What is the Origin of the Elusive “Spike Protein”? (Updated)

Sars-CoV-2 Virus/CV19 “Vaccine”/Other?

This post is as much a thought experiment as it is a working hypothesis in need of empirical verification. Admittedly, the details of this article will probably appeal more to STEMS¹ than general readers although everyone should be interested in whatever support/evidence exists for it.

The tentative hypothesis would be:

If there is [modified RNA]² in the CV19 mRNA “vaccines³”, as alleged, is it possible that the so-called “spike protein”⁴ (for which the mRNA allegedly codes), is instead, a foreign/toxic biosynthetic or known toxic protein found in [non-human] nature and not from an ostensible virus? In other words, it may be that what is referred to as a “spike protein” is a toxic foreign (to humans) protein that has been synthesized or of natural origin. Recall that virtually every public pronouncement about the so-called pandemic has been proven to be false⁵ It is to be expected, until proven otherwise, that the “spike protein” claim is as well. A countless number of publications address the “Spike protein” issue from various perspectives⁶ For those who doubt the standard narrative, it is necessary to contend with them.

How do we make sense of the myriads of reports that conclude, 1) CV19 vaccines contain the genetic sequence that codes for the [spike protein]⁷ portion of the [Sars-CoV-2 virus]⁸ and 2) [spike proteins are extremely toxic to human beings]⁹, when the existence of Sars-CoV2 has never been properly (scientifically) proven to physically exist? These assertions are either true or false. However, what has been observed in human beings since the roll-out of the CV19 vaccines may have another explanation which could produce the same or extremely similar findings.

Is the “spike protein” a foreign protein not from any virus?

What if the so-called “spike protein” is a foreign protein (not part of the [human proteome]¹⁰) and not found in any virus¹¹? What if it is either a foreign (to humans) protein found in nature or a synthetic protein patterned after an already known toxic protein? What if one of these two hypothetical scenarios is the explanation for the plethora of scientific papers that report finding “spike protein” persistence in the tissues of human beings (living and dead) who have been inoculated with one or more CV19 vaccines and the multiplicity of toxic effects still being documented?¹² How might that change our understanding of the current abundance of problems associated with CV19 “vaccination?”

If such a [toxic foreign protein]¹³ was chosen from [nature or developed/synthesized]¹⁴ using scientific knowledge/techniques common to genomics and gene editing¹⁵, transcriptomics¹⁶ and proteomics¹⁷, it is possible that a synthetic/modified RNA, using pseudouridine, (in place of uracil) could have been produced that would code¹⁸ for that toxic foreign protein. Then it could have been mass-produced and packaged within lipid nanoparticles such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) to keep it from being quickly destroyed (mRNA is very chemically unstable and is quickly degraded), prior to it being used to assemble the foreign/toxic protein, in vivo. Assuming for the sake of argument, that such a scenario is plausible, [the situation documented/observed over the past almost 5 years would be expected]¹⁹, including the findings of foreign/toxic spike?) proteins in the tissue of vaccinees and the many toxic effects that have been produced.

CV19 “vaccine” mRNA platform as described could only produce harm:

It should now be self-evident that “if the CV19 ‘vaccine’ platform is as publicly described, it could never have produced anything but harm.”²⁰ It violates one of the basic tenets of immunology which is that only proteins recognized by the body as “self” can be safely injected. Those that are foreign (non-self) will be recognized by the body’s immune system and any cell in which they are expressed/attached will be destroyed if there is adequate immune responsiveness. This means that any foreign or non-self, protein when administered, is a toxin/poison. If such a protein is administered, it is evidence of intent to cause serious harm to the recipient.²¹ Sometimes, the innate immune system of the body is unable to easily detect that a foreign protein is present or is unable to destroy it quickly. When this is the case, the adaptive (acquired) immune system²² must then mount a more delayed response. Here we have a possible explanation for the acute and chronic immune problems associated with the CV19 “vaccines.”

