THE EVIL ACCIDENT OF TIME:
Recently, I was blessed to speak with my Teacher, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, wherein I asked him concerning ‘the evil accident of time’...
If it does not matter to you, it will not matter coming into existence.
An 'accident' is defined as: “an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury” (Oxford).
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/
You May Also Like
Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.
He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...
... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:
Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.
Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9
Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."
I wonder why...
Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x
Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.
Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...
... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:
Ivor Cummins BE (Chem) is a former R&D Manager at HP (sourcre: https://t.co/Wbf5scf7gn), turned Content Creator/Podcast Host/YouTube personality. (Call it what you will.)
— Steve (@braidedmanga) November 17, 2020
Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.
Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9
Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."
I wonder why...
Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x
Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.
Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
