Scientists are not immune from corruption or malevolence, but I, too, do not think Dr. Malone falls into the greedy/sociopathic category.
As a biochemist myself, I think that the concept of using mRNA to mitigate genetic defects holds great potential. I am unaware whether Malone's work had anything to do with lipid nanoparticles and spike…
Scientists are not immune from corruption or malevolence, but I, too, do not think Dr. Malone falls into the greedy/sociopathic category.
As a biochemist myself, I think that the concept of using mRNA to mitigate genetic defects holds great potential. I am unaware whether Malone's work had anything to do with lipid nanoparticles and spike protein RNA sequences. The spike protein has been known to be cytotoxic for some time. Why was that chosen to be the desired antigen product of the mRNA instructions? Why the gain of function work to customize the C19 spike to increase its affinity for the ACE2 receptor?
There is no immunological justification for a 'vaccine' design which is so fraught with known and unknown adverse effects, especially via a LNP platform which evades the blood-brain barrier and 'tight junctions' which are important protective systems in screening toxins and pathogens from accessing vulnerable tissues.
The vaccine manufacturers should have selected polypeptide/protein sequence moieties from the virus which would be sufficiently different from any in our bodies to avoid the auto-immune reactions that appear to be caused by the spike protein, in addition to its other cytotoxic effects. And the preferred antigens should have been introduced in more conventional ways, with much lower persistence and less pervasive distribution in the body.
Scientists are not immune from corruption or malevolence, but I, too, do not think Dr. Malone falls into the greedy/sociopathic category.
As a biochemist myself, I think that the concept of using mRNA to mitigate genetic defects holds great potential. I am unaware whether Malone's work had anything to do with lipid nanoparticles and spike protein RNA sequences. The spike protein has been known to be cytotoxic for some time. Why was that chosen to be the desired antigen product of the mRNA instructions? Why the gain of function work to customize the C19 spike to increase its affinity for the ACE2 receptor?
There is no immunological justification for a 'vaccine' design which is so fraught with known and unknown adverse effects, especially via a LNP platform which evades the blood-brain barrier and 'tight junctions' which are important protective systems in screening toxins and pathogens from accessing vulnerable tissues.
The vaccine manufacturers should have selected polypeptide/protein sequence moieties from the virus which would be sufficiently different from any in our bodies to avoid the auto-immune reactions that appear to be caused by the spike protein, in addition to its other cytotoxic effects. And the preferred antigens should have been introduced in more conventional ways, with much lower persistence and less pervasive distribution in the body.