Solari Special Report: Future Science Series: Protein Design by Directed Evolution in modRNA Injections with Dr. Sabine Stebel
Solari Special Report: Future Science Series: Protein Design by Directed Evolution in modRNA Injections with Dr. Sabine Stebel
My talk about directed protein evolution presented in the Corona Investigative Committee
Dr. Sabine C. Stebel | Sitzung 165: Wettlauf mit der Zeit (odysee.com)
https://odysee.com/@Corona-Ausschuss:3/s165-ss:0
is now available in an English Version on Solari Report:
Dr. Sabine Stebel’s expertise is in protein engineering and directed evolution, clearly a unique area of knowledge shared by very few scientists. After three years of pandemic scare and injection fraud, however, we have emerged into a new world where it seems that our health and even survival depend on how much each one of us understands about the very processes of molecular biology that build the cell and produce the proteins of life.
Dr. Stebel takes us into exactly this understanding and on a journey of discovery at the end of which there will be no further doubt that all modRNA injections need to be stopped.*
Based on published and peer-reviewed scientific literature, Stebel is showing that the synthetic design of the injectable BioNTech and Moderna spike protein carries such fundamental flaws and basic engineering errors that even a first-semester student of molecular biology would have known to avoid them. How is it possible that the best protein engineers and regulatory agencies would have committed these apparent mistakes?
Özlem Türeci and Uğur Şahin, the two founders of the German company BioNTech—whose modRNA technology went into the Pfizer vials—even describe many of the blunt mistakes in their book The Vaccine: Inside the Race to Conquer the COVID-19 Pandemic (2021) co-authored by Joe Miller.
Here are some the questions raised by Stebel’s analysis:
Why was there error-prone manganese in the PCR tests used to detect coronavirus infections?
Why was the synthetic Spike protein never fully characterized to determine important features such as folding kinetics, denaturation temperature, and binding profiles? The structure of a protein is as important as its “composition,” and to date, it is not possible to predict a protein’s structure from its nucleotide sequence or by computational models.
Why is the GC content of the synthetic Spike (S) protein much higher than in the natural S when it is known that more GC changes protein stability, increases its denaturation temperature, and influences folding phases? [G = Guanine, C = Cytosine]
And what about co-translational folding? How fast and in what stages does the protein fold as it is translated by the ribosome? What happens to misfolded proteins and their byproducts?
And then there is the modified nucleoside Pseudouridine (Ψ), or more precisely N1-methyl-Pseudouridine, which has a very different molecular structure and mass number from the normal Uridine that makes one of the letters of RNA sequences. How is Ψ metabolized or recycled within the cell? Will it be re-used in the various forms of RNA in the cells? We believe it will, and that means that these modified building blocks of cellular organelles (such as ribosomes and mitochondria) will gradually damage the overall protein manufacturing and energy production of the organism.
These are just some of the considerations and questions brought forward in Stebel’s presentation, and they ultimately lead to a disturbing possibility: Were these mistakes the result of shocking ignorance on the part of the lead scientists, inventors, and regulators of these “vaccines,” or was intention in the form of “willful negligence” at play?
Stebel is serving as an expert witness in various lawsuits that hope to demonstrate the lethality and illegality of the so-called vaccines. We urge lawyers, lawmakers, scientists, and citizens to come to their own conclusions, and hope in particular that this information will reach high-level attorneys such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and law offices involved in lawsuits against the manufacturers and proponents of the modRNA technologies so these can be stopped for good.
Were these mistakes the result of shocking ignorance on the part of the lead scientists, inventors, and regulators of these “vaccines,” or was intention in the form of “willful negligence” at play?
Why can't anybody just come right out and say the obvious?
Neither "shocking ignorance", nor "willful negligence". Third option = "Intentional evil". They were designed to kill, in ways that are hard to prove. On purpose., for plausible deniability.
As long as week keep believing politicians are stupid, pharma is making mistakes, we will never get to the point. These are kill shots.
they used the shitty biontech optimization in triple dose for study 38166, then magically came up with consensus b2v9.
quote from my article: Another very interesting smidgen of information from the EMA leak (quality report p56) is another hint concerning the differences between BNT162b2v8 and v9: a footnote in a diagram states that “RBP020.1 and RBP020.2 code for the same antigen, but with variations in the used codons, thus, they differ slightly in the nucleotide sequence. Codon optimization has been performed either via a BioNTech proprietary algorithm (RBP020.1) or with a published algorithm (Raab et al. 2010; RBP020.2).”
RBP020.1 is b2 v8, RBP020.2 is b2 v9, which ended up being Comirnaty. v9 elicited 3-5x more antibodies than v8. BioNTech must suck if their proprietary codon-optimization got absolutely wrecked by an open-source program. Absolute shenanigans when you think about it: they exploited their own “incompetence” to get well codon-optimised modRNA into humans without a prior tox study; 38166 used BNT162b2v8, and the repeat-dose tox study for BNT162b2v9, 20256434, started the same day Phase 3 dosing in C4591001 began. Did they codon-optimize BNT162b2v8 “wrong” on purpose, in order to have the consensus optimal sequence be much better and skip the line into human trials?
https://modarnlife.substack.com/p/the-pre-2020-bnt162-development-program
anyway i was blown away by your presentation, the very competent interviewer really coaxed the information out of you in a way that worked extremely well, just an amazingly coherent and instructive, information packed, bundled insight. and you even include sources! as you kept repeating the point "this is common knowledge, it's right there just read it" i was reminded several times of this paper osf.io/uwx32 since published in mdpi, its a fantastic read but especially the first two pages, where domaszet-loso outlines that nobody ever really checked to see whether mRNA can integrate, it's a hollow interconnecting web of citations.
great job and thank you for speaking out!