Use in gene therapy and vaccination[edit]
Gene therapy[edit]
Adenoviruses have long been a popular viral vector for gene therapy due to their ability to affect both replicating and non-replicating cells, accommodate large transgenes, and code for proteins without integrating into the host cell genome.[18] More specifically, they are used as a vehicle to administer targeted therapy,[37] in the form of recombinant DNA or protein. This therapy has been found especially useful in treating monogenic disease (e.g. cystic fibrosis, X-linked SCID, alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency) and cancer.[18] In China, oncolytic adenovirus is an approved cancer treatment.[38] Specific modifications on fibre proteins are used to target Adenovirus to certain cell types;[39] a major effort is made to limit hepatotoxicity and prevent multiple organ failure. Adenovirus dodecahedron can qualify as a potent delivery platform for foreign antigens to human myeloid dendritic cells (MDC), and that it is efficiently presented by MDC to M1-specific CD8+ T lymphocytes.[40]
Adenovirus has been used for delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing systems, but high immune reactivity to viral infection has posed challenges in use for patients.
Vaccines[edit]
Modified (recombinant) adenovirus vectors, including replication incompetent types, can deliver DNA coding for specific antigens.[41]
Adenovirus have been used to produce viral vector COVID-19 vaccines. "In four candidate COVID-19 vaccines... Ad5... serves as the 'vector' to [transport] the surface protein gene of SARS-CoV-2".[42] The goal is to genetically express the spike glycoprotein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vaccine vector (ChAdOx1) is used by the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine that has been approved for use.[43][44] The Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine uses modified recombinant adenovirus type-26 (Ad26).[45] Recombinant adenovirus type-5 (Ad5) are being used by Ad5-nCoV,[46] ImmunityBio and UQ-CSL V451. The Gam-COVID-Vac (aka Sputnik-V) product is innovative because an Ad26 based vaccine is used on the first day and an Ad5 vaccine is used on day 21.[45] Another one is ChAd-SARS-CoV-2-S; the vaccine reportedly prevented mice that were genetically modified to have human ACE2 (hACE2) receptors, presumably receptors that allow virus-entry into the cells, from being infected with SARS-CoV-2.[47][48]
Possible issues with using Adenovirus as vaccine vectors include: the human body develops immunity to the vector itself, making subsequent booster shots difficult or impossible.[49] In some cases, people have pre-existing immunity to Adenoviruses, making vector delivery ineffective.[50]
The patient is in good condition, with an expected hospital discharge in the next few days, a spokeswoman said
A panel of advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted earlier Friday to recommend resuming use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The shots are expected to be accompanied by a new warning about an increased risk of rare but serious blood clots for adult women under 50.
Time to revise the warning--already. Again: This adenovirus shot is experimental. Nobody knows what all could happen in the short run, much less in the long run.
A quote from the CDC...
ReplyDelete"Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines, and these vaccines will undergo the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history."
Translation... Welcome all guinea pigs!
Live human testing in the millions. Who woulda thunk it a few years ago?
ReplyDelete0311
Similar to we have to pass it to find out what's in it. Must be a democrat thing.
ReplyDelete0311
My doctor had advised me to waituntil great numbers had been given the shots (not vaccine). I’m still waiting. Probably forever. May be best advice she ever gave me...
ReplyDeleteStandard advice--and sound.
DeleteThe J&J vaccine is not gene therapy.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I'll correct that later. J&J is "adenovirus rather than mRNA.
DeleteJ&J uses modified DNA. The mRNA vaccines use RNA.
Deletehttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777172
We got our second doses of Moderna this morning.
