Remember that 4chan post from 2020?

Is it science fiction? Is it real?

Once upon a time, well, actually on September 12, 2020 at 11:22:55, a post was made by an anonymous person on 4chan. 4chan has a really prolific and interesting history that I learned about whilst researching this article. It was started by a 15-year old boy in New York with the handle ‘moot’ as an imageboard (like a bulletin board but with images). It was a spin-off of a Japanese-based imageboard called 2chan, but translated into English and aimed at Westerners. Inevitably, like all things created by the hands of man, it had dark elements woven in. It has been referred to as ‘the Internet's most trafficked imageboard’¹ and does not have a registration system which means that users can truly post anonymously. Instead it uses ‘tripcodes’ - a type of pseudo-registration - which ensures that posters are not impostered.

Here’s the post and what will follow will be what I know about the things written about therein. Two important questions will be addressed: 1. Is this science fiction and 2. Is this real?

Quick answers: ‘No’ and ‘There’s no way to know at this point’.

Disclaimer: I am not a geneticist.

The post was written by a person who claims to have been an industrial engineer at Moderna, and also speaks for a Moderna process development engineer.² Let’s call him: Sasquowatch. He makes point-form claims as to the differences between what we were told were in the shots versus what he claims are in the shots. Sasquowatch also states that he is sure Pfizer was playing suit. I am not sure exactly what he means when he writes: “It was hard putting things together based on the small quantities of additions happening in manual step (highly unorthodox for a continuous production)”, but I assume that he means that they ‘sleight-of-hand’ added what they were told were sensitive trade secret adjuvants somewhere, at some point, in the production line. I will get into this comment in the following sections.

As a disclaimer, I never really took or looked into this seriously. But, I did store it in the back of my mind when I first saw it - mainly because, in general, I find it hard to believe that anyone would randomly fabricate something into existence. People do do this, but I find it hard to believe. At this point, I thought it would be interesting to look into the potential validity of the points Sasquowatch makes. If nothing else, to try to solve a mystery. Is it a hoax? Or is it valid warning? Sasquowatch apparently did not get injected.

Who is this person? If he’s an industrial engineer for a Moderna, whose only commercial product is Spikevax, how and why does he know about these particular genes? How does he know that if CDKN1B is mutated it can result in cancer? How does he know about LINE-1? Why have there been published papers showing that LINE-1 is a retrotransposon that can reverse transcribe the modified mRNA in the shots?³ Was he one of the authors?

I find it head-scratchy at this point that cancers are going crazy - like even more crazy than they were pre-2021 - and on point 6, Sasquowatch is absolutely correct: in the past 3 years especially, people were made to be poor, to lose their homes and business - on purpose. The middle class is being annihilated by ‘penetrrrated’ parliaments posing as democratic governments. The Canadian government is sanctioning hard drug use and assisted suicides - both are literally offered on silver platters to anyone who wants them. Robots will replace human labor and already has in many ways. Those person-less cashiers? Each one replaced a human. Think about it.

Let’s break down the post. Sasquowatch first writes:

Most people’s understanding of this novel vaccine type is that it works as follows:

1. Make mRNA coding for S protein

2. Make lipid nanoparticle delivery system

3. Profit

I have these moments sometimes when I wonder to myself, and now to you, if the story about what is inside the shots is actually true, or just a story. Because, to be fair, we were told this story by Pfizer and Moderna: majorly trustworthy entities. (Sarcasm detector just ‘sploded.) Three years later, after billions injected, we can still validly ask: What’s in the shots? Does anybody actually know? I have little doubt that the construct and design is aligned with what we were told they were: a fat bubble encasing genetic material. But the question of what this genetic material encodes is persistently hovering mid-air - like the UFO that Mexican cake alien must have ridden in on. The genetic material is meant to encode the 2-proline spike mutation (BNT162b2) and if we take this at face value, we all know by now, that the percent modified mRNA integrity is at best, low, in commercial batches.⁴⁵ We also now know that the shots are full of contaminant DNA and potentially LPS thanks to Kevin McKernan.⁶

According to what we now know, the manufacturers used Process 2 - the in vitro transcription post E. coli/plasmid/mass producing DNA technique - to make the modified mRNA for encapsulation into LNPs.⁷ Also according to what we know, Moderna and Pfizer independently ‘discovered’ their own ionizable cationic lipids for use in the LNP construct whereby both Safety Data Sheets indicate clearly that they are not for use in humans.

Point 3. They profited. Oh did they ever profit. The following quote comes from OCHA of all places. I believe the goal of this OCHA article was to stick up for all the poor children not being pin-cushioned whilst billionaires be billionairin’.