One disturbing question remains to be addressed by responsible authorities:

What other medical or health-related “product” has remained on the market with an adverse event profile like the CV19 “vaccines.” The answer is none. Then why has this one?²³ Because it was intentionally designed and administered for the express purpose of damaging people (to cause acute/chronic illness and death). The moral philosophical and logical implications are irrefutable (consider that four-plus years of documented, horrendous adverse effects have not resulted in the CV19 “vaccines” being banned). Ignorance is no longer excusable. The only other possibility is intent to harm.

While it is very stimulating to question/debate about whether the so-called “spike protein” (or whatever foreign/toxic protein might be coded for by its modified RNA sequence) is allegedly contained in the CV19 “vaccines”²⁴, it makes no difference to each person in whom it has been administered. The only relevant issue/question is how much damage they will sustain after one or more injections.

On the other hand, the question should matter a great deal to scientists and clinicians. If the alleged “spike protein” that has been reported to be highly toxic, is some other undisclosed, toxic (synthetic or naturally occurring) protein, not part of the human proteome, (either of which would be regarded as non-self by the immune system), it is critical to know what that protein is and the pathophysiologic mechanisms by which it produces a plethora of illnesses, either independently or synchronously in combination with other undisclosed²⁵, CV19 “vaccine” substances²⁶/excipients, many of which are known to be toxic to humans.

Ample evidence exists (to know) that the CV19 mRNA product is a weapon, irrespective of what it contains. It is a toxic agent being used to intentionally degrade human health and to reduce population.²⁷ There is no scientific or moral reason/defense for its continued use. Instead, there is abundant scientific and moral justification for it to be banned.²⁸

Invited Commentary:

Biological scientists and other interested parties are encouraged to comment on the possibility that the alleged “spike protein” from what has been termed Sars-CoV-2, [is not the actual toxic protein coded for in the CV19 “vaccines.”]²⁹ Discussion should include the evidence (or lack of same) available in the public domain that alleged Sars-CoV-2 and its “spike protein” have been properly isolated/purified/characterized/sequenced. The origin and specificity of antibodies used to identify Sars-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein, Membrane (M) protein, Envelope (E) protein and spike (S) protein in human tissue should be addressed. From where/what was the antigenic material obtained originally and how was the sample isolated, purified, sequenced and shown to be the causal agent for production of disease with subsequent formation of specific antibodies?

Concluding Remarks and Possible Additional Tests:

It is theoretically possible that despite multiple independent investigators not finding any mRNA, DNA or protein material in vials of CV19 “vaccine” contents they analyzed, some may contain them. It is conceivable (but judged unlikely) that the “spike protein” issue is just as described by authorities even though virtually nothing else has been with respect to the alleged pandemic of 2020. If the claims about the alleged Sars-CoV-2 “spike protein” are true, it should be very easy for a protein chemist to outline how it was first discovered, including the details involved in identifying it. On the chance that no such evidence will be produced and placed in a comment, another option might be the following:

Tissue samples could be collected from living or deceased [individuals in whom “spike protein” was allegedly found]³⁰ (for example from pathologists who performed the kind of antigen/antibody assays the late Arne Burchardt MD described)³¹ and subject them to intensive protein identification testing using the kind of techniques described in endnote 13. A detailed biochemical analysis of the amino acid sequences in the alleged “spike protein” samples could be produced which would be used to identify the possible RNA code sequences that could be capable of generating that string of amino acids and respective S- protein. TEM/SEM and or X-ray crystallography³² should be available, by which the alleged “spike protein” samples would be imaged. The primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary structure of the alleged “spike protein” specimens could then be delineated. Many papers report detailed information about the size, weight, shape, amino acid sequence etc. of “spike protein” for comparison with the samples of alleged “spike protein” obtained from autopsies. Either these would match the results obtained by biochemical testing and three-dimensional images of the samples or they would not. If such evidence already exists in the public domain, it would be extremely helpful to have access to it. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

1. Science, technology, engineering and math. Those with a background in the basic biological/medical sciences would likely be especially intrigued by it.

