Researching further, I find there is still some controversy regarding the relative importance of ACE2 and CD147 binding, with one paper claiming that CD147 does not bind at all to the spike protein, which it clearly DOES in lung and liver cells. I'm uncertain of CD147's role in binding to endothelial cells, so further reading required. As I say, this stuff is really very complex!
"Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is associated with a wide range of systemic manifestations. Several observations support a role for vascular endothelial dysfunction in the pathogenesis including an increased incidence of thrombotic events and coagulopathy and the presence of vascular risk factors as an independent predictor of poor prognosis. It has recently been reported that endothelitis is associated with viral inclusion bodies suggesting a direct role for SARS-CoV-2 in the pathogenesis. The ACE2 receptor has been shown to mediate SARS-CoV-2 uptake and it has been proposed that CD147 (BSG) can function as an alternative cell surface receptor. To define the endothelial cell populations that are susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2, we investigated the expression of ACE2 as well as other genes implicated in the cellular entry of SARS-Cov-2 in the vascular endothelium through the analysis of single cell sequencing data derived from multiple human tissues (skin, liver, kidney, lung and intestine). We found that CD147 (BSG) but not ACE2 is detectable in vascular endothelial cells within single cell sequencing datasets derived from multiple tissues in healthy individuals. This implies that either ACE2 is not expressed in healthy tissue but is instead induced in response to SARS-Cov2 or that SARS-Cov2 enters endothelial cells via an alternative receptor such as CD147.
It has recently been proposed that CD147 (BSG), a cell surface receptor, can also facilitate entry of SARS-Cov-2 into cells (K. Wang et al. 2020) and therefore we examined expression of this transcript across the datasets. In contrast to ACE2, we observed that CD147 was widely expressed in these tissues including in endothelial cells in all of the datasets for which these could be identified i.e. lung, liver, and skin (Figure 1A, B, C).
CONCLUSION
In summary, we report that CD147 but not ACE2 is detectable in vascular endothelial cells within single cell sequencing datasets derived from multiple tissues in healthy individuals."
Most vaccinated people are healthy . . . . . at least, up until they are vaccinated. So it looks like CD147 is facilitating the binding to endothelial cells, not ACE2.
I just looked properly at this post, funnily enough I also tried to reply to Jessica's clotting post and was annoyed, I wrote my reply on her unconditional site, but she never responds anyway!
There is no evidence that any clots or cell damage are caused by a virus. A positive test shows RNA fragments and proteins present in a person that have never been shown to come from a virus. These genetic changes and stress proteins are undoubtedly part of the homeostatic process. The damage/clotting observed could be caused by a person's 'co-morbidiites' , diabetes, CVD, hypertension, obesity, dysbiosis, lack of sleep which allegedly make them more susceptible to 'covid' or by their medications for statins, metformin, ACE inhibitors, anti virals, anti proteases, anti-depressants, flu jabs etc etc. All the studies on clots are observational, not a properly controlled study. Perhaps sars negative patients also have clots but no one is looking for them.
Assessing the impact of so called infection in vitro would involve using control samples from patients with the exact same symptoms but SARs test negative and they would also have to be matched for morbidities and medications.
However the impact of injecting nanoparticles, toxins or indeed any protein where it can get into the blood stream directly and not via the gut is going to be bad! If the jabs do contain mRNA that is translated into 'spike' protein (no evidence it comes from a viurs nor is spike shaped) https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/spikes-and-knobs which is known to be involved in stimulating inflammation etc there's no accounting for the damage it will cause.
Hi Jaime, I was looking for your comment on Joel about lab leak theory but can't find it so will reply here.
(Yes, it really annoys me too when I can't reply to posts!)
I've just seen this from Stefano Scoglio on the '80% of Omni-S mice died' story that did the rounds.
Absolute proof for me that the lab leak is the narrative they want us to follow, waste our time and money trying to prove happened and that it killed people, which we wont be able to do.
'Preprint' non-peer reviewed studies aka propaganda is published on bioriix or medirix website, then is drip fed to MSM and jumped on by undiscerning alternative folks-'80% of Omicron-S mice died!!!
None of the mice died; they were euthanised after scores of ruffled fur, hunched posture, weight loss and respiratory distress. The mice were modified to express extra ACE-2 receptors making more susceptible to 'spike' protein (never shown to come from a virus) damage. We will note and ask, but pass over, why someone would do such barbaric things to fellow earthlings.
The Omicron patient sample had virtually no effect on mice. The 'virus' we are all going on and on about was virtually harmless to mice even after injecting loads of it right up tiny mammals noses and directly into their lungs.
The other two were cell cultures, not samples, and they contained the toxic chemical phenol red.
