The Paper Published Yesterday by Biering, et al., Demonstrates That the Spike Protein Alone and Independent of ACE-2 Induces Spike Protein Endothelial Disease (SPED)
The Paper Published Yesterday by Biering, et al., Demonstrates That the Spike Protein Alone and Independent of ACE-2 Induces Spike Protein Endothelial Disease (SPED)
Thank you for what you have been offering. I’ve been reading your writings for a while, your Substack caught my attention because SPED is a very similar hypothesis to one had when I originally learned the design of the mRNA biologicals - The question as to whether the spike protein itself had its own intrinsic pathophysiological activity had not been adequately explored prior to product release, and reading the writing on the wall, I wondered whether widespread adoption of the mRNA biologicals would lead to an uptick in cardiovascular disease.
I’m going to reread today’s post (it’s that good. Again, thank you!) and I just wanted to take a minute tounderscore one point you made: The authors of the Nature paper state that spike protein is present only in pg amounts. ****Note that they did NOT provide a reference for that statement. That’s sloppy at best, and indefensible in the context of a Nature publication. The *absence of a reference is striking. Further,  several groups‘ published data are in conflict with the authors’ claim of picogram levels.
Not to mention that the amount of spike protein present after the shots may vary between individual, and that concept has been “incompletely explored” as well.
There’s another angle to this spike protein question I have been chewing on (pun intended): What are the breakdown products of the proteolysis of the following spike? Clearly both S1 and S2 subunits can be released. What is the average half-life of each of those in vivo, much less in different populations? Does the S1 RBD-bearing fragment maintain binding ability after proteolysis from the larger spike protein? (Yes, several studies have been published on that, as you know.) What might that do, both short term and in an integrative physiology model? Your post today certainly speaks to that point.
Here’s a couple of little phrases that I keep repeating to my readers, that I believe drives the point home:
“Spike, is spike, is spike.” The spike-encoding sequence homology between the virus and the mRNA biological is greater than 99%, and indeed the small changes that were made (two proline substitution) *excluded any sequence changes to the RBD. If the RBD is a pathogenic moiety, it is literally identical (in sequence; post translational processing may differ?) between virus and “vaccine.” 
And....
“The dose makes the poison.”
I don’t have a lot to share here from my Substack, it’s more or less a place marker. But if you are interested in reading well over 1000 different posts from someone with a very similar hypothesis to yours, go to the social media Gab (I only use my account there to post information that Facebook will not allow or shadowbans, then add Gab links to these posts to Facebook so the censor police won’t ding me - The layering seems to have been working quite well, I don’t get warnings on Facebook!) and look up FormerRecoveringScientist. Unfortunately there’s not a lot of cataloging ability (search function) on this particular social media site, so the reader will just have to... lol read. Please do feel free to re-use anything I have offered (as a note, I repost your work regularly, thank you, and sometimes with additional references, - and prior to discovering your Substack I was posting a ton of material that parallels yours, from the perspective of a protein biochemist)
Again, thank you for what you offer. You’re not alone, as you can see from many of your readers’ comments here. And for what it’s worth, imo, if you haven’t hit precisely the bull’s-eye (you may have; but there actually may be multiple bull’s-eyes?) you’re certainly on the 25. ;)
Dec 11, 2022·edited Dec 11, 2022Liked by Walter M Chesnut
What is the proof for their conclusion? (I'm referring to the paper you discuss)
"Importantly, our findings suggest that the amounts of S circulating in patients following COVID vaccination (pg/mL levels) are too low to trigger vascular leak given that our phenotype requires ng-µg/mL levels that mimic the levels observed during severe COVID-19 cases -56,60"
They reference 2 studies (numbered as 56, and 60, in their references list):
NEITHER article mentions the covid vaccines! I looked for "vaccine" "BNT162b2" "ChAdOx1" as quick ctrl+F searches.
So WHERE is the proof of this statement: "Importantly, our findings suggest that the amounts of S circulating in patients following COVID vaccination (pg/mL levels) are too low to trigger vascular leak given that our phenotype requires ng-µg/mL levels that mimic the levels observed during severe COVID-19 cases"
Wouldn't you need to cite what is the actual pgl/ML level for the covid vaccine? That information is NOT in their 2 cited articles for that claim.
Also, isn't the actual level following covid vaccination, HIGHER than natural infection? I'm pretty sure I saw a reference for that from McCullough or others.