2. Inherent in this assertion is the question: is it possible to (reliably) use synthetic (e.g., pseudouridinated) mRNA that has been encased in a lipid nanoparticle (e.g. polyethylene glycol, aka PEG), to transfect human cells in such a way as to force them to synthesize whatever protein the mRNA codes for. If not, the “spike protein” claim is moot. If such a technology has been perfected, then the question becomes, what (if any) mRNA sequence was selected and what protein does it code for? Readers should be aware, animal studies alleging this capability were uniformly unsuccessful and it is not clear that problems inherent in the new (mRNA) vaccine technology were ever resolved.

3. “Vaccines” is placed in quotes because even if the CV19 products contain mRNA the contents do not technically meet the traditional definition of a vaccine. They would be a type of gene therapy or genetic/proteomic manipulation, if they work as described.

4. The “spike protein” is allegedly, a small portion of the Sars-CoV-2 virus located on its external surface, which is purportedly involved in attaching the virus to the cell membrane of a putative host. It ostensibly has S1 and S2 subunits/components. The “spike protein” supposedly utilizes an ACE-II receptor to gain cellular entry. The following is an idealized schematic representation,

From: Huang, Y., Yang, C., Xu, Xf. et al. Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19. Acta Pharmacol Sin 41, 1141–1149 (2020).

5. See my, COVID-related False Claims Disseminated Since 2020, updated: A Coordinated Attack on Humanity.

6. Details like those described in the following paper are extremely plentiful. Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 variants: a brief review and practical implications..

7. It is allegedly coded for by modified mRNA patterned after so-called, “Sars-CoV-2 “spike protein.”

8. An ostensibly novel (new) corona virus allegedly found to be circulating in late 2019 and throughout 2020 and beyond, that purportedly gave rise to a communicable/contagious respiratory illness labeled COVID-19. The acronym Sars-CoV-2, is a contraction of, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2.”

9. It is stated as fact in a multiplicity of papers. For example, “We show here that S protein alone can damage vascular endothelial cells (ECs) in vitro and in vivo, manifested by impaired mitochondrial function, decreased ACE2 expression and eNOS activity, and increased glycolysis. The underlying mechanism involves S protein downregulation of AMPK and upregulation of MDM2, causing ACE2 destabilization.”, from,
SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE2. I am unable to access the complete paper and cannot ascertain how the S protein described, was obtained.

Whether any of these papers contain enough evidence to conclude that the foreign protein in question is a “spike protein” from Sars CoV-2, is extremely debatable for multiple reasons (e.g., Sars-CoV-2 was never properly isolated, purified, sequenced or proven to cause a respiratory illness in humans which means its alleged spike protein could not have been the source of toxicity. Some other toxic foreign protein would have to be the cause, if one exists at all). Interested readers should research this for themselves by assembling a list of reference papers that deal with spike protein toxicity and then investigate them in detail. Carefully weigh whether the alleged “spike protein” has been identified in nature using the appropriate tests. See endnote #13 below for additional/relevant considerations, especially “…multiple methods used to biochemically identify proteins.”

10. “A proteome is the entire set of proteins that… can be expressed by a genome, cell, tissue, or organism at a certain time. It is the set of expressed proteins in a given type of cell or organism, at a given time, under defined conditions. Proteomics is the study of the proteome.”, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteome).

11. The term virus (when referring to) sub-microscopic/nanosized, contagious, disease producing entities, have never been properly (scientifically) proven to physically exist. For a more detailed discussion, see my, Do Viruses Physically Exist? Also see, Jamie Andrews’, The Virology Control Studies Project, A Farewell to Virology, (Expert Edition) by Mark Bailey, Christine Massey’s “germ” FOI Newsletter, especially FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world (225 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever, “…numerous institutions have made it explicitly clear that isolation/purification is simply never done in virology, and that ‘isolation’ in virology means the exact opposite of what it means in everyday English, (bold emphasis mine).This is also evidenced in every ‘virus isolation’ paper we have ever seen, for any alleged ‘virus’.” Also see, Stefan Lanka resources (English). These are only a few of the resources available.

