By Guest Author – Spartacus

One of the biggest problems I have with these vaccines is that they’re claiming that 2P Spike is safe for cells to produce simply because it has those proline substitutions that lock it in the prefusion conformation.

Of course, the  CDC has stated that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is harmless, which assures that current Covid-19 vaccines would be safe.

I’ve gotten into shouting matches on Twitter.

I asked people what they thought the final fate of the protein was, and they couldn’t come up with a straight answer.

None, zip, nada! They thought that the 2P Spike was completely inert and immune to any kind of proteolytic cleavage.

Proteolysis is when enzymes cut a protein up like a pair of scissors.

Proteolysis Defined

Proteolysis is the breakdown of proteins into smaller polypeptides or amino acids. 

Proteolysis in organisms serves many purposes; for example, digestive enzymes break down proteins in food to provide amino acids for the organism, while proteolytic processing of a polypeptide chain after its synthesis may be necessary for the production of an active protein.

It is also important in the regulation of some physiological and cellular processes including apoptosis, as well as preventing the accumulation of unwanted or misfolded proteins in cells.

Consequently, abnormality in the regulation of proteolysis can cause disease. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteolysis

We know that when Spike is exposed to neutrophil elastase, which is an enzyme commonly released by neutrophils as an inflammatory reaction, it breaks up into small peptide fragments that are each, individually, amyloidogenic.

Alzheimer’s

Amyloid plaques are what you see in Alzheimer’s. Please see following paper – https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c03925

COVID-19 involves iron dysregulation, oxidative stress, and amyloidosis, and it’s because of the virus’s highly toxic proteins.

That combination is basically an inducer of aging and aging-related disease.

Cosmic Radiation

It’s exactly like an astronaut being exposed to cosmic radiation, biologically speaking.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7861125/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332221000135

https://cardiab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12933-022-01623-4

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29801-8

Combination of Effects

The vax might not induce that precise effect; that inflammatory profile is seen in COVID-19, and it’s very likely due to a combination of effects from the virus. The Spike has some more specific negative effects, particularly endothelial toxicity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538996/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7547916/

WHY???

The real question here is why many of these same tests have not been performed with 2P Spike and cell cultures to see if it shares the same negative effects as the Spike from the virus.

There’s just a total absence of that sort of research.

They’re basically assuming, based on nothing, that it is safe and inert.

About The Author: Spartacus

Spartacus is known to us as the main contributor at The ICENI Bulletins.

The ICENI believe that crimes of unimaginable proportions have taken place, upon the good people of earth.

Also that these crimes are still ongoing, involving high-level public officials, intelligence agencies, and their pharma pawns.

The investigation continues. The perpetrators of this criminal conspiracy are not above the law, nor are they beyond the reach of public scrutiny. – Spartacus

For more information, please visit – https://iceni.substack.com/.

To listen to the podcasts from Spartacus, please visit – https://iceni.substack.com/podcast

The post Cosmic Radiation and The ”Spike” – Poison??? appeared first on Synaptek-DLS.

There is a near consensus view that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin; however, several characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 taken together are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis.

These include: a low rate of evolution in the early phase of transmission; the lack of evidence of recombination events; a high pre-existing binding to human ACE2; a novel furin cleavage site insert, and high human and mouse peptide mimicry.

Initial assumptions against a laboratory origin, by contrast, have remained unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, over a year after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, there is still no clear evidence of zoonotic transfer from a bat or intermediate species. Given the immense social and economic impact of this pandemic, identifying the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to preventing future outbreaks.

The search for SARS-CoV-2’s origin should include an open and unbiased inquiry into a possible laboratory origin.

Introduction:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel Betacoronavirus of lineage B (subgenus Sarbecovirus) and the causative agent of Covid-19, the first detected cases of which were identified in Wuhan in December 2019 (Huang et al., 2020).

The near-consensus view of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a natural zoonosis (Zhu N. et al., 2020, Wu, F. et al., 2020, Zhou P. et al., 2020).

Bats are thought to be the natural reservoir for SARS-related coronaviruses (SARS-r CoVs) (Li et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2006) and have been identified as the ancestral source from which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) evolved (Janies, 2008; Sheahan, 2008).

Not Been Established

While several intermediate host species have been proposed as the zoonotic source for SARS-CoV-2 (Xiao et al., 2020; Lam et al., 2020; Zhang, T. et al., 2020; Zhou and Shi, 2020), the source of direct bat to human, or intermediate animal to human zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been established.

An alternative hypothesis, that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a laboratory, has been widely dismissed (Rasmussen, 2020), yet very few papers counter this theory with data analysis (Andersen et al., 2020; Liu SL. et al., 2020; Graham and Baric, 2020).

Here, we address the main arguments in support of a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and outline the various points which support the alternative, that a laboratory origin is still a valid possibility that should not be discounted.

Prevent Future Pandemics

To help prevent future viral pandemics, it is of pivotal importance to identify the source of the virus and this is only possible with an unbiased analysis of all data available.

We couple this work with calls from recent opinion pieces and comparative studies questioning a zoonotic origin (Sousa, 2020; Sirotkin & Sirotkin 2020; Relman, 2020; Segreto & Deigin 2020; Butler, 2020; Sallard et al., 2021) via a review of the latest literature, and propose an alternative to the natural zoonosis hypothesis.

Please visit the ResearchGate paper below –

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349125078_An_open_debate_on_SARS-CoV-2’s_proximal_origin_is_long_overdue

The post Debate on SARS-CoV-2’s appeared first on Synaptek-DLS.