Some people call it a vaccine mmmm I call it a Sling Blade, I like french fried pataters and mustard, ICD-10 Z28.310 Homosapien Originalis Electrolyte addict
Nervous Hospital
Joined November 2021
- Tweets64.2K
- Following1.1K
- Followers3.3K
- Likes57.7K
So fucking predictable
Except it's going to be cas9
Because of shared CGG PAM sequences/coincidences 😎
xitter.twitterapi.xyz/SnafuB89182/status/193…
BREAKING: YOUR DNA WAS SECRETLY REWRITTEN BY THE mRNA SHOTS—AND THEY SAID IT COULDN’T BE UNDONE! Hold on to your seats, folks, because we are about to DROP the bombshell method to REVERSE every single edit and restore your ORIGINAL human DNA before the jabs permanently rewired millions!
It’s work in progress by many doctors and scientists as all the vaccines cabal and governments can shut them down .
Inject the mRNA and BAM—most people’s genomes get hijacked as the code integrates and locks in forever. Once it’s spliced in, the original sequence is GONE… erased… obliterated! Almost nothing that digs into DNA can ever be pulled back out. A few rare viruses and rogue lab tricks can snip it free, and CRISPR can sometimes overwrite itself, but that’s the exception—NOT the rule for the average person now walking around with altered genes!
To claw it back you’d fire the same gene-editing weapons in reverse: aim a guide RNA straight at the foreign sequence, slam in a repair template of your pure wild-type DNA, and let homology-directed repair rip the junk out and paste the original back in. If they knocked out or deleted your sequence, you need the pre-jab reference or you’re stuck. Insertions? Target both ends and excise the invader. Every round risks more off-target chaos, so the “undo” is never clean!
Pull the original sequence, design guides to flank the edit, co-deliver the wild-type template, and HDR does the heavy lifting. Screen a pile of clones because efficiency tanks on the second pass. Check if only one allele was hit—if the other is still intact it can sometimes donate on its own!
And ditch Cas9—switch to Cas12a! This Prevotella-Francisella powerhouse (sold as Cpf1) slices with staggered five-nucleotide overhangs for cleaner, sharper repairs. It hunts T-rich TTTV sites so it cracks open AT-rich zones Cas9 can’t touch. Smaller protein means it packs into tighter viral vectors. Bonus: after cutting it keeps chewing nearby single-stranded DNA—the exact trick behind those DETECTR diagnostics!
The restoration protocol is here. The race to reverse the edit is on. Stay tuned—your original DNA could be coming back!
Well regarding the
Sabatini/Whitehead controversy
@SnafuB89182
Was already ahead in the research
**Reverse transfection** is a cell biology technique co-developed by Junaid Ziauddin and David M. Sabatini, described in a 2001 *Nature* paper (“Microarrays of cells expressing defined cDNAs”).
In conventional (forward) transfection, cells are plated first and then nucleic acids (DNA, siRNA, etc.) plus transfection reagent are added. In reverse transfection, the nucleic acids (often mixed with gelatin or a carrier) are printed or spotted onto a surface (e.g., a glass slide) in defined locations and allowed to dry; cells are then added on top.
Cells growing over the printed spots take up the nucleic acids, producing localized clusters of transfected cells within a larger lawn of untransfected cells.
This format supports high-throughput applications such as cell microarrays for functional genomics, expression cloning, drug-target identification, and large-scale RNAi or other screens.
Sabatini/Whitehead Institute holds related patents; the method has been licensed (e.g., to Persomics). It is a standard technique in the field and is not itself the subject of major scientific controversy.
### David Sabatini controversy
David M. Sabatini is the biologist best known for the co-discovery and extensive study of mTOR (mechanistic target of rapamycin) signaling in cell growth, metabolism, and cancer. He long led a large lab at the Whitehead Institute (affiliated with MIT) and held a tenured MIT faculty position plus HHMI support.
In 2021, after a lab climate survey and an external investigation, Whitehead concluded that Sabatini violated its policies on consensual workplace relationships and anti-harassment.
The case centered on a sexual relationship (circa 2018–2019) with Kristin Knouse, a younger scientist who was launching her own lab at the institute. Investigators also described aspects of a sexualized lab environment. Sabatini maintained the relationship was consensual. He left Whitehead, resigned from MIT under pressure related to tenure review proceedings, and lost HHMI support.
He later sued Knouse for defamation and tortious interference with his career; she countersued for sexual harassment and retaliation. Claims against Whitehead and its director were dismissed in earlier rulings.