12. See my, Complications After COVID-19 Vaccination (updated): A Staggering Array of Acute and Chronic Illnesses.

13. There exist, lists of toxic proteins from which to select a candidate, if such a circumstance is desired. See # 13 below.

14. “We show here that known toxins belong to a restricted number of functional groups, (bold emphasis mine) as indicated by both a cluster analysis and specific annotation according to the PFAM classification. In addition, we demonstrate that motif recognition tools can distinguish the toxicity hazard of protein members within the same protein family. A detailed comparison will then allow the reviewer to determine the potential and possible mechanism for protein toxicity based on sequence or domain similarities with known toxic proteins. Such screening may eliminate unnecessary in vivo toxicity testing of a protein with valuable traits…Our work demonstrates that the potential toxin sequences can be clustered into approximately 400 distinct groups, (bold emphasis mine) based on either sequence identity alone (Fig. 2a) or sequence features that link them to known functional protein families in PFAM (Fig. 4). As the list of potential toxins was independently established by four different research groups with keyword searches and inclusion of specific known toxins, we believe that the selected list of toxins covers most currently identified toxins. Thus, our finding that the number of protein toxin domains represents only a small fraction of all those known for proteins (bold emphasis mine) opens an opportunity to focus the safety assessment on a well-defined list of protein domains and their related functional activities.” For additional information see, Functional classification of protein toxins as a basis for bioinformatic screening. This paper from 2017, by Negi and colleagues is extremely insightful and provides validation that the hypothesis posited above, is theoretically possible if not already, technically accomplished.

There are multiple methods used to biochemically identify proteins. These include Mass Spectrometry, Gel Electrophoresis, Immunoassays such as Western Blot/ELISA for example, Protein Microarrays, Immuno Precipitation, Bioinformatics and Protein Sequencing (e.g., Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). “NGS can facilitate de novo sequencing of proteins, a method in which the amino acid sequence of a protein is directly determined without prior knowledge of its DNA. This is useful for discovering novel proteins or protein variations.”, (bold emphasis mine). See Methods for Protein Identification and Sequencing: Understand common methods, their strengths, limitations, and applications.

A consideration of these modalities might be useful for empirically testing the working hypothesis mentioned at the outset of this article. Independent researchers should evaluate/proceed accordingly.

15. CRISPRCass-9 gene editing technology has greatly facilitated many advancements/applications in this field.

16. Transcriptomics technologies.

17. See, Proteomics is the large-scale study of proteins., for a brief primer.

18. A basic description of protein synthesis: segments of DNA in genes are the instructions/directions necessary for cellular production of proteins, (also known as gene products). The instructions found in nuclear DNA, are transcribed into messenger RNA (mRNA) which passes out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm where ribosomes assemble amino acids into proteins in the specific order called for by the RNA sequence. This means that DNA is used as a template in the protein synthesis process. Each amino acid is coded for by a three-letter codon e.g., CAT (cytosine, adenine and thymine) or in the case of RNA, uracil is substituted for thymine, e.g. CAU). Three types of RNA are involved in protein synthesis, (messenger, transfer and ribosomal). The three main processes involved in protein synthesis are first, transcription, where DNA is transcribed into mRNA. The second is translation, which proceeds after transcription (the precise sequence of nucleotides in mRNA provides the code for a specific sequence of amino acids to be used in assembling a protein, utilizing transfer RNA [tRNA] and ribosomes). Third is assembly of individual amino acids into proteins, (ribosomal RNA [rRNA] forms the anatomic and functional core of the ribosome and is integral to the translation process).

