Duxon's Archive

The Fantastic Art of Frank Frazetta is no longer in you library collection. So, at some point, you might want to purchase it again...

 

Just Exactly WHAT Did Pfizer Do?
(Excerpt from an interview with Bret Weinstein)

Your immune system is elegantly built to recognize molecular structures that you yourself do not make. After you go through a certain amount of development, you have what is called a self/non-self recognition system. You do not react to molecules that you yourself make; and you react to almost any biological molecule that is not produced by you yourself on the presumption that those things are probably hostile. So, that’s the basics of the immune system, or at least the adaptive immune system.

That system can be educated to react to a pathogen you have not yet seen by introducing antigens from that pathogen in one way or another. (Antigens are molecular signatures that the immune system can learn to recognize. It literally evolves to recognize them better and better.

So, there are two general ways that this is done with what we classically call a vaccine. One way is to take a pathogen and to attenuate it, so that it is not virulent, it does not make you sick. If we can give you a little infection that is closely related to an infection that is a threat to you, and we give you a mild version that doesn’t make you especially sick, and most importantly, doesn’t transmit from one person to the next, then we can give your immune system a trial run with something molecularly very similar to the dangerous disease. Then, when you encounter the dangerous disease, your immune system is already educated—it has natural immunity because of cross-reactivity between the attenuated virus that we gave you and the wild virus that’s a threat.

Now, there are a number of reasons that vaccinologists don't prefer that method. For one thing, it’s difficult to do. You want to get something that is good enough to give you enough of an infection to be capable of generating natural immunity, but you don’t want it to get out of control…you don’t want it to jump from person to person. That point is, you’re threading a needle with this mechanism.

The best vaccines have this profile, but it's not an easy thing to arrange, and it takes a long time to figure out whether you’ve done it right. So, from the point of view of the business of pharmacology, it’s not a winner.

On the other hand, we have figured out a way to cheat that is more economically effective while being much less useful as a technique, which basically involves dead viruses or fragments thereof, which have the molecular signature that you immune system has to learn. But, the problem is that the things which trigger your immune system to do the learning are the infections that are caused by the pathogens. If we inject some pieces of a virus into you, your body doesn’t have the right reaction because you’re not sick, so the right alarms don’t go off to set in motion the learning process that a good vaccine would trigger.

So, what we do is we avail ourselves of some "cheats." And the cheats are what are called adjuvants. Adjuvants are basically irritants for the immune system. So, if we give you a bunch of antigen that looks like a pathogen, let’s say that its killed (i.e., dead) virus, and we give you an irritant that causes your immune system to wake up and look around, then it can find those antigens and it can learn the formula.

So this is, in my opinion, not a very good way to make a vaccine, in part because the adjuvants mechanism may work to trigger a natural immunity, but it may also cause you to become allergic to things. We are irritating your immune system, and it may find the antigen that we’ve infected you with, but it may also find the peanuts in your gut, or the honey, or the gluten, or whatever, and it may become sensitive to that. So, there’s a question about how many of these new allergic affects we have in which people become allergic to their food and things, are actually the result of adjuvanted vaccines.

That's the basics of how normal vaccines against a virus would work. On the other hand, the Covid vaccines came in two other forms, BOTH of which were totally novel.

One type are the mRNA based vaccines. And I cannot emphasize enough how simultaneously brilliant and diabolical this mechanism is. What it does is take the mRNA message (the little m in front of the acronym RNA, which stands for messenger)…

Now, messenger RNA is the language that the genes in the nucleus of all of your cells use to get proteins produced, which are what does the work of the cells. Proteins are the working molecules. DNA is the information molecule. mRNA is the intermediary.

So, a gene is transcribed into mRNA, and then translated into protein in the cytoplasm of the cell. So, what the mRNA we injected people with do, is they find their way into cells through a mechanism I’ll tell you about in a second; and then the natural process inside the cell translates them into proteins—in the case of the vaccines that people were given, into spike proteins. That spike protein is supposed to get exported to the surface of the cell, where the immune system is supposed to see it and learn the code.

Now, on the one hand, that is a very clever way, not really of vaccinating you, but of turning your own cells into vaccine factories. It is a totally novel mechanism. It’s not an adjuvented vaccine, it’s not an attenuated vaccine, it's a whole new way of doing this. And on the one hand, it solves a problem that accompanies any gene therapy. (There is a strong argument to be made that these constitute a gene therapy—vaccine is the wrong term and gene therapy is arguably the right one.) But, when you introduce these mRNAs into cells, there are two things you need to know, and one of them took a long time to find out, and one of them was obvious from the get go, or should have been.

The one that’s obvious is when your cells start producing a foreign protein, like the spike protein, the immune system cannot help but regard those cells as virally infected. It’s the only thing in nature that looks like a cell that has been hijacked by an mRNA vaccine.

There is an ancient machine in all of your cells called the ribosome. It actually looks like an enzyme or a series of enzymes, but it’s made out of RNA—a different kind of RNA—it’s not an mRNA. But anyway, it's a big machine that sits around…billions or trillions of these things exist in your body. So, any time an RNA message finds its way to a ribosome, the ribosome just automatically translates it into protein.

In this case, the question really is, you could effectively put any protein into the body by putting it in an mRNA message, and then letting the ribosomes produce the protein. That’s brilliant. There is a lot of stuff that could be usefully done with this mechanism because it allows you to just effectively produce proteins inside of cells.

