Gas lighting and Misdirection with the Spike Protein Fantasy

To Cover Up What Is Truly Behind This

Italian translation: https://www.thelivingspirits.net/dr-sa-baxas-la-spike-e-un-depistaggio-e-una-subdola-manipolazione/

We need to seriously question the story about the spike protein of the so called Covid “virus” and the mRNA story in the jabs. I delved into studies regarding the detection of the spike protein and found there is no evidence for its existence.

Here’s why:

1. First of all, there is no evidence that any virus ever existed as the tests purported to be evidence are humbug. I wrote extensively about it in another post: https://anitabaxasmd.substack.com/p/the-questionable-virus-theory

So if there is no virus, there can’t be any spike protein since it is claimed the spike protein is part of the outer capsule of the virus.

2. Studies^1,2,3,4,5 do NOT use isolated spike protein from isolated virus samples to analyze its amino acid sequence and test what it does to cells. They take the gene sequence of questionable origin of “the virus” from a computer database and deduce the genes responsible for the spike protein. They then create a plasmid (a string of genes) coded for that spike protein (claimed to be) and insert it into a bacteria, usually E. Coli so that bacteria then produce this “spike protein”. They then purify this protein and use it to detect so called antibodies or create 3D renderings of it or show that it binds to ACE2 receptors.

The later study⁴ even stated that 1988 proteins thought to be encoded in certain gene sequences of “the virus” have NOT BEEN found in what is assumed to be the virus. The gene sequence found and predicted to be for the spike protein is compared to the gene sequence “found” in other corona viruses genomes (in computer databases), also predicted to be for the spike protein. The foundation on which the studies and reasoning is based is invalid. Ergo all conclusions based on this are garbage.

The last study⁵ writes verbatim:  Amino acid composition and protein structure:

“Wrapp et al. [17] obtained the trimeric structure of the S protein by 3D reconstruction technology based on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, and found that it is structurally different from that of SARS-CoV.”

Once again the structure of the S protein was done by 3D reconstruction based on genomic sequence of the “virus” found in a database.

3. When antibodies bind to this protein it’s then classified as an antibody against the spike protein, ergo a Covid diagnosis is made. But, as Dr. Mike Yeadon pointed out recently, there is no evidence this created protein is from a virus. He wrote: “first you need the something that you wish to develop a method to detect.” In this case they use antibodies that bind to that purported lab created spike protein. They get these antibodies from animals injected with that protein. Animals as well as humans create many different antibodies to foreign proteins (food allergies for example). If you inject a lab created protein into a body, it will make antibodies that bind to it. Read more of what Dr. Yeadon wrote here:

Dr. Yeadon Explains For First Time How The Covid Tests Can't Detect Proteins Like WHO Purports! Pandemic THEORY Is Wrong & We Will PROVE IT! Pandemics Do NOT Exist.

4. It’s claimed that the spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor to enter the host cell and then cause the symptoms of massive inflammation. This study⁶ didn’t actually test this directly. They used monkey kidney cells (the Vero 6 cells), dissolved them with chemicals and added a complex of “spike protein” as created by the method described in point 1 and bound to an antibody. They filtered out all the proteins and did an electrophoresis to divide them into visible bands of different masses. They took the protein band with a mass of 100 kilo Dalton and incubated it with Trypsin, which dissolves protein.  Left over were fragments of protein of which they determined the masses. They then compared these to fragments of proteins in a GenBank and claimed it was the ACE2 receptor because a mere 17% of the gene fragments they found were consistent with human ACE2 receptors. They then cloned it from complementary DNA obtained from human lung for further analysis. They then took Plasmids (gene sequences of this “ACE2 receptor”) and inserted them into Vero 6 cells so they express “ACE2 receptors”. Then other studies based on this method added purported (lab created from gene sequences) spike protein-antibody complexes to such Vero 6 cultures that then bound to these “ACE2 receptors”. Obviously they are going to bind together since the original protein later guessed to be ACE2 was found by adding purported Spike protein-antibody complexes. This is circular reasoning.

5. Another study⁷ set out to show that a particular protease (enzyme that digests protein) cleaves the spike protein into two parts. One of these parts is then activated to enter the host cell, so they claim. But they once again used gene sequences from a database to create plasmids inserted into Vero 6 cells to produce the spike protein, the ACE2 receptor and the protease. If the origin of the gene sequence is flawed, the whole experiment is flawed and does not prove a thing.