Based on company financial statements, the Alliance estimates that Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna will make pre-tax profits of $34 billion this year between them, which works out as over a thousand dollars a second, $65,000 a minute or $93.5 million a day. The monopolies these companies hold have produced five new billionaires during the pandemic, with a combined net wealth of $35.1 billion.⁸

In the second part of the post, Sasquowatch writes on what him and his compatriot (lets call her Verquonicuh) discovered are the true natures of the coding sequences inserted into the LNPs:

How it actually works according to Sasquowatch and Verquonicuh:

1. Make mRNA coding for S protein

2. Make mRNA coding for mutant versions of CYP19A1 and CDKN1B in smaller amounts

3. Make sure that while delivery system for (1) mostly ends up in liver, most of (2) ends up in the gonads

4. Make sure form and quality of additive upregulating LINE-1 reverse transcription activity makes it hard to detect among legit adjuvants

5. Effects from (2) integrated by (4) are recessive; mildly oncogenic effects in vaccine recipients unlikely to be noticed for many years

6. (5) recessive but since most of population vaccinated, in next generation female offspring have premature ovarian failure

So point 1 is the same as it was before. Point 2 however, indicates that two genes: CYP19A1 and CDKN1B, are a part of the mRNA sequence in ‘smaller amounts’. Before we check this out, let’s define these genes.

On CYP19A1 (aka: aromatase)

Aromatase, also called estrogen synthetase or estrogen synthase, is an enzyme responsible for a key step in the biosynthesis of estrogens. It is CYP19A1, a member of the cytochrome P450 superfamily, which are monooxygenases that catalyze many reactions involved in steroidogenesis. In particular, aromatase is responsible for the aromatization of androgens into estrogens.⁹

Estrogen, eh. Isn’t estrogen important in sex differentiation, ie: differentiation of the ovaries? Isn’t the activity of aromatase reduced by glyphosate? Isn’t aromatase expressed in neurons and doesn’t it act as a neuroprotectant? Yes, yes, yes and yes. Here is an interesting article entitled: “The human testes: Estrogen and ageing outlooks”.¹⁰ Just for a reminder, by definition, estrogen is a category of steroid sex hormone responsible for the development and regulation of the female reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics.¹¹

I won’t go too deep into this here, but endocrine disruptors are a massive problem in terms of environmental destruction and the impacts on all things alive. Environmental accumulation of estrogen mimics are endocrine disruptors, and I have written about that here if you want to read a bit more about that.

Synthetic and natural estrogens have been found in the environment and are referred to as xenoestrogens. Estrogens are among the wide range of endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) and can cause health issues and reproductive disfunction in both wildlife and humans.

So the question here is, is the coding material of a mutant version of the CYP19A1 gene (that encodes the protein necessary for biosynthesis of estrogen) in the “spike” code? Sounds like a nuts question. But, it is the one we must ask in the context of this post.

On CDKN1B

Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1B (p27^Kip1) is an enzyme inhibitor that in humans is encoded by the CDKN1B gene. It encodes a protein which belongs to the Cip/Kip family of cyclin dependent kinase (Cdk) inhibitor proteins. The encoded protein binds to and prevents the activation of cyclin E-CDK2 or cyclin D-CDK4 complexes, and thus controls the cell cycle progression at G1. It is often referred to as a cell cycle inhibitor protein because its major function is to stop or slow down the cell division cycle.¹²

So basically, CDKN1B acts as a tumor suppressor due to its function as a regulator of the cell cycle. Tumors are bad, right?

So the question here is, is the coding material of a mutant version of the CDKN1B gene (that encodes a protein that has a role in tumor suppression via regulation of the cell cycle) in the “spike” code? This also sounds like a nuts question. But, again, it is the one we must ask in the context of this post.

A few speculative notes on the ‘smaller amounts’ comment

It was hard putting things together based on the small quantities of additions happening in manual step (highly unorthodox for a continuous production).

I want to get into the comment made by Sasquowatch about manual additions of small quantities because it’s really not clear to me what he meant and it could actually help us to figure out if this post is Hoaxie McHoaxfest, or potentially real. If we can demonstrate that what he is claiming is not science fiction, then we can provide a foundation upon which to assess if it is real.