But, there are two problems, one of which I was explaining a second ago, which is, as soon as your cell starts expressing a foreign protein, your immune system has to think that’s a virally infected cell, and there is only one right thing to do with a virally infected cell, and that is… destroy it.

If that cell is in your deltoids, where they injected the vaccine (because the vaccine remained there) then the destruction of that cell in your arm isn't a particularly terrible thing. If, on the other hand, that mRNA has circulated around your body because they didn’t aspirate the syringe when they injected you, and they hit a vein, or it has “leaked” out of the deltoids and found its way into lymph and/or the blood circulation system, then it could, in principle, show up anywhere.

This means it could be absorbed by any cell in your body that will have it, which presumably is almost any cell, because the mechanism that gets the mRNA into the cells is a chemical affinity between the lipid nanoparticles that they coded it in and the lipids on the surface of your cells.

So, here is the upshot of this half of the problem: Your cells that take up this message and translate int into protein, are going to be targeted by your immune system. When they are targeted, they will be destroyed. If that happen in your arm, it's not a big deal. Maybe you will simply suffer from a little weakness. If it happens in your liver, it's probably not a bid deal. But, if it happens in your heart, it's a huge [freaking] deal! And they didn’t put any targeting mechanism on it. There is nothing about this lipid nanoparticle that says, “don’t invade heart cells, stick to the liver or arm or something like that.”

So, they were depending on these things staying local to the injection site, which they should have known they weren't going to do, and as soon as they found out they weren't doing it, they should have halted he program right then and there, because there is no reasonable way that this wasn’t going to cause damage to vital that you can’t afford to have damaged. That was obvious, or should have been.

But, that's only half the story. The other half of the story is they told us at the early stage of the vaccination campaign the that mRNAs were short-lived, so that all of us folks who were concerned by what we being told about the novelty of this mechanism were overreacting, because the mRNAs were so short-lived that whatever was going to happen, there wasn’t going to be much of it.

Well, it turned out that they used a trick to stabilize the mRNAs, and the trick is one that they borrowed from nature. It’s something that is called a pseudouridine.

mRNAs are written in a four-letter code, just like DNA. One of the four letters is u for uracil, that’s one of the four chemicals in the alphabet of mRNA, and if you substitute pseudouridine in for a uracil, it makes the mRNA much more stable.

Nature does the occasionally. We do not really understand why or where it happens, but there are times when nature wants to stabilize an mRNA so that it is not quickly degraded, and it will do this trick.

The people who made these vaccines stabilized the entire message. They substituted every uracil with a pseudouridine, thereby making an incredibly stable molecule. So, now you’ve got two problems. One is that you’ve go an mRNA with no targeting mechanism being taken up by whatever cell it encounters while circulating around the body;

(If the immune system attacks heart cells, you end up with dead tissue in the heart, which has an extremely low capacity for repair [mostly what it does is scar—not repair] and the mRNA, which has been hyper-stabilized, spills out of the heart cells and presumably gets picked up by other cells, maybe a macrophage, another immune cell, which then gets targeted f it starts translating the protein by the immune system

The hyperstabilizing of the mRNA means that this pattern can continue to cascade into pathologies in cells down stream of the initial transfection event in a way that the architiects presumably did not intend.

 

This post looks like it might be fun to read (at some point, when you have a lot of time on your hands...)

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/your-favorite-trading-quote-s.374205/

 

What does Bing's AI-powered chat say is the best Forex daytrading strategy?

Forex day trading is a short-term strategy that involves buying and selling currency pairs within the same day. The goal is to make small but frequent profits by taking advantage of price movements in the forex market. There are many different forex day trading strategies that you can use, depending on your skill level, risk appetite, and trading style. Here are some of the best forex day trading strategies for 2023 that I found from my web search:

• 50-pips a day strategy: This strategy leverages the early market move of certain highly liquid currency pairs, such as GBPUSD and EURUSD. The idea is to enter a trade in the direction of the daily trend and exit after making 50 pips of profit1.
• 2 EMA bounce strategy: This strategy uses two exponential moving averages (EMAs) to identify the trend and potential entry points. The trader looks for a bounce off the EMAs as a signal to buy or sell. This strategy is suitable for beginners and can be used on various timeframes2.
• Scalping strategy: This strategy involves making very quick trades, sometimes lasting only a few seconds or minutes, to capture small price changes. The trader uses technical indicators, such as stochastic, MACD, or RSI, to identify overbought or oversold conditions and trade accordingly. This strategy requires a lot of concentration, discipline, and fast execution3.
• Breakout strategy: This strategy involves trading when the price breaks out of a consolidation range or a significant support or resistance level. The trader anticipates that the breakout will lead to a continuation of the trend or a reversal and places a stop-loss and a take-profit accordingly. This strategy can be combined with other indicators, such as volume, trend lines, or chart patterns, to confirm the validity of the breakout3.

These are just some examples of forex day trading strategies that you can try. However, you should always test them on a demo account first and practice proper risk management before trading with real money.

 

Breathtaking sights in deep space...



https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...beautiful-panoramas-photos-universe-around-us

 

.. .Necklace Nebula​

 

Since you have no desire to work through Discord, and are therefore opting NOT to use Leonardo or Midjourney; and given that you prefer not to hassle with Google's verification process every time you need to log into your account, probably your best option when it comes to this kind of art generating technology is Lexica...