"the technology on which the [mRNA] platform was based has now been shown to be functionally defective."

"There's no one reading this paper who couldn't understand what a fundamental disaster this actually is, because it challenges the whole premise of the mRNA platform." - @drpaulmarik1 of @Covid19Critical on a new study published in Nature medical journal.

🔴WATCH on… pic.twitter.com/QxzTzVtpbR

— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) December 19, 2023

In this clip, Dr. Paul Marik talks about ribosomal frameshifting.

What the ribosome does it's a little structure that reads the messenger RNA and then it makes the protein.  So the mRNA carried the code to make the protein, and it's . . . there's a very specific sequence of nucleotides that the Ribosome reads to determine the order of the amino acids, and then amino acids make up the protein.  So normally, mRNA has uridine, that's the way that the body was made.  But for this technology to work, they had to substitute the uridine for pseudouridine, and what the study shows is that when you put a pseudouridine where uridine should be, the ribosome jumps or misreads the mRNA.  As a consequence of this, it results in a bogus protein being made.  Instead of making spike protein, it makes a nonsense protein that is possibly toxic.

The problem is if you used a normal mRNA it would be broken down by the host very quickly and it wouldn't work and you wouldn't make the spike protein.  So to overcome the problem they came up with the idea of using pseudouridine.  In fact, the Nobel Prize was awarded to two physicians, Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman, for this discovery.  So in a way, they kind of shot themselves in the foot, because the technology on which the platform was based has now been shown to be functionally defective.  After all, it doesn't do what it's meant to do.  And it applies to the entire messenger RNA platform because this whole technology is based on pseudouridine.  So it means that whatever vaccine or whatever protein that they want to make is going to be defective based on this problem.  

JEKIELEK, 2:57. So there I mean if I read this right, and please correct me, like 25 for 30% of the time, which is a frankly a lot, you get this error, this junk protein I think is you described it that's created instead of the spike protein.  And so I mean, what are the implications of that?  I think the paper also says that those proteins have an immunological response that creates an immunological response.

MARIK, 3:21. Yes, like much to do with this vaccine we don't really know.  But obviously, it's making a protein that shouldn't be there; it's a foreign protein to the host.  The spike protein is foreign.  The host sees it as foreign and is going to mount an immune response.  So the likelihood is the host is going to see this protein as defective and he's going to mount an immune response, but it may have other more sinister, toxic effects that we don't know about and this can have adverse consequences on the patient.

JEKIELEK, 3:57.  You mentioned something about amyloid proteins . . . . 

MARIK, 4:04. We know that the vaccine, the spike protein itself has a sequence of amyloid protein in the spike protein.  We know that there has been an increased deposition of amyloid and in patients who have received the vaccines amyloid is the protein that collects in patient's . . .  in the brains of patients with dementia and Alzheimer's Disease.  So the fact that you have these foreign proteins in the cell, you know, the nanoparticles, cross the blood-brain barrier quite easily.  So these proteins may form in the brain and may have serious consequences.

JEKIELEK, 4:44. The way the paper is written they say "Well, this is a great technology an . . . ," However, there is this kind of problem that we have found, and the problem, as you have found it, seems to be foundational.

MARIK, 4:57.  Exactly.  The premise on which it is based has failed and it's causing an end result that was unexpected and should not happen so this technology has essentially failed.

JEKIELEK, 5:13.  Do you think the reviewers of this paper understood the implications?

MARIK, 5:18. Oh, absolutely, yeah.  There is no one reading this paper who couldn't understand what a fundamental disaster that actually is because it challenges the whole premise of the MRNA platform.

The entire interview is here behind a $.25/week paywall.