If what he meant here was that certain batches had coding material for mutant genes, then this would have to mean that this coding material would have had to have been introduced at the in silico DNA construct design step. This is how the modified mRNA coding material is manufactured: using in vitro transcription combined with gene synthesis. DNA construct design is all computer stuff, so the language that Sasquowatch uses makes me… pause. Granted, it’s entirely possible that English might not be Sasquowatch’s first language so perhaps the way that he describes his role in ‘adding things’ is just a language thing? Here’s an example of the mRNA synthesis workflow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tI2QdXZxxU

The way that he wrote this made it seem like (to me anyway) he was in charge of physically adding extra ingredients in small quantities during the in vitro transcription production line. But why not - instead of saying “It was hard putting things together based on the small quantities of additions happening in manual step (highly unorthodox for a continuous production)” - didn’t he write something like: “It was hard putting things together but I thought it was strange that we were given instructions to create alternate DNA constructs.”

It’s also possible that the Luria broth (LB) for mega prep (usually 1L batches) was inoculated with two different inoculants containing different plasmids at the cloning and prep stage. If each inoculant of heat-shocked E. coli bacteria (to uptake plasmids containing DNA and mutant DNA, respectively) had the appropriate (and the same) antibiotic resistance genes, they they would grow up equally well in the LB containing that antibiotic. Maybe Sasquowatch squirted in 200 ul of (let’s call it) mutant inoculant into the LB that already contained 800 ul of non-mutant inoculant? If both plasmids conferred the same antibiotic resistance, then both E. coli colonies would grow in the presence of that LB with that antibiotic. So, more or less, the final culture would comprise a 4:1 ratio of plasmids (non-mutant DNA:DNA) if the copy number of the plasmids were equivalent.

It seems to me though that if two different plasmids were created with coding material for DNA and mutant DNA, respectively, it might have been prudent to use two different antibiotic resistance genes for easier handling and determination of who’s who. I guess this would all depend on the lab’s chosen and preferred antibiotics and the selection of the plasmid backbone.

Ultimately, the disturbing aspect of this, is the ability to make specific batches with (with varying degrees of precision) pre-determined ratios of DNA:mutant DNA - perhaps some with 100% mutant DNA and some with none, and that Sasquowatch and Verquonicuh claim to have been doing this as Moderna industrial and process development engineers.

Here’s a nice video to explain inoculation and extraction of plasmid DNA. The girl in the video is super cute and explains things really well.

My thinking here is that if Sasquowatch and Verquonicuh are who they claim to be, that they might have been in charge of these various steps in production, and perhaps Sasquowatch’s meaning in his 4chan post was that they were adding small amounts of inoculants with mutant gene-containing plasmids to the giga prep LB, whilst being told they were secret adjuvants?

If these mRNAs with mutations were made, do these smaller amounts signify specific batches themselves, and if so, were they assigned specific batch numbers, and if so, which batch numbers are these? Or were there batches made with specific ratios of mutant and non-mutant plasmids? Would these batches correspond to different rates of say, adverse event occurrences?

I would think that Sasquowatch would have mentioned the differences in the DNA templates if this was what happened. But maybe that would have been too much considering the point of am imageboard is to convey maximum information in a single concise image.

One thing is for sure: the two mutant versions of the genes CYP19A1 and CDKN1B - genes that encode proteins necessary for estrogen synthesis and tumor suppression, respectively - if they exist, would have had to have been introduced at the in silico step of modified mRNA production. Whether or not the non-mutant and mutant inoculants were mixed at varying ratios… who knows.

BLAST off

I BLASTed these sequences against each other and didn’t find anything. Please feel free to challenge me on this. I am BLAST rusty. It is fair to mention that it has been suggested that the GenBank is compromised, so even if no matches are found, this does not mean that matches do not exist. It could just mean sequence is missing. I also did some protein alignments in PYMOL, and didn’t find nothing, but I also didn’t find much. I would love it if someone with a working sequence alignment tool could look into this deeper. My MEGA is notoriously buggy.

Onto point 3. Point 3 is quite disturbing to me considering what I have learned regarding trafficking of LNPs in vivo (animals and humans) based on their zeta potential (ZP).¹³¹⁴ Basically, the zeta potential - which is the surface charge of the LNPs in solution - dictates where the LNPs traffic in the body. If they are highly positively-charged, they will traffic to the lungs, if they are highly negatively-charged, they will traffic to the spleen and if they are neutral, which they are meant to be (Pfizer states -3.13 mV)¹⁵, then they will traffic to the liver.¹⁶ So point 3 again states that LNPs carrying the coding material for the S protein will ‘mostly end up in liver’, and that the LNPs carrying the coding material for the mutant versions of CYP19A1 and CDKN1B will ‘mostly end up in the gonads’. The fact of the matter is that organ or cell-specific targeting of LNPs is most definitely ‘a thing’¹⁷¹⁸¹⁹, and it would be easy to target sex organs using specific proteins embedded on the LNP or perhaps even by using ZP.