"We must understand exactly what the threshold is for circulating Spike to induce SPED. Is it related to vessel size? Is it related to multiple exposures? Does S mRNA become stored for later translation by cells?
We have so much more to learn. And we will. And we will find more therapeutics to deal with the damage and hopefully prevent it. Thank you, as always, for your support. I will continue to work".
Very well stated and thank you Sir for all your relentless efforts in pursuing truth !!
It drives me absolutely crazy!!!!! Can you even imagine someone presenting this preposterous notion, claiming that spike protein production is homogenous amongst recipients (dose and integrity of LNP/mRNA notwithstanding, even) and at a universally low level, WITHOUT DATA, to a thesis committee, for example? They would be eaten alive. And somehow this and other sh*t passes for “Follow the Science!,” (by people with absolutely no science expertise) whilst I am eschewed as *Anti-Science for daring to *question (using the critical skills earned through two doctoral. degrees, in science and health care)
Does it make me itchy? Times about 1000+…
I’m simply glad to know that there are others who are still willing to question. I actually think there’s a lot of such folks, they just haven’t developed the clarity and strength to speak out yet.
Thank you. This explains, for me, why even though I am not gene-jabbed, I got nosebleeds, blood blisters on fingers, toes and earlobes, and suffered headache, cough, rash, itching, air hunger and deep fatigue for several days after being in close contact with friends and family members who had just received their first or second gene jabs.
I have wondered for a while, are ACE-2 receptors the only way proteins can gain access to a cell, or is this just a widely held assumption? Are there other possible mechanisms spike protein can enter or influence the inner mechanisms of a cell? Other lesser known theories and hypothesis?
God bless you Walter! Your tenacity and intellect is awe inspiring. Thank you for your work.
Might over-production of TGF-β also be related to the ‘turbo-cancer’ being observed?
Thank you for what you have been offering. I’ve been reading your writings for a while, your Substack caught my attention because SPED is a very similar hypothesis to one had when I originally learned the design of the mRNA biologicals - The question as to whether the spike protein itself had its own intrinsic pathophysiological activity had not been adequately explored prior to product release, and reading the writing on the wall, I wondered whether widespread adoption of the mRNA biologicals would lead to an uptick in cardiovascular disease.
I’m going to reread today’s post (it’s that good. Again, thank you!) and I just wanted to take a minute tounderscore one point you made: The authors of the Nature paper state that spike protein is present only in pg amounts. ****Note that they did NOT provide a reference for that statement. That’s sloppy at best, and indefensible in the context of a Nature publication. The *absence of a reference is striking. Further,  several groups‘ published data are in conflict with the authors’ claim of picogram levels.
Not to mention that the amount of spike protein present after the shots may vary between individual, and that concept has been “incompletely explored” as well.
There’s another angle to this spike protein question I have been chewing on (pun intended): What are the breakdown products of the proteolysis of the following spike? Clearly both S1 and S2 subunits can be released. What is the average half-life of each of those in vivo, much less in different populations? Does the S1 RBD-bearing fragment maintain binding ability after proteolysis from the larger spike protein? (Yes, several studies have been published on that, as you know.) What might that do, both short term and in an integrative physiology model? Your post today certainly speaks to that point.
Here’s a couple of little phrases that I keep repeating to my readers, that I believe drives the point home:
“Spike, is spike, is spike.” The spike-encoding sequence homology between the virus and the mRNA biological is greater than 99%, and indeed the small changes that were made (two proline substitution) *excluded any sequence changes to the RBD. If the RBD is a pathogenic moiety, it is literally identical (in sequence; post translational processing may differ?) between virus and “vaccine.” 
And....
“The dose makes the poison.”