6. What about the symptoms attributed to the spike protein? They include mostly massive inflammatory processes such as myocarditis and pneumonia. When we look at what Graphene oxide does to the body we see that it causes massive inflammation and oxidative damage. Couple that with massive doses of EMF radiation such as 5G frequencies and you get a perfect storm. It’s highly probable that the flu vaccines given in the fall and winter of 2019 already contained Graphene. In the hot spots of “Covid” sickness 5G antennas were turned on blanketing the area such as in Wuhan, New York city and Lombard, Italy. Graphene oxide disrupts the immune system, causes cancer, loss of smell and taste, passes through the blood brain barrier and causes neurological issues. It causes the Rouleau effect in blood, spontaneous abortion and many other severe issues (see my Post here:

https://anitabaxasmd.substack.com/p/what-causes-death-and-disability)

Regarding the Covid jabs, blood clots are attributed to the body supposedly making spike proteins due to the mRNA. Coroners are finding clots, but they are mostly NOT made from blood as visual and Masspectrometry analysis have shown. They are made from a rubbery material, identified by Dr. Ana-Maria Mihalcea as polyamide such as found in micro plastics, used in hydrogels and in artificial spider silk. Many jab vials that have been examined don’t contain the basic building blocks phosphorus and nitrogen that make up mRNA. Others probably contain mRNA and even DNA plasmids but only the manufacturers know what they really code for.

To Nattokinase or not Nattokinase?

So where does this leave us in regards to treatment? Should we still use Nattokinase or Lumbrokinase? As there are no spike proteins that need dissolving this may seem like a useless endeavor. However, we do find reduced blood flow capabilities in live blood dark field microscopy due to the aggregation of red blood cells. Nattokinase is a fibrinogen inhibitor. Fibrinogen is a blood clotting agent. So anything that can safely improve blood flow and reduce stickiness is helpful. At this point I think it’s still useful to take it.

What is really behind this?

The big question is, why are we being manipulated to focus on the spike protein? It’s most likely to hide the real ingredients in the jabs such as Graphene, spider silk, hydrogels, quantum dots which are really behind the agenda to get it into everyone. These seem to serve to construct nano devices to connect the human body via 5G (Starlink) to a central AI controlled cloud computer. David Icke, Dr. Ana-Maria Mihalcea, Karen Kingston, La Quinta Columna, Dr. Carnicom, Dr. Nixon and many others (too few so far) have been warning about this for a while now and providing evidence.

See the Zoom Call between David Icke, La Quinta Columna and Dr. Astrid Stückelberger here:

https://davidicke.com/2024/01/16/david-icke-was-right-about-covid-the-jab-the-cloud-and-manipulation-by-a-non-human-force-by-the-team-that-identified-graphene-in-the-fake-vaccine/

And read this brand new post by Dr. Ana-Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD:

"Hydrogel Platform Enables Versatile Data Encryption And Decryption" - The Next Programmable Human Machine Interface Is "Smarter" Than You Think

Unfortunately most physicians don’t want to go there and are putting it off as a conspiracy theory because either it goes beyond their belief of what is possible or they can’t fathom anyone being so nefarious or they are paid to misdirect everyone. There is a certain company associated with a well- known Cardiologist promoting the Spike Protein theory of disease and selling a supplement for it but staying far away from mentioning Graphene and the other ingredients in the jabs. Maybe a closer look at the founder of that company is warranted.

Citations

1. Article| Volume 181, ISSUE 2, P281-292.e6, April 16, 2020
Structure, Function, and Antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein Alexandra C. Walls ⁵,Young-Jun Park ⁵,M. Alejandra Tortorici,Abigail Wall,Andrew T. McGuire,David Veesler ⁶
Open AccessPublished:March 09, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058

2. Rapid High-Yield Production of Functional SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain by Viral and Non-Viral Transient Expression for Pre-Clinical Evaluation

by Omar Farnós,Alina Venereo-Sánchez, Xingge Xu, Cindy Chan ,Shantoshini Dash, Hanan Chaabane, Janelle Sauvageau, Fouad Brahimi, Uri Saragovi, Denis Leclerc, Amine A. Kamen
Vaccines 2020, 8(4), 654; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8040654

