface of human cells that were transfected with mRNA-1273 (aka SpikeVax): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.11.145920v1.full.pdf
The authors verify that genuine spike protein is being expressed by two different methods. If, for some reason, codon usage errors were preventing the spike protein from being made from the vaccine mRNA, this would have been evident at the preclinical stage from experiments of this type.
A similar validation experiment was performed for the Pfizer vaccine.
In fact, at a very basic level, the claims leveled in this evidence-free paper have been known to be untrue for 13 years, when Kati Kariko published this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18797453/ In that paper, Dr. Kariko describes the use of pseudouridine in early mRNA vaccine designs, and establishes not only that the pseudouridine substitution does not hamper faithful translation, but that it actually enhances translation of the protein of interest.
A number of other issues of fact also appear in this "work," namely the claim that proline insertions somehow have unpredictable effects or have been used to prevent the spike protein from collapsing in on itself. Neither of these claims are true. The proline insertions were created to lock the spike protein into the "prefusion" conformation. The spike protein changes its shape before the virus fuses with cells, and to ensure that we are blocking newly-made virus, the vaccines target the prefusion shape. This allows the vaccines to generate antibody responses that are better at neutralizing infectious virus particles. The science behind this is well-understood and is described in detail in the paper that I linked about mRNA-1273. The scientists who came up with this idea were quite proud of it, and based it on decades of research on MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-1; it was also validated for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Numerous sources are cited as to how it works.
In other words, there are decades of experiments that preexist this accusatory work that show, experimentally, that its claims are incorrect. The paper you link is not science; it contains no data. It is a disinformation piece, and holds no factual weight.
Intravenous Injection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccine Can Induce Acute Myopericarditis in Mouse Model
Denmark has already changed the recommended injection procedure to include brief withdrawal of syringe plunger to exclude blood aspiration. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/6353927
Hi there! Welcome to the newsletter. We have discussed this particular paper in the past, and whether or not the procedures for vaccination should change to include aspiration. You can find that discussion here, in the 'Talk Back' section where I recap the comment thread: https://covidtransmissions.substack.com/p/covid-transmissions-for-10-22-21?r=7uhrl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy
BNT162b2 Vaccine: possible codons misreading, errors in protein synthesis and alternative splicing's anomalies
https://www.authorea.com/users/348455/articles/503889-bnt162b2-vaccine-possible-codons-misreading-errors-in-protein-synthesis-and-alternative-splicing-s-anomalies
I'm not sure if you are trying to ask a question or make a point by sharing this. If it's the former, great. I'll help you understand why this "paper" is bunk. However, I have to be clear that if it is the latter: this work is nonsense, it contains claims that were debunked by experiments performed before it was written, and it appears to be the work of a nonexistent person with no published works. It reads like--and frankly, is--disinformation. If your intent in posting on this newsletter's comment threads is to distribute disinformation, please be aware you will promptly be banned from commenting without further discussion.
That aside, let's walk through why this "paper" is nonsense.
There are a number of problems with this unpublished work. For one, I cannot find verification that the author is a real person of any kind, and their web footprint consists mostly of posts under the name "IKillForTheThrill" on hacker forums, in one case a post involving the doxxing of many Italian healthcare professionals. Their claimed real-life identity is as a security expert with "special warfare" expertise, except they also claim to have an MD, which is not typically a degree obtained by security experts or warfare specialists. Aside from those pieces of information, they have no other web footprint. They have written only unpublished and quite nonsensical works about COVID-19, none of which have successfully appeared in a peer-reviewed setting despite claims that they have been submitted. In other words, I think this "person" is a disinfo sock puppet, and their work bears that out in its details.
To speak to those details: the "paper" contains no data or actual analyses--there is no evidence presented, merely suppositions. Next, these suppositions do not track with basic facts about biology and the mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines function. For example, the paper suggests that "alternative splicing" may take place with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, except the splicing apparatus resides in the cell nucleus, and it has been well-established that introduced mRNA molecules do not enter the nucleus.
It has also been well-established that functional spike protein is made by the mRNA vaccines. For example, in the validation paper for SpikeVax, the authors provide Extended Data Figure 3, which demonstrates the expression of functional spike protein on the surface of human cells that were transfected with mRNA-1273 (aka SpikeVax): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.11.145920v1.full.pdf
The authors verify that genuine spike protein is being expressed by two different methods. If, for some reason, codon usage errors were preventing the spike protein from being made from the vaccine mRNA, this would have been evident at the preclinical stage from experiments of this type.
A similar validation experiment was performed for the Pfizer vaccine.
In fact, at a very basic level, the claims leveled in this evidence-free paper have been known to be untrue for 13 years, when Kati Kariko published this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18797453/ In that paper, Dr. Kariko describes the use of pseudouridine in early mRNA vaccine designs, and establishes not only that the pseudouridine substitution does not hamper faithful translation, but that it actually enhances translation of the protein of interest.
A number of other issues of fact also appear in this "work," namely the claim that proline insertions somehow have unpredictable effects or have been used to prevent the spike protein from collapsing in on itself. Neither of these claims are true. The proline insertions were created to lock the spike protein into the "prefusion" conformation. The spike protein changes its shape before the virus fuses with cells, and to ensure that we are blocking newly-made virus, the vaccines target the prefusion shape. This allows the vaccines to generate antibody responses that are better at neutralizing infectious virus particles. The science behind this is well-understood and is described in detail in the paper that I linked about mRNA-1273. The scientists who came up with this idea were quite proud of it, and based it on decades of research on MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-1; it was also validated for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Numerous sources are cited as to how it works.
In other words, there are decades of experiments that preexist this accusatory work that show, experimentally, that its claims are incorrect. The paper you link is not science; it contains no data. It is a disinformation piece, and holds no factual weight.