19. Virtually every organ system in the human body has been negatively affected by CV19 injections. A myriad of acute and chronic illnesses have resulted, in addition to never-before-seen [turbo-cancers]1 (advanced stage at the time of diagnosis and extremely fast growing/killing, even in the young). These diseases have been associated with [markedly increased and unexpected death].²

20. This was understood by many scientists/clinicians when the idea of an mRNA vaccine (targeting the “spike protein” as the antigen) for CV19 was first announced in early 2020. Moreover, not a small number of experts publicly warned (including contacting the White House) about the severe consequences that would ensue, should the mRNA vaccine platform/technology be adopted and administered.

21. Any responsible scientist/clinician knows this is true because it is such an axiomatic and foundational principle (non-self proteins are highly toxic). Therefore, intent to harm is an obligatory inference.

22. For additional information, see, The adaptive (aka “acquired”) immune system: from friend to foe.

23. Serious safety signals appeared in February of 2021 which should have resulted in the CV19 “vaccines” being removed from the market. In any other historically similar situation, they were.

24. For the purposes of this discussion, I have ignored the possibility that there is no mRNA present in any of the CV19 vaccines even though multiple independent investigators failed to find any evidence of nitrogen or phosphorus in those they analyzed, meaning, they did not contain any DNA, RNA or proteins. For example, see this (among many others) study, The Moderna and Comirnaty B4-5 vaccines do not contain nitrogen and phosphorus (energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy), so they do not contain mRNA. Nanotechnology in covid vaccines. The probability that this occurred by chance alone seems vanishingly small or non-existent. However, since it is impossible to prove a negative in any data set that is incompletely sampled/tested, it is theoretically possible that some vials do contain mRNA. Moreover, questions regarding proper chain of custody and adequacy of sample preservation remain as conceivable explanations for not finding it. Given that it will never be possible to analyze every vial of mRNA “vaccine” created, we are limited to indirect methods and logical inferences.

25. For example, graphene oxide, graphene hydroxide and a variety of metals/elements, some with known toxicity. For example, see, I can affirm the presence of graphene oxide particles in this anesthetic with high confidence: Jessica C. Hankins University of Colorado Boulder Raman Microspectroscopy Laboratory and At Least 55 Undeclared Chemical Elements Found in COVID-19 Vaccines from AstraZeneca, CanSino, Moderna, Pfizer, Sinopharm and Sputnik V, with Precise ICP-MS. Also of interest is this paper about contamination in vaccines, New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination by Gatti and Montanari from 2016 and this, Advanced Nanotechnology in CV19 Injectables! (original paper by Lee and Broudy, 2024).

26. "The experimental vaccines supposedly invented to combat COVID-19 were coercively forced upon the global population beginning late in 2020. They have precipitated innumerable & varied disease conditions ranging from mild to lethal."

"This increase in health disorders & sudden deaths began to manifest concomitantly with the number of people inoculated & doses administered per person.”

Scanning Electron Microscopy Coupled with Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDX) was used to analyze the contents of COVID-19 vaccines of different brands.

"AstraZeneca, CanSino Biologics, Pfizer/BioNTech, Sinopharm, Moderna & Sputnik V were analyzed. Among the undeclared elements were all 11 of the heavy metals (bold emphasis mine): Chromium was found in 100% of the samples; arsenic 82%; nickel 59%; cobalt & copper 47%; tin 41%; thallium 24%, cadmium, lead & manganese in 18%; & mercury in 6%. A total of 55 undeclared chemical elements were found & quantified with ICP-MS." (from, At Least 55 Undeclared Chemical Elements Found in COVID-19 Vaccines from AstraZeneca, CanSino, Moderna, Pfizer, Sinopharm and Sputnik V, with Precise ICP-MS).