In October 2026, after a multi-week trial in Suffolk County Superior Court (Boston), a jury awarded Sabatini $6 million plus interest. It found that Knouse defamed him and interfered with his contractual and prospective professional relationships, and it rejected her claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. Knouse’s attorney has indicated she will appeal. Sabatini has described the outcome as vindication after years of professional and personal damage; he has rebuilt a research program (including at IOCB Prague, with plans involving Boston) supported by private donors. Some scientists have publicly called for MIT to reopen its earlier review of his tenure in light of the verdict and trial evidence. Institutional findings on policy violations remain distinct from the jury’s findings in the civil case between Sabatini and Knouse.
The reverse-transfection work predates the personal/professional controversy by two decades and is separate from it.
@MACottingham
And go
As I recall we looked into this technique but found it
Wanting
Check out this next level
Of over his skis
Reminds me of
Graham Bottley
Of the Mutton Brigade
We need to understand that #plasmidgate has revealed so many insidious "coincidences" about this genomic sequence that there seems to be only one logical conclusion about the presence of plasmid DNA in COVID jabs.
The fact that multiple mechanisms for nuclear integration (i.e. genome modification) of plasmid DNA in one product exist coincidentally is so improbable that Occam beats Hanlon in the Razor stakes. Easily.
But this raises a new question. That is, how many scientists are there in the world that have experience in all these areas enough to design a product - all the way from virus to genetic vaccine - that created an end result that was impossible by chance.
To recap
▶ A new coronavirus that could not exist in nature
▶ A furin cleavage site that doesn't belong in this class of viruses and was so unstable it disappeared at the first genomic evolution in nature
▶ Retention of that furin cleavage site in a vaccine design, when this was against all previous protocols ▶ Retention of the full length of the spike protein when the principle of vaccine design is not to exactly replicate toxic proteins of viruses (see the design of the Spikogen vaccine without these elements)
▶ Plasmid DNA found in the vaccine in therapeutic concentrations (#plasmidgate)
▶ Use of the oncogenic SV40 enhancer in the plasmid production of the "mRNA" vaccine which acts as a nuclear localisation signal (NLS) (#NLSGate)
▶ The presence of the NLS in the spike protein (PRRARSV) which is the very furin cleavage site that shouldn't be in the virus or vaccine
▶ A clumsy attempt to cut up plasmid DNA which then renders short segments of linear DNA which has a higher risk of integrating into the genome
▶ The presence of high potency lipid nanoparticles made from products not approved for medical use, which can act as nuclear transfectants in both mRNA candidates (and an equivalent in Novavax - see #Novagate)
▶ The attack on the Jiang-Mei paper (see #NIHgate) which showed that spike protein from the mRNA products was acting in the nucleus
▶ The inclusion of an ORF in the polyA tail of a supposed mRNA vaccine
The question is not "How many coincidences before coincidence becomes mathematically impossible?"
The question is "How many people are there in the world that can design a genomic sequence masquerading as a virus in order to impose a genetic therapy product on the world that was found to have multiple mechanisms for genomic integration that could never have happened by chance?"
The answer. Less than 10.
@CharlesRixey @Daoyu15 @P_J_Buckhaults @JesslovesMJK @AdhesionsOrg
😎
We need to understand that #plasmidgate has revealed so many insidious "coincidences" about this genomic sequence that there seems to be only one logical conclusion about the presence of plasmid DNA in COVID jabs.
The fact that multiple mechanisms for nuclear integration (i.e. genome modification) of plasmid DNA in one product exist coincidentally is so improbable that Occam beats Hanlon in the Razor stakes. Easily.
But this raises a new question. That is, how many scientists are there in the world that have experience in all these areas enough to design a product - all the way from virus to genetic vaccine - that created an end result that was impossible by chance.
To recap
▶ A new coronavirus that could not exist in nature
▶ A furin cleavage site that doesn't belong in this class of viruses and was so unstable it disappeared at the first genomic evolution in nature
▶ Retention of that furin cleavage site in a vaccine design, when this was against all previous protocols ▶ Retention of the full length of the spike protein when the principle of vaccine design is not to exactly replicate toxic proteins of viruses (see the design of the Spikogen vaccine without these elements)
▶ Plasmid DNA found in the vaccine in therapeutic concentrations (#plasmidgate)
▶ Use of the oncogenic SV40 enhancer in the plasmid production of the "mRNA" vaccine which acts as a nuclear localisation signal (NLS) (#NLSGate)
▶ The presence of the NLS in the spike protein (PRRARSV) which is the very furin cleavage site that shouldn't be in the virus or vaccine
▶ A clumsy attempt to cut up plasmid DNA which then renders short segments of linear DNA which has a higher risk of integrating into the genome
▶ The presence of high potency lipid nanoparticles made from products not approved for medical use, which can act as nuclear transfectants in both mRNA candidates (and an equivalent in Novavax - see #Novagate)
▶ The attack on the Jiang-Mei paper (see #NIHgate) which showed that spike protein from the mRNA products was acting in the nucleus
▶ The inclusion of an ORF in the polyA tail of a supposed mRNA vaccine
The question is not "How many coincidences before coincidence becomes mathematically impossible?"