I don’t have a lot to share here from my Substack, it’s more or less a place marker. But if you are interested in reading well over 1000 different posts from someone with a very similar hypothesis to yours, go to the social media Gab (I only use my account there to post information that Facebook will not allow or shadowbans, then add Gab links to these posts to Facebook so the censor police won’t ding me - The layering seems to have been working quite well, I don’t get warnings on Facebook!) and look up FormerRecoveringScientist. Unfortunately there’s not a lot of cataloging ability (search function) on this particular social media site, so the reader will just have to... lol read. Please do feel free to re-use anything I have offered (as a note, I repost your work regularly, thank you, and sometimes with additional references, - and prior to discovering your Substack I was posting a ton of material that parallels yours, from the perspective of a protein biochemist)
Again, thank you for what you offer. You’re not alone, as you can see from many of your readers’ comments here. And for what it’s worth, imo, if you haven’t hit precisely the bull’s-eye (you may have; but there actually may be multiple bull’s-eyes?) you’re certainly on the 25. ;)
What is the proof for their conclusion? (I'm referring to the paper you discuss)
"Importantly, our findings suggest that the amounts of S circulating in patients following COVID vaccination (pg/mL levels) are too low to trigger vascular leak given that our phenotype requires ng-µg/mL levels that mimic the levels observed during severe COVID-19 cases -56,60"
They reference 2 studies (numbered as 56, and 60, in their references list):
Study #1:
George, S. et al. Evidence for SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein in the Urine of COVID-19 Patients. Kidney360 2, 924 (2021). Link to article: https://kidney360.asnjournals.org/content/2/6/924
Study #2:
Avolio, E. et al. The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein disrupts human cardiac pericytes function through CD147-receptor-mediated signalling: a potential non-infective mechanism of COVID-19 microvascular disease. Clin. Sci. 135, 2667–2689 (2021). Link to article: https://portlandpress.com/clinsci/article/135/24/2667/230273/The-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-protein-disrupts-human
NEITHER article mentions the covid vaccines! I looked for "vaccine" "BNT162b2" "ChAdOx1" as quick ctrl+F searches.
So WHERE is the proof of this statement: "Importantly, our findings suggest that the amounts of S circulating in patients following COVID vaccination (pg/mL levels) are too low to trigger vascular leak given that our phenotype requires ng-µg/mL levels that mimic the levels observed during severe COVID-19 cases"
Wouldn't you need to cite what is the actual pgl/ML level for the covid vaccine? That information is NOT in their 2 cited articles for that claim.
Also, isn't the actual level following covid vaccination, HIGHER than natural infection? I'm pretty sure I saw a reference for that from McCullough or others.
"We must understand exactly what the threshold is for circulating Spike to induce SPED. Is it related to vessel size? Is it related to multiple exposures? Does S mRNA become stored for later translation by cells?
We have so much more to learn. And we will. And we will find more therapeutics to deal with the damage and hopefully prevent it. Thank you, as always, for your support. I will continue to work".
Very well stated and thank you Sir for all your relentless efforts in pursuing truth !!
Thank you, Walter!
Keep it up.
I'm sure it was just a mistake that they engineered the COVID shots to systemically expose the recipient to the Spike protein.
It drives me absolutely crazy!!!!! Can you even imagine someone presenting this preposterous notion, claiming that spike protein production is homogenous amongst recipients (dose and integrity of LNP/mRNA notwithstanding, even) and at a universally low level, WITHOUT DATA, to a thesis committee, for example? They would be eaten alive. And somehow this and other sh*t passes for “Follow the Science!,” (by people with absolutely no science expertise) whilst I am eschewed as *Anti-Science for daring to *question (using the critical skills earned through two doctoral. degrees, in science and health care)
Does it make me itchy? Times about 1000+…
I’m simply glad to know that there are others who are still willing to question. I actually think there’s a lot of such folks, they just haven’t developed the clarity and strength to speak out yet.
Thank you. This explains, for me, why even though I am not gene-jabbed, I got nosebleeds, blood blisters on fingers, toes and earlobes, and suffered headache, cough, rash, itching, air hunger and deep fatigue for several days after being in close contact with friends and family members who had just received their first or second gene jabs.
I have wondered for a while, are ACE-2 receptors the only way proteins can gain access to a cell, or is this just a widely held assumption? Are there other possible mechanisms spike protein can enter or influence the inner mechanisms of a cell? Other lesser known theories and hypothesis?
I hope your work is being widely read by virologists and physicians. Thanks so much for your perseverance in discovery.
Exosomes?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/
Looks like they’re making a new virus for you to study very soon. This one starts in “Brazil”.
https://twitter.com/backtolife_2023/status/1601850000698671104?s=20&t=jC3jEMf7-lkCasOo7nQusw
Terrific post!
Thank you so much!!!
Walter your work is so thorough and spot on ! Thank you .
Just found this: https://peterdaszak.com/baric.htm