Malone “invented” nothing of the sort; he pioneered a particular application of the already existing technique of using different cell transfection reagents or protocols (now up to about 7) to transfect cells with exogenous genes.
His application was the in vivo use of transfected exogenous, same species genes to tempor…
Malone “invented” nothing of the sort; he pioneered a particular application of the already existing technique of using different cell transfection reagents or protocols (now up to about 7) to transfect cells with exogenous genes.
His application was the in vivo use of transfected exogenous, same species genes to temporarily offset or silence the expression of proteins (translated from defective genes) that led to disease states.
How do I know?
Because I myself, starting in the 1990s, used several of these reagents/protocols (electroporation, precipitated nanoparticles for transient transfections, and different lipid-based reagents for creating stable transfections) in my doctoral research in molecular neurobiology to transfect into bacteria or monocultures of immortal human or Drosophila cell lines a variety of gene constructs of my own design, whether involving the deletion or insertion of one or more bases within the wild type gene or the creation of chimeric gene constructs, including the creation of trans-genes in which the gene of interest is fused with a gene for any of several fluorescent proteins in order to track the expression, trafficking, and interaction of a particular protein of interest with others within a living cell.
But Malone’s particular use in vivo of an extremely valuable tool in molecular biology research failed for exactly the same reasons that Covid Inc’s application of the same technique failed:
1. It was indiscriminate and could not be targeted,
2. It led to the expression of proteins in a manner that escaped endogenous feedback control mechanisms that limit the expression of the protein to physiologically meaningful quantities (a few important examples being the production of insulin or leptin or neurotransmitters or acetylcholinesterase).
But in Covid Inc’s case, it led to something far, far worse: using the technique to infect healthy human cells in vivo with VIRAL DISEASE GENES, the farthest thing in the world from the concept of the therapeutic use of human genes, it resulted in the indiscriminate and unregulated production in multiple organ systems of large quantities of physiologically-useless but biologically-active viral proteins that, whether inside the product-compromised cell or outside of it, necessarily and unavoidably triggered different types of innate immune response, including innate immune inflammatory attacks in those organ systems to kill the product-compromised cells, leading to damage of those organ systems and resulting in dysfunction or death.
But in the meantime, you give all appearances of having been opportunistically buying into a false history of molecular biology in order to advance a particular narrative for polemical purposes.
I have been watching your particular evolution of that narrative for some time now and have been commenting on it here throughout that period of time.
Given your background, you should have known decades ago (as the scientists of Covid Inc should have known) all about what I’ve described above.
Either you have not, which is troublesome.
Or you have known but abandoned it for what you now apparently perceive to be a more advantageous narrative, which is seriously disturbing for exactly the same reason that Covid Inc’s misrepresentation of the general history of the technique of cell transfection and their particular use of it (the functional equivalent of an indiscriminate one gene artificial virus) is disturbing.
You’re wrong, Paul.
Malone “invented” nothing of the sort; he pioneered a particular application of the already existing technique of using different cell transfection reagents or protocols (now up to about 7) to transfect cells with exogenous genes.
His application was the in vivo use of transfected exogenous, same species genes to temporarily offset or silence the expression of proteins (translated from defective genes) that led to disease states.
How do I know?
Because I myself, starting in the 1990s, used several of these reagents/protocols (electroporation, precipitated nanoparticles for transient transfections, and different lipid-based reagents for creating stable transfections) in my doctoral research in molecular neurobiology to transfect into bacteria or monocultures of immortal human or Drosophila cell lines a variety of gene constructs of my own design, whether involving the deletion or insertion of one or more bases within the wild type gene or the creation of chimeric gene constructs, including the creation of trans-genes in which the gene of interest is fused with a gene for any of several fluorescent proteins in order to track the expression, trafficking, and interaction of a particular protein of interest with others within a living cell.
But Malone’s particular use in vivo of an extremely valuable tool in molecular biology research failed for exactly the same reasons that Covid Inc’s application of the same technique failed:
1. It was indiscriminate and could not be targeted,
2. It led to the expression of proteins in a manner that escaped endogenous feedback control mechanisms that limit the expression of the protein to physiologically meaningful quantities (a few important examples being the production of insulin or leptin or neurotransmitters or acetylcholinesterase).
But in Covid Inc’s case, it led to something far, far worse: using the technique to infect healthy human cells in vivo with VIRAL DISEASE GENES, the farthest thing in the world from the concept of the therapeutic use of human genes, it resulted in the indiscriminate and unregulated production in multiple organ systems of large quantities of physiologically-useless but biologically-active viral proteins that, whether inside the product-compromised cell or outside of it, necessarily and unavoidably triggered different types of innate immune response, including innate immune inflammatory attacks in those organ systems to kill the product-compromised cells, leading to damage of those organ systems and resulting in dysfunction or death.
But in the meantime, you give all appearances of having been opportunistically buying into a false history of molecular biology in order to advance a particular narrative for polemical purposes.
I have been watching your particular evolution of that narrative for some time now and have been commenting on it here throughout that period of time.
Given your background, you should have known decades ago (as the scientists of Covid Inc should have known) all about what I’ve described above.
Either you have not, which is troublesome.
Or you have known but abandoned it for what you now apparently perceive to be a more advantageous narrative, which is seriously disturbing for exactly the same reason that Covid Inc’s misrepresentation of the general history of the technique of cell transfection and their particular use of it (the functional equivalent of an indiscriminate one gene artificial virus) is disturbing.