Schrodinger's SV40 and p53
It only exists if you know how to look
On sunday, Wafik El-Deiry and Phillip Buckhaults were accused of feeding anti-vax platforms by pointing out some little known details about SV40 Promoters.
What Dan was unaware of, was the mountain of literature cancer jocks have at their fingerprints that points to SV40's roll in cancer is multifaceted but its interaction with the guardian of the genome “p53” is one of the more notable issues.
Yes. The SV40 promoter is known to bind to p53. And just to blow up that sequence so you can see it.
It became the topic of heated debate.
Dan Wilson (Debunk the Funk) came charging in claiming the SV40 Origin sequence doesn’t exist in the SV40 Viral genome in NCBI nor in our Published Pfizer plasmid. I’ve included the SnapGene file for anyone who wants to see whats going on.
After a long embarrassing dialog, it turned out the SV40 origin of replication is at Base 1 and Base 5243 in the viral genome in NCBI. This is normal nomenclature for circular plasmids. You make the origin Base 1. This gets tricky with plasmids that have multiple Ori’s like Pfizer so they decided to make base 1 their Eam1104i cut site.
However this circularity confuses people new to DNA alignment as they try to match the SV40 Promoter sequence against a linear SV40 genome reference and some aligners fail to consider the circularity of the viral genome reference.
Dan raised Parsons et al as one paper that described SV40 in 1990. It ironically had the answer to his confusion right in the figure.
Note the coordinate system goes from 5210 to 30 on the top axis.
Dan downloaded the SV40 reference genome from NCBI that went from 1-5243. The sequence he was looking for was those black arrows which traverse the circularization of the coordinate system. So he couldn’t operate a simple DNA alignment and made a huge spectacle insisting the Director of the Cancer Center at Brown University (who has over 100K citations and recently won the innovator of the year award) was dead wrong.
It was like Simple Jack yelling at Einstein that his E=mc^2 equation was wrong and soon recognizing Simple Jack didn’t know what an exponent was.
Yes, the virus has an Origin of replication and so does the plasmid. The EMA, The FDA and Health Canada have all admitted this SV40 Promoter is present in the Pfizer vaccine and for those not familiar with the nomenclature, the SV40 Ori is entirely contained in the SV40 Promoter. You can’t have the promoter and not have the Ori.
Here is a SnapGene view of the region on a coordinate system from Pfizer. Not as hard to get lost in the circularity issues as Pfizer set their base 1 coordinate anchored on their linearization site (Eam1104i).
The SV40 Origin is annotated in Yellow, the 72bp tandem repeat from the SV40 Enhancer is in Aqua and Pink, and the promoter in white. The Yellow Highlighted bases are the GC Boxes
Dan refused to apologize to Wafik and Phil for his erroneous harassment. Once this thunderous error of his was put to bed his goal posts shifted to demanding we prove the SV40 sequence is harmful and that our qPCR assay was garbage.
We’ll, aside from the integration risks which have been discussed at length elsewhere, let review the papers that speak to p53 binding to the SV40 Promoter.
Many of these papers demonstrate this SV40 Promoter binding to p53 but they also put a lot of attention on the roll of SV40 Tumor-Antigen which is NOT in the vaccine.
The Tumor Antigen just happens to be in 20% of the population according to some seroprevalence studies.
But even if T-antigen isn’t present, we have billions of molecules of SV40 Promoters being injected and if they are a sink for p53, then that gene is wasting its time on decoys.
Any non-disclosed contaminant in the vaccine that resembled prior vaccine debacles (like SV40 in the polio vaccine) and also bound to p53 would be grounds for enough people to say.. yah OK… maybe we should consider some precaution here? This is easy to eliminate and easy to track and monitor. Why are we not being cautious here?
Wasn’t an ‘abundance of caution’ was the most popular phrase in 2020?
Ananda-Amigo Fester’s Niece decided it was time to play plasmid debunk Bingo as the same tired arguments kept getting recirculated once the existence of the SV40 Promoter/Origin was settled.
Lets go over a few of the more credible ones below.
Are the fragments long enough for any promoters to be present?
Yes. While the majority of the DNA is less than 100bp, there is a long tail of molecules. Most ONT runs demonstrate 1/60th of the DNA is longer than 1Kb.
The promoter, Ori , Enhancer sequences are 358, 136, 192 bases respectively. These are active as small DNA molecules (as small as 72bp for the NLS in the Enhancer) and are in high copy number in the vaccines.
2)Aren’t there only going to be a few of these Molecules per cell?
I would love to know and be able to comfortably assume that but this is not a slow release medicine. It’s a IM/bolus injection. That is not the condition to achieve low multiplicity of infection (Low MOI).
cells close to the injection are likely getting 100s of LNPs.
3) cGAS-STING and other pathways will erase all this stuff.
I’d love to believe that too but the data we have in breast milk, plasma and heart tissues is that this nucleic acid is lasting longer than 48hrs so we can no longer live by this conveniently optimistic ethos. Most studies to date that find persistent RT-qPCR signal used assays that cant discern DNA from RNA in the RT-qPCR (qPCR or DNases and RNases likely required).
It also rubs me the wrong way when people point to a host defense mechanism that defends against their slop. How about we don’t trigger non-specific and unnecessary inflammation? Some people are developing antagonists to this pathway to battle inflammatory disease.
It’s as if every contaminant instantly becomes a beneficial adjuvant the moment its found.
When you don’t look, its an unlikely contaminant.
The moment you look, the hand wave condenses into an adjuvant.
The p53 Drayman paper reiterates that SV40 promoters localize to the nucleus and bind p53. If STING were so effective at eliminating this, SV40 promoters wouldn’t be under study as gene therapy tools.
Gosh et al also demonstrates STING is suppressed by p53. So if p53 binds to SV40 in the nucleus and also suppresses the very pathway that is meant to clear out SV40, why are people so certain they understand the outcome of this experiment?
I don’t know what is going to happen in this circumstance. The folks that confidently assure you that nothing will happen lack humility on the complexity of this biology.
The same people that are so certain of the benevolence of this treatment will demand no further questions get asked as it might scare the Plebs.
When science requires a restriction of information flow and a silencing of allowable questions under the banner of protecting the public from their own fear… you are dealing with scam artists, not scientists.
The scam is executed while making a mockery of the publics intelligence. At the core of this ‘Munchaussen’s mutated into my morality mission’ is an elitism mind virus masquerading as a public protector.