Again, this is bothersome to me because of the fact that the CYP19A1 basically runs the estrogen show and estrogen is not only important for pubertal development but for bone health,²⁰ cardiovascular health²¹ and immune system function²²²³. Now we don’t know the nature of the ‘mutation’ but an example of how a mutation could manifest is called Aromatase deficiency syndrome (ADS). It is an autosomal recessive inheritance syndrome which means that you need two copies of the mutated gene - one copy inherited from each of mom and dad - for the ‘syndrome’ to manifest, making it very rare. ADS is due to a mutation of gene CYP19 and can lead to the development of male characteristics of a female at birth due to accumulations of androgens during pregnancy. Females will have primary amenorrhea and both sexes will be tall due to non-closure of epiphyseal lines. So this genetic deficiency certainly has an impact on both sexual, and general development in both males and females, primarily in females.

So if we assume that this mutation exists, and that it somehow gets into our DNA, then could we hypothesize that this could affect estrogen biosynthesis in us. If this mutation leads to defective estrogen biosynthesis as in the case in ADS, then perhaps we would see a lot of tall girls without periods or with delayed periods that look like guys in individuals who were injected with these batches? Pure speculation. But a logical trail. By the way, this is all going to depend on the success of transfection of cells and integration of this mutant into chromosomal DNA and an ability to interfere with normal gene functioning. All big ifs.

In the context of the CDKN1B gene, we have the same question as for the CYP19A1 gene but in the context of cancer. Would the introduction of this mutant gene induce cancers? And if the answer is yes to either of these questions, then we really have to ask, WHY? I mean, the answer is clear, but… WHYYYYYY??

In point 4, Sasquowatch mentions LINE-1 and I find this interesting considering that it has been published that LINE-1 - a retrotransposon in us - can act as a reverse transcriptase to convert the modified mRNA to its DNA form. The question then becomes, does this DNA have the ability to integrate into genomic DNA?²⁴²⁵

What exactly does “Make sure form and quality of additive upregulating LINE-1 reverse transcription activity makes it hard to detect among legit adjuvants” mean? Does it mean that the modified mRNA will act as an adjuvant to hide the reverse transcribing? If so, why would we need to hide the reverse transcribing? Hide it from whom? Is someone looking for this? Apparently, Aldén et al. were.

Point 5 adds to point 4. The effects of the coding for mutant versions of CYP19A1 and CDKN1B integrated by LINE-1 are ‘recessive’. Again, this means that in order for a mutation to manifest as a trait or ‘disease’, the mutation would have to occur on both chromosomes. Sasquowatch writes that the effects will be “mildly oncogenic” and “unlikely to be noticed for many years”. Now considering the recent push of the new term ‘turbo cancers’, it stands to reason that if there is something cancer-y in the shots, the effects in some individuals, are certainly not taking years to notice. Although, come to think of it, it has been years hasn’t it. But then again, it would be virtually impossible to predict how inserting a mutant gene into a population would affect that population, let alone the timeframes associated with these effects. We also have to consider that some people’s immune systems were messed up by the shots and they may have just lost the balance battle with the constant cancer-isms going on in the body.

Point 6 points to premature ovarian failure. This basically means you stop menstruating due to the loss of ovarian function before the age of 40.²⁶ I guess we’ll have to start looking for this.

For ‘fun’, VAERS reports of amenorrhoea and ovarian problems are in the thousands (N = 4,775), and when comparing this to all vaccines for the past 10 years, well, there is no comparison.

Philosophically and also psyop-ly, regardless of whether it is a hoax or not, one thing that worries me about Sasquowatch’s post is the truth behind the fact that if you can make an entire generation of a population unable to ‘see’ the effects of things on next generations, then they won’t care about the next generation. And in fact, I believe that most young people are entirely blind to the realities of decades and centuries beyond them. Most people can’t even see beyond their paycheck let alone the path of the next generation or the effects of introducing a recessive mutant gene. How insidious this is if this is true: numb a population to such an extent that most don’t care beyond the screen in front of them whilst losing them their fertility.

I am going to leave this ‘as is’. I wrote this in response to an email from my friend Clayton who asked if this 4chan post content was possible scientifically - ie: if it was science fiction. I don’t think it is, in theory. So the question becomes, did it happen this way? In other words: Is it real?