The 'WT' was made from stressing abnormal cells in culture which we know produces the 'spike' protein, the Omni-S had the spike protein added. We know that the spike protein causes respiratory distress.
All that this shows is that a scary lab leak is the official narrative.
Lots of people freaked out about the Omi-S mice experiments, claiming it was proof that mad scientists were developing a killer virus in the lab, but the truth turned out to be somewhat less sensational. We have to be careful.
"which have been modified to be more resistant to degradation than the viral spike"
I knew that Vaccine spike was not identical to the viral, but can you elaborate a little on this aspect, or point me towards info ? Many thanks - great article
"Developing antibodies to the prefusion spike protein is considered critical for vaccines, but natural spike proteins in isolation are inherently unstable and do not retain the prefusion shape.[2] This presents a significant challenge for coronavirus vaccine development.
Long before this pandemic, NIH scientists working with academic researchers came up with a solution. They engineered a new way of “freezing” coronavirus spike proteins in the prefusion shape. The prefusion spike protein for an earlier coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), produced a stronger antibody response at lower doses than the naturally occurring protein in mice.[3] The approach required substituting two amino acids with prolines near the central helix and heptad repeat 1 (“the 2P approach”). The scientists filed a patent application covering this approach.[4]
When severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged, the scientists realized the same approach could work for the new virus. They filed another patent application.[5] Now, most of the leading first-generation COVID-19 vaccine candidates—including those by Pfizer/BioNTech, J&J, Novavax, CureVac and Moderna—are using the publicly developed 2P approach. Years of public investment have fuelled the rapid advancement of COVID-19 vaccine candidates.[6]"
How 'fortunate' that they already had a stabilised pre-fusion spike protein ready and waiting to go when the Covid 'pandemic' happened - research which just 'happened' to have been funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Working on recall here, so take it for what it is worth.
The spike made by the sanctified gene juice jab has been modified to have 2 prolines between the S1 and S2 domains, which makes the construct less flexible, and less subject to proteolysis.
Researching further, I find there is still some controversy regarding the relative importance of ACE2 and CD147 binding, with one paper claiming that CD147 does not bind at all to the spike protein, which it clearly DOES in lung and liver cells. I'm uncertain of CD147's role in binding to endothelial cells, so further reading required. As I say, this stuff is really very complex!
This looks promising. From way back in May 2020:
"Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is associated with a wide range of systemic manifestations. Several observations support a role for vascular endothelial dysfunction in the pathogenesis including an increased incidence of thrombotic events and coagulopathy and the presence of vascular risk factors as an independent predictor of poor prognosis. It has recently been reported that endothelitis is associated with viral inclusion bodies suggesting a direct role for SARS-CoV-2 in the pathogenesis. The ACE2 receptor has been shown to mediate SARS-CoV-2 uptake and it has been proposed that CD147 (BSG) can function as an alternative cell surface receptor. To define the endothelial cell populations that are susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2, we investigated the expression of ACE2 as well as other genes implicated in the cellular entry of SARS-Cov-2 in the vascular endothelium through the analysis of single cell sequencing data derived from multiple human tissues (skin, liver, kidney, lung and intestine). We found that CD147 (BSG) but not ACE2 is detectable in vascular endothelial cells within single cell sequencing datasets derived from multiple tissues in healthy individuals. This implies that either ACE2 is not expressed in healthy tissue but is instead induced in response to SARS-Cov2 or that SARS-Cov2 enters endothelial cells via an alternative receptor such as CD147.
It has recently been proposed that CD147 (BSG), a cell surface receptor, can also facilitate entry of SARS-Cov-2 into cells (K. Wang et al. 2020) and therefore we examined expression of this transcript across the datasets. In contrast to ACE2, we observed that CD147 was widely expressed in these tissues including in endothelial cells in all of the datasets for which these could be identified i.e. lung, liver, and skin (Figure 1A, B, C).
CONCLUSION
In summary, we report that CD147 but not ACE2 is detectable in vascular endothelial cells within single cell sequencing datasets derived from multiple tissues in healthy individuals."
Most vaccinated people are healthy . . . . . at least, up until they are vaccinated. So it looks like CD147 is facilitating the binding to endothelial cells, not ACE2.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.29.123513v1.full
I just looked properly at this post, funnily enough I also tried to reply to Jessica's clotting post and was annoyed, I wrote my reply on her unconditional site, but she never responds anyway!
