For many years, I made a sincere effort to give everyone a fair shake. Just because someone associated with toxic people, I didn't automatically write them off. 1/10
And I get it... There have been times when I tried to "tolerate" someone's behaviour, to maintain cordial business relationships myself.
But here's the thing... 3/10
More from For later read
Moderna's mRNA-1273 & Pfizer's BNT162b2 consist of mRNA 3821 nucleotides long encoding *all* 1273 amino acids of the Spike including a 2 Proline-stabilized RBD. This is a plain English Description of the code:
https://t.co/w7koHyMJjL
The article mentions a “10 nucleotide linker” (GCAUAUGACU) in the poly-A tail. This is described in the patent link below (Modification of RNA, producing an increased transcript stability and translation
Here is a link to the full mRNA code if you wish to download it, blast it or make up a batch in your garage
An overview of the encoded spike
Initial mouse
https://t.co/w7koHyMJjL
The article mentions a “10 nucleotide linker” (GCAUAUGACU) in the poly-A tail. This is described in the patent link below (Modification of RNA, producing an increased transcript stability and translation
Here is a link to the full mRNA code if you wish to download it, blast it or make up a batch in your garage
The mRNA sequences used for Moderna mRNA-1273 & Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 (Direct link in Word Format). WHO International Nonproprietary Name Program # 11889 "Messenger RNA encoding the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein"https://t.co/zTb7B0Apic pic.twitter.com/8tZxAZWI5S
— Roland Baker (@RolandBakerIII) December 24, 2020
An overview of the encoded spike
Moderna's mRNA-1273 & Pfizer's BNT162b2 consist of mRNA 3821 nucleotides long encoding *all* 1273 amino acids of the Spike including a 2 Proline-stabilized RBD and this includes the NTD (blue in monomer, dark gray in trimer attached to antibodies). AA 64, 66, 187, 213, 214 red. pic.twitter.com/4MX1ByAsrR
— Roland Baker (@RolandBakerIII) December 19, 2020
Initial mouse
News: NIH-Moderna investigational COVID-19 vaccine shows promise in mouse studies https://t.co/7JYuUyZT45
— NIH (@NIH) August 5, 2020
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