There is no benign reason why these 55 undeclared elements should be contained in the CV19 “vaccines.'“

27. Globalists have indicated for decades that they intend to depopulate the earth of human beings. Hopefully, most readers are very familiar with their public oral and written pronouncements to that effect. Another purpose ostensibly includes setting up an AI controlled, digital ID integrated, bidirectional operating system in vaccinees. See my, COVID-related False Claims Disseminated Since 2020, updated: A Coordinated Attack on Humanity. Also see, Entire Covid scam may have been run to prepare things for Universal Digital ID and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): Another step toward internal (under the skin), biodigital ID. An extremely informative and related presentation is, The MAC Phenomenon and the Intra-corporeal Network of Nano-communications, A Review by Mic Andersen.

28. Dr. Joseph Sansone, author of proposed state-level legislation designed to make mRNA based CV19 “vaccines” illegal, declared them bioweapons of mass destruction that should be banned.

29. Among other known (e.g., lipid nanoparticles) and presumed to be present, (graphene family nanoparticles [GFN’s]) substances.

30. Against claims that “spike protein” has been found in human beings is the following:

Through a link provided in his comment found below, Proton Magic made me aware of the following important communication.

On December 16, 2022, Christine Massey sent an email letter entitled,

FOIA to CDC re: "SARS-COV-2 spike protein" found in people, addressed to

Roger Andoh who acts as Freedom of Information Officer 1600 Clifton Rd NE MS T-01
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Email: FOIARequests@cdc.gov, requesting the following,

Greetings Roger,
I require access to general records, as per your duty under the Freedom of Information Act; description of required records:

Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:31 AM

all studies and/or reports in the possession, custody or control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and/or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describing the alleged "SARS-COV-2 spike protein" being found in any people (i.e. in the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of someone diagnosed with the alleged "COVID-19" or someone who received a so-called "COVID-19 vaccine") and purified (as per standard laboratory practices for the purification of very small things), with purification of particles confirmed via EM imaging (the EM image(s) must be available and provided);

note that I do not require or want studies/reports where researchers did something with recombinant (lab-created) so- called "SARS-COV-2 spike protein" that had to be created in order to study "it", or studies/reports where the alleged protein was allegedly detected indirectly (i.e. with a nonspecific antibody test);

this FOI

if any records match the above description of requested records and are currently available to the public elsewhere, please provide enough information about each record so that i may identify and access each one with certainty (i.e. title, author(s), date, journal, where the public may access it); provide URLs where possible;

is not limited to records that were authored by the CDC or ATSDR or that pertain to work done at/by the CDC or

ATSDR; rather, it includes any record matching the above description, authored by anyone, anywhere, ever; (bold emphasis mine)

format:
pdf documents sent to me via email; do not ship anything to me;

best wishes;
written in good faith without recourse; (Christine Massey)

A reply letter from Roger Andoh (CDC/ATSDR FOIA Officer) to Christine Massey, dated February 14, 2023, states the following,

A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request., (bold emphasis mine).

Needless to say, this is devastating. How, (other than perfidy/massive falsification of scientific research) do we explain all the papers that refer to the existence of “spike protein” and the mRNA that allegedly codes for it?

31. Notes and recommendations for conducting post-mortem examination (autopsy) of persons deceased in connection with COVID vaccination – Updated, by Professor Dr. A. Burghardt and, First time detection of the vaccine spike protein in a person who died after vaccination against Covid -19. I have been unable to locate a detailed description of the method used and the source of the antibodies obtained for the immunohistochemistry assays conducted by Dr. Burghardt, that allegedly bind with spike protein found in tissues he obtained from autopsies. Dr. Burghardt indicated that they were commercially available when he performed the tests, but I could not find any details with respect to how they were proven to be specific to “spike protein.” The question is one of verifying the original “standard.” The severe pathological findings that Dr. Burghardt documented are not in question, only the precise nature of the proteins he found in tissue and their origin.

32. X-ray Crystallography is arguably the main technique for the determination of protein structure and very useful for determining a given protein’s three-dimensional characteristics. See for example, Protein Structure Validation and Analysis with X-ray Crystallography and Determining Protein Structures using X-ray Crystallography.