Comments way more than welcome. And if anyone wants to add BLASTy goodness, I will append it to this article. Also, I know there’s a whole lot to discuss on antibiotic resistance genes. Please feel free to start that discussion in the comments.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

2. https://www.salary.com/research/salary/employer/moderna-inc/industrial-engineer-iv-salary

3. Aldén M, Olofsson Falla F, Yang D, et al. Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2022;44(3):1115-1126. Published 2022 Feb 25. doi:10.3390/cimb44030073

4. BioNTech COVID19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside modified) EMA Quality Office CMC observations. BWP 24^th November. Ton van der Stappen and Brian Dooley

5. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

6. McKernan, K., Helbert, Y., Kane, L. T., & McLaughlin, S. (2023, April 10). Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/b9t7m

7. Josh A Guetzkow and Retsef Levi. Effect of mRNA Vaccine Manufacturing Processes on Efficacy and Safety Still an Open Question. BMJ 2022;378:o1731

8. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/pfizer-biontech-and-moderna-making-1000-profit-every-second-while-world-s-poorest

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase

10. Aatif Hussain, Jacques Gilloteaux, The human testes: Estrogen and ageing outlooks, Translational Research in Anatomy, Volume 20, 2020, 100073, ISSN 2214-854X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tria.2020.100073

11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrogen

12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDKN1B

13. Cheng, Q., Wei, T., Farbiak, L., Johnson, L. T., Dilliard, S. A., & Siegwart, D. J. (2020). Selective organ targeting (SORT) nanoparticles for tissue-specific mRNA delivery and CRISPR–Cas gene editing. Nature Nanotechnology, 15(4), 313–320. doi:10.1038/s41565-020-0669-6

14. Kranz, L., Diken, M., Haas, H. et al. Systemic RNA delivery to dendritic cells exploits antiviral defence for cancer immunotherapy. Nature 534, 396–401 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18300

15. Rapporteurs-Rolling-Review-Report-Quality-COVID-19-mRNA-Vaccine-BioNTec.pdf. https://mega.nz/file/tQgzBYIS#KZLmkCVKJljv2IotP8hnQNXPhEj-sZYos2mSv8o7fYE

16. Cheng, Q., Wei, T., Farbiak, L., Johnson, L. T., Dilliard, S. A., & Siegwart, D. J. (2020). Selective organ targeting (SORT) nanoparticles for tissue-specific mRNA delivery and CRISPR–Cas gene editing. Nature Nanotechnology, 15(4), 313–320. doi:10.1038/s41565-020-0669-6

17. Hartl, N., Adams, F. and Merkel, O.M. (2021), From Adsorption to Covalent Bonding: Apolipoprotein E Functionalization of Polymeric Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery Across the Blood–Brain Barrier. Adv. Therap., 4: 2000092. https://doi.org/10.1002/adtp.202000092

18. Lipid Nanoparticles─From Liposomes to mRNA Vaccine Delivery, a Landscape of Research Diversity and Advancement Rumiana Tenchov, Robert Bird, Allison E. Curtze, and Qiongqiong Zhou ACS Nano 2021 15 (11), 16982-17015 DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.1c04996

19. Kucharz, K., Kristensen, K., Johnsen, K.B. et al. Post-capillary venules are the key locus for transcytosis-mediated brain delivery of therapeutic nanoparticles. Nat Commun 12, 4121 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24323-1

20. Baykan EK, Erdoğan M, Özen S, Darcan Ş, Saygılı LF. Aromatase deficiency, a rare syndrome: case report. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol. 2013;5(2):129-32. doi: 10.4274/Jcrpe.970. Erratum in: J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol. 2013 Sep 10;5(3):216. PMID: 23748068; PMCID: PMC3701920.

21. Rosano GM, Panina G (1999). "Oestrogens and the heart". Therapie. 54 (3): 381–385. PMID 10500455

22. Foo YZ, Nakagawa S, Rhodes G, Simmons LW (February 2017). "The effects of sex hormones on immune function: a meta-analysis" (PDF). Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 92 (1): 551–571. doi:10.1111/brv.12243

23. Roved J, Westerdahl H, Hasselquist D (February 2017). "Sex differences in immune responses: Hormonal effects, antagonistic selection, and evolutionary consequences". Hormones and Behavior. 88: 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.11.017

24. Aldén M, Olofsson Falla F, Yang D, et al. Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2022;44(3):1115-1126. Published 2022 Feb 25. doi:10.3390/cimb44030073

25. Jachowicz JW, Bing X, Pontabry J, Bošković A, Rando OJ, Torres-Padilla ME. LINE-1 activation after fertilization regulates global chromatin accessibility in the early mouse embryo. Nat Genet. 2017;49(10):1502-1510. doi:10.1038/ng.3945

26. https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2017/june/premature-ovarian-insufficiency-in-general-practic