All the Covid vaccines are experimental. 140 million in the U.S. have gotten at least one shot. So, that's a huge dataset. Initially we worried about ADE, but apparently that is not an issue. Possible long-term effects of the vaccines are unknown.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5
The J&J, AstraZeneca, Sputnik, and the Sinvac use different adenoviruses aa the vector. Are the adenoviruses triggering the clotting, or one of the proteins? They don't know.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/13/researchers-search-for-answers-in-puzzle-of-blood-clots-and-covid-vaccines-and-see-some-clues/
Operation Warped Speed. Almost makes you wonder if Big Pharma was queued up for this. Is this yet another case where Trump got played to put his imprimatur on it (like Jail Break)?
ReplyDeleteIf the 'vaccine' is too risky, maybe its time to take another look at therapeutics...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40n9LcNB_-Y
There's actually a lot of similar research going on with very good results, but somehow we don't hear about it.
DeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteHere's a story from today on Pfizer's at-home covid pill. It could be available by the end of the year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/27/pfizer-at-home-covid-pill-could-be-available-by-year-end-ceo-albert-bourla-says.html
Why in the world is NY Governor Cuomo handling the White House's covid calls with the nation's governors?
ReplyDelete@Anon,
DeleteMaybe they needed to throw Cuomo a bone of inclusion after his recent stint of sexual harassment cases. Get him back to being that foremost leader of covid (death) response.
All of this for a virus with a 99.997% average survival rate, worst case 99.97% survival rate. 100% scam.
DeleteDenninger today, at https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=242205 , on e.g. covid vs. flu etc. shots' timing:
ReplyDelete< Pay attention to this paper folks, and note its publication date, January 2021. (Link to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-020-00808-x.pdf .)
Nobody has paid any attention to it at all, yet it is peer-reviewed in Nature, one of the "better" medical publications....
"This T cell-mediated immune response is even more important, as studies on humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-1 provided evidence, that antibody responses are short-lived, and can even cause or aggravate virus-associated lung pathology."
Note that when you get the shot, the first thing you get is antibodies; you may get a T-cell reaction.
This pre-existing knowledge, from SARS (CoV-1), entirely explains why people who just got vaccinated often get hammered by the virus, and frequently end up in the hospital or die.
It marks the premise, of attempting to vaccinate out of a pandemic where transmission is *actively occurring*, as stupid.
You go get the shot. Five days later you get the virus. You have not yet developed immunity, and the partial expression makes it worse.
You would have been better off, by far, taking the same infection straight up front. It likely would have harmed you less.
This generally applies, by the way, to all vaccines and all viruses. The government and researchers know this. They've known this for decades. It's fact.
It's why you *don't wait*, until the measles is raging around you, to get a measles vaccine, and the same is true for the flu shot; you get it *before* the flu season starts, for this very reason.
Attempting to vaccinate out of a raging infection does not work, and in fact kills people.
Yeah, if you don't get infected during that latent period, you get protection. But if you do get infected, you're screwed, and all of the two-dose shots have a roughly *four week* window, during which you get hosed instead of protected.
Israel's data, by the way, proves this is real; Berenson has been reporting on it since the beginning of the year, and I've noted it as well. <
I've been wrestling with that article off and on for most of the day. I don't have a science background, so it's a bit tough. However, in more technical language and in much more detail, they appear to be saying pretty much the same thing the experts I quoted recently were saying. Example, vaccinating when people are likely to be exposed to the virus before the immunity kicks in. Very interesting.
DeleteAs long as you find the above valuable, your readers should also see more from that post, on that this was a "novel" virus:
Delete< … Now let me point to the data itself.
“Of the SARS donors, 100% showed T cell responses to cross-reactive and/or specific ECs (HLA class I 86%, HLA-DR 100%; Fig. 5d,e), whereas 81% of PRE donors showed HLA class I (16%) and/or HLA-DR (77%) T cell responses to cross-reactive ECs (Fig. 5d).”
81% eh? Isn't that an interesting number? Where have we seen that before?
It's the rough percentage of alleged Covid-19 infections, that were either asymptomatic or very low-symptom, for which no medical treatment was sought, and, in many cases, not detected.