The question is "How many people are there in the world that can design a genomic sequence masquerading as a virus in order to impose a genetic therapy product on the world that was found to have multiple mechanisms for genomic integration that could never have happened by chance?"
The answer. Less than 10.
@CharlesRixey @Daoyu15 @P_J_Buckhaults @JesslovesMJK @AdhesionsOrg
So
As most of you know
I love documentaries
Just tonight
The history of Penn Station
Which lasted only 60+ years
After completion
27 acres of modern marvel engineering
The tunnels remain
Replaced by
Madison Square Garden
Seriously?
Now I highly recommend
m.youtube.com/watch?v=TSW8uo…
Watching the old black and white
Footage
It's Deja Vu
Weird
R8?
**No — not strictly the first, and the designer was John A. Roebling (not Robert).**
John Augustus Roebling designed the Brooklyn Bridge (construction completed in 1883 under his son Washington Roebling after John’s death in 1869). It is a hybrid suspension/cable-stayed bridge with:
- Four main parabolic suspension cables (each made of thousands of individual steel wires).
- Diagonal stay cables radiating from the towers.
- A stiffening truss in the deck.
These create **multiple independent load paths**. Roebling intentionally distributed a significant share of the load (roughly 1/4 to 1/3 in his calculations) to the stays. He noted that the stays alone could support the floor, and that if the main cables were removed the bridge would sag in the center but not collapse.
This approach addressed common failure modes of earlier pure suspension bridges (especially wind-induced oscillations and lack of stiffness). The cables also used a high factor of safety (designed around 6×, reduced to about 5× after some substandard wire was discovered mid-construction). Individual wires and multiple cables further limited the impact of any single defect.
Roebling had already applied the same hybrid philosophy (suspension cables + diagonal stays + stiffening) on earlier bridges, most notably the Cincinnati-Covington Bridge (John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge, completed 1866), as well as others such as the Niagara Suspension Bridge. The Brooklyn Bridge was the largest and most refined expression of the idea, the first major bridge to use steel wire for its main cables, and the one that best demonstrated the robustness of the multi-path system at unprecedented scale.
In modern terms, it is an excellent early example of designing out single points of failure through redundancy and high safety margins. It was not the absolute first application of those principles by Roebling, but it is the landmark case that popularized and proved them.
How many dawns, chill from his rippling rest
The seagull’s wings shall dip and pivot him,
Shedding white rings of tumult, building high
Over the chained bay waters Liberty—
Then, with inviolate curve, forsake our eyes
As apparitional as sails that cross
Some page of figures to be filed away;
—Till elevators drop us from our day ...
I think of cinemas, panoramic sleights
With multitudes bent toward some flashing scene
Never disclosed, but hastened to again,
Foretold to other eyes on the same screen;
And Thee, across the harbor, silver paced
As though the sun took step of thee yet left
Some motion ever unspent in thy stride,—
Implicitly thy freedom staying thee!
Out of some subway scuttle, cell or loft
A bedlamite speeds to thy parapets,
Tilting there momently, shrill shirt ballooning,
A jest falls from the speechless caravan.
Down Wall, from girder into street noon leaks,
A rip-tooth of the sky’s acetylene;
All afternoon the cloud flown derricks turn ...
Thy cables breathe the North Atlantic still.
And obscure as that heaven of the Jews,
Thy guerdon ... Accolade thou dost bestow
Of anonymity time cannot raise:
Vibrant reprieve and pardon thou dost show.
O harp and altar, of the fury fused,
(How could mere toil align thy choiring strings!)
Terrific threshold of the prophet’s pledge,
Prayer of pariah, and the lover’s cry,
Again the traffic lights that skim thy swift
Unfractioned idiom, immaculate sigh of stars,
Beading thy path—condense eternity:
And we have seen night lifted in thine arms.
Under thy shadow by the piers I waited
Only in darkness is thy shadow clear.
The City’s fiery parcels all undone,
Already snow submerges an iron year ...
O Sleepless as the river under thee,
Vaulting the sea, the prairies’ dreaming sod,
Unto us lowliest sometime sweep, descend
And of the curveship lend a myth to God.
Hart Crane
Let's see
What the response is
My follow up question is
Which is better?
For elevated titers
Live attenuated
Dead sub unit
Or
modRNA
With
dsDNA adjuvants encapsulated in ionizable synthetic lipid nanoparticles
Easy