There is no evidence that any clots or cell damage are caused by a virus. A positive test shows RNA fragments and proteins present in a person that have never been shown to come from a virus. These genetic changes and stress proteins are undoubtedly part of the homeostatic process. The damage/clotting observed could be caused by a person's 'co-morbidiites' , diabetes, CVD, hypertension, obesity, dysbiosis, lack of sleep which allegedly make them more susceptible to 'covid' or by their medications for statins, metformin, ACE inhibitors, anti virals, anti proteases, anti-depressants, flu jabs etc etc. All the studies on clots are observational, not a properly controlled study. Perhaps sars negative patients also have clots but no one is looking for them.
Assessing the impact of so called infection in vitro would involve using control samples from patients with the exact same symptoms but SARs test negative and they would also have to be matched for morbidities and medications.
However the impact of injecting nanoparticles, toxins or indeed any protein where it can get into the blood stream directly and not via the gut is going to be bad! If the jabs do contain mRNA that is translated into 'spike' protein (no evidence it comes from a viurs nor is spike shaped) https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/spikes-and-knobs which is known to be involved in stimulating inflammation etc there's no accounting for the damage it will cause.
Jo
🐒
Hi Jaime, I was looking for your comment on Joel about lab leak theory but can't find it so will reply here.
(Yes, it really annoys me too when I can't reply to posts!)
I've just seen this from Stefano Scoglio on the '80% of Omni-S mice died' story that did the rounds.
Absolute proof for me that the lab leak is the narrative they want us to follow, waste our time and money trying to prove happened and that it killed people, which we wont be able to do.
'Preprint' non-peer reviewed studies aka propaganda is published on bioriix or medirix website, then is drip fed to MSM and jumped on by undiscerning alternative folks-'80% of Omicron-S mice died!!!
None of the mice died; they were euthanised after scores of ruffled fur, hunched posture, weight loss and respiratory distress. The mice were modified to express extra ACE-2 receptors making more susceptible to 'spike' protein (never shown to come from a virus) damage. We will note and ask, but pass over, why someone would do such barbaric things to fellow earthlings.
The Omicron patient sample had virtually no effect on mice. The 'virus' we are all going on and on about was virtually harmless to mice even after injecting loads of it right up tiny mammals noses and directly into their lungs.
The other two were cell cultures, not samples, and they contained the toxic chemical phenol red.
The 'WT' was made from stressing abnormal cells in culture which we know produces the 'spike' protein, the Omni-S had the spike protein added. We know that the spike protein causes respiratory distress.
All that this shows is that a scary lab leak is the official narrative.
And again makes us wonder why it is the spike protein the mRNA allegedly makes; when we know it damages respiratory cells. https://www.bitchute.com/video/HFoh3bpEVqEq/
Jo
🐒
Hi Jo,
Lots of people freaked out about the Omi-S mice experiments, claiming it was proof that mad scientists were developing a killer virus in the lab, but the truth turned out to be somewhat less sensational. We have to be careful.
Yes indeed. 🙏🏽
"which have been modified to be more resistant to degradation than the viral spike"
I knew that Vaccine spike was not identical to the viral, but can you elaborate a little on this aspect, or point me towards info ? Many thanks - great article
Here:
"Developing antibodies to the prefusion spike protein is considered critical for vaccines, but natural spike proteins in isolation are inherently unstable and do not retain the prefusion shape.[2] This presents a significant challenge for coronavirus vaccine development.
Long before this pandemic, NIH scientists working with academic researchers came up with a solution. They engineered a new way of “freezing” coronavirus spike proteins in the prefusion shape. The prefusion spike protein for an earlier coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), produced a stronger antibody response at lower doses than the naturally occurring protein in mice.[3] The approach required substituting two amino acids with prolines near the central helix and heptad repeat 1 (“the 2P approach”). The scientists filed a patent application covering this approach.[4]
When severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged, the scientists realized the same approach could work for the new virus. They filed another patent application.[5] Now, most of the leading first-generation COVID-19 vaccine candidates—including those by Pfizer/BioNTech, J&J, Novavax, CureVac and Moderna—are using the publicly developed 2P approach. Years of public investment have fuelled the rapid advancement of COVID-19 vaccine candidates.[6]"
https://www.citizen.org/article/leading-covid-19-vaccines-depend-on-nih-technology/
How 'fortunate' that they already had a stabilised pre-fusion spike protein ready and waiting to go when the Covid 'pandemic' happened - research which just 'happened' to have been funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Working on recall here, so take it for what it is worth.
The spike made by the sanctified gene juice jab has been modified to have 2 prolines between the S1 and S2 domains, which makes the construct less flexible, and less subject to proteolysis.
If you care for more, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7523111/
I agree 100%. To ignore this and continue to promote jabs is homicide. DELIBERATE homicide.
Very clear explanation - thankyou. I think David Lesondak's book on fascia is relevant here - he has a good section on fibroblasts.... https://garysharpe.substack.com/p/book-review-fascia-what-it-is-and