Submission received: 26 September 2020 / Revised: 18 October 2020 / Accepted: 28 October 2020 / Published: 4 November 2020   https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/8/4/654

3. Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient

Jennifer Harcourt, Ph.D,^1,* Azaibi Tamin, Ph.D,^1,* Xiaoyan Lu,¹ Shifaq Kamili,² Senthil Kumar. Sakthivel,² Janna Murray,² Krista Queen, Ph.D.,¹ Ying Tao, Ph.D.,¹ Clinton R. Paden, Ph.D.,¹ Jing Zhang,³ Yan Li,¹ Anna Uehara, Ph.D.,⁴ Haibin Wang,³ Cynthia Goldsmith, Ph.D.,¹ Hannah A. Bullock, Ph.D.,⁵ Lijuan Wang,⁵ Brett Whitaker,¹ Brian Lynch,² Rashi Gautam, Ph.D,¹ Craig Schindewolf,⁶ Kumari G. Lokugamage, Ph.D,⁶ Dionna Scharton,⁷ Jessica A. Plante, Ph.D,⁷ Divya Mirchandani,⁶ Steven G. Widen, Ph.D.,⁸ Krishna Narayanan, Ph.D.,⁶ Shinji Makino, Ph.D.,⁶ Thomas G. Ksiazek, DVM, Ph.D,^7,9 Kenneth S. Plante, Ph.D.,⁷ Scott C. Weaver, Ph.D.,^6,7,9 Stephen Lindstrom, Ph.D,¹ Suxiang Tong, Ph.D,¹ Vineet D. Menachery, Ph.D,^7,9,+ and Natalie J. Thornburg^1,+

Version 2. bioRxiv. Preprint. 2020 Mar 7.

doi: 10.1101/2020.03.02.972935

PMCID: PMC7239045

PMID: 32511316

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/

4. Journal of General Virology
Volume 71, Issue 5
Nucleotide Sequence of the Gene Encoding the Spike Glycoprotein of Human Coronavirus HCV 229E

• Thomas Raabe¹, Barbara Schelle-Prinz¹, Stuart G. Siddell¹

• Published: 01 May 1990 https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-71-5-1065

5. Published: 29 July 2020
SARS-CoV-2: characteristics and current advances in research

• Yicheng Yang, Zhiqiang Xiao, Kaiyan Ye, Xiaoen He, Bo Sun, Zhiran Qin, Jianghai Yu, Jinxiu Yao,

• Qinghua Wu, Zhang Bao & Wei Zhao 

• Virology Journal volume 17, Article number: 117 (2020)

6.  Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is a functional receptor for the SARS coronavirus

• Wenhui Li, Michael J. Moore, Natalya Vasilieva, Jianhua Sui, Swee Kee Wong, Michael A. Berne, Mohan Somasundaran, John L. Sullivan, Katherine Luzuriaga, Thomas C. Greenough, Hyeryun Choe & Michael Farzan 

Nature volume 426, pages 450–454 (2003) Published: 27 November 2003

7. JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY, May 2011, p. 4122–4134 Vol. 85, No. 9

0022-538X/11/$12.00 doi:10.1128/JVI.02232-10

Copyright © 2011, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Evidence that TMPRSS2 Activates the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Spike Protein for Membrane Fusion and Reduces Viral Control by the Humoral Immune Response

Ilona Glowacka,1† Stephanie Bertram,1† Marcel A. Mu¨ller,2 Paul Allen,3 Elizabeth Soilleux,3 Susanne Pfefferle,4 Imke Steffen,1 Theodros Solomon Tsegaye,1 Yuxian He,5 Kerstin Gnirss,1 Daniela Niemeyer,2 Heike Schneider,6 Christian Drosten,2 and Stefan Po¨hlmann1,7*

Institute of Virology, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany1; Institute of Virology, University of Bonn Medical Centre,53127 Bonn, Germany2; Department of Cellular Pathology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, England3;

Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, 20359 Hamburg, Germany4; Institute of Pathogen Biology,

Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 1007302, China5;

Institute for Physiological Chemistry, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany6;

and German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany7

Received 25 October 2010/Accepted 27 January 2011