So it wasn't 30 or 50% who had pre-existing protection, it's actually roughly 8 in 10!
This was not a "novel, everyone is susceptible" virus at all. It *never* was.
You were lied to from the very beginning, and thus all the "models" based on that were trash.
Again, just a bit further down:
“Taken together, SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes enabled detection of post-infectious T cell immunity, in 100% of individuals convalescing from COVID-19, and revealed pre-existing T cell responses, in 81% of unexposed individuals.”
Now we know what *Diamond Princess* happened the way it did. It was never possible, for more than 20% of the people on that ship to get seriously-symptomatic Covid-19, despite being cooped up in close quarters for weeks with an aerosol-spread disease, and cruise passengers generally being wildly-overrepresented for various morbidity factors.
It also completely explains, why one of two people quarantined in the same cabin got sick, and the other did not....
... We also know why there is *no place* on the planet, that has seen >20% of people with significant, symptomatic disease from Covid-19. Not a single place has had that happen....
Continuing prior quote:
Delete< … In 100% of the persons who had and recovered from Covid-19, and 81% of those who have never had the virus, a vaccine may well be *worthless*, as they already have T-cell response.
While this will not prevent them from getting it again, there is questionable at best benefit over their existing immunological state, but there is risk, including a risk of death, from the side effects.
“Furthermore, evidence was provided for a lower recognition frequency of cross-reactive HLA-DR EC in hospitalized patients, compared to donors with mild COVID-19 course, which might suggest a lack of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 T cells in severely ill patients.”
No kidding? Gee, yet more points of contact with the obvious?
Then there's this:
“Our observation, that intensity of T cell responses and recognition rate of T cell epitopes, was significantly higher in convalescent patients compared to unexposed individuals, suggests that not only expansion, but also a spread of SARS-CoV-2 T cell response diversity, occurs upon active infection.”
Let me be clear: The entire premise of all of the "mitigations", and demand for mass-vaccination, relied on *a lie*; that this was a "novel" virus, to which nobody had existing resistance.
We now *know* that's *false*; 81% of the population in fact does have existing immunity and further, that immunity is *strengthened*, materially so, by *natural* infection.
In short, if you have said partial resistance, you want to get the disease, as the odds of you being seriously harmed are statistically zero, yet you will perfect your immunity and, from a public health perspective, you want those people who are not going to be seriously harmed to get it naturally, not take a ******ned shot, because it is that perfection of immunity that stops the disease, from being of harm to the public on a durable basis.
It gets worse -- the resistance isn't to the spike, it's *almost-exclusively* to the nucleocapsid portion of the virus, among those with existing resistance; the largest set of reactions by far was to the nucleocapsid, not the spike.
This is very strong evidence, that it is that nucleocapsid reactivity that provides effective resistance to serious disease. The existing "vaccines" do not and cannot provide this, since they encode only the spike.
Again for those who are reading-comprehension challenged: The existing vaccines are worthless for building said perfected immunity, since the data is that the nucleocapsid section, which the vaccines do not code, is where most of the pre-existing resistance against serious disease resides. <
One more Denninger quote, from his response to a reader comment, at https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=242205&page=5 :
Delete"... I have been exposed myriad times. For a while I was keeping track of known exposures, as I EXPECTED, after each one to get the virus, but refused to go get tested, until and unless I had some sort of symptoms, and in addition I had antibody tests (linear flow, now all used up), so I could self-surveil, which I was doing on 3 month intervals.
During the summer and fall here, it got to the point that I was literally being exposed *weekly*, and several of those were by people who a day later had clinically-significant disease, in addition to a positive test, so that I actually WAS exposed is *conclusive*.
I've never gotten sick, but I also have never tested positive for antibodies. But I assure you -- I damn sure was exposed (no masks, time "at risk" typically spanning an hour or more indoors, etc.) more than a *dozen* times, and so I SHOULD HAVE gotten it but, on the scientific evidence, did not."