And, did you notice that the article/study is from April....when these shots were just being rolled out, to any extent, after minimal trials?
For them to say ‘safely encoded’ without having any long term studies to back that up, was irresponsible.....as we are now, obviously, seeing.
The study is the one EasySt selected, not me. Did you have a problem with the date when Easy posted it? Or only after it turns out not to support the idea that the vaccine spike behaves like the actual virus spike?
“For them to say ‘safely encoded’ without having any long term studies to back that up, was irresponsible.....as we are now, obviously, seeing.”
The safe encoding is the addition of proline molecules in order to lock the spike protein into its pre-fusion state preventing cell entry. But that dates back to work on a MERS vaccine. So where’s your evidence of problems with that?