Coming back from the dead to answer, so don't expect any follow-up. Apologies for the wall of text, because this is not a simple issue and understanding it requires a bit of knowledge of both basic biology and math (skills that seem to be missing in the general population these days).
What you are looking at is an amyloid; a mass of long protein strands, likely with some clotted blood mixed in.
If you try to analyze it, you will find that almost no two of the proteins are the same, with the only thing in common being a slightly higher level of polylysine than you would expect.
It is happening because of a shortcut taken in the development of the mRNA vaccines, where methylpseudouridine was used to replace uracil (perhaps to stabilize it, since messenger RNA is so fragile).
The mRNA sequence (this is a simplification) can be thought of simply as a long sequence of nucleotides, "letters" that can have 1 of 4 values (U, A, G, or C), and the overall structure consists of a prefix (5'), a start codon, the sequence to be turned into a protein, a stop codon, a suffix (3') and a long trail of A nucleotides (poly-A).
What a ribosome is supposed to do is attach to the mRNA, walk through until it finds the start codon, and then take the nucleotides, reading three at a time (a "codon") and manufacturing the amino acid associated with that codon. Note that there are 3 nucleotides in the codon, each which can have 1 of 4 values, so there are theoretically 4x4x4=64 different amino acids that can be represented. In reality, there aren't that many different amino acids in earthly biology, so some of them are duplicated (so "CGA" and "CGG" would both code for arginine (and others, there are multiple duplicates). There are also duplicates for the stop codons.
Anyway, back to the problem with methypseudouridine. Something sometimes happens when a protein is being encoded called "ribosomal slippage". If there is some sequence "AAUCGGAGU..." that is supposed to be read as AAU, CGG, AGU, etc., a slippage (probably at the U) would result in AAC, GGA, etc, resulting in completely different amino acids, and a completely different protein, being generated. This is commonly called a "frame error", and is the biological equivalent of the "off by one" error in software code.
This happens in nature, but with uracil the probability is only 1 in 10,000 or so (or a .9999 chance of successful encoding). When the uracil is replaced with methylpseudouridine, the chances are increased by about an order of magnitude. This means that a successful encoding for uracil is .999 (approximately. The exact values vary considerably due to environmental conditions such as temperature, local chemistry, and even the previous part of the protein being encoded).
A .999 chance of success sounds amazing. Until you realize that the mRNA sequence in question has 711 different places where the uracil was replaced with methylpseudouridine, so the actual chance of success is .9999^711. So much of the stuff being manufactured isn't actually the "spike protein", but a lot of garbage that turns into that unidentifiable clot you see. And the punch line of the joke is that if you try to analyze it, you'll never be able to do so, as no two clots will be the same, and every protein in the clot will be unique, rendering analysis via PCR, etc. useless. This too is due to the underlying math. Those 711 different places in the sequence aren't all going to fail, and each failure that does occur results in a different protein sequence from that point on. So the number of possible different sequences is the factorial of 711, or roughly 5.2x10^2017 different proteins.
That is far more possible sequences than the number of atoms in the visible universe, rendering any normal attempt at researching the nature of the proteins via traditional / conventional means impossible. No two people will get the same proteins.
There are a lot of other surprises in the sequence that haven't been noticed yet, and the explanation above is clearly lacking details (a full analysis wouldn't be possible even in a book, which would never get published and no one would read anyway). But it should answer your question adequately, I hope.
Congratulations if you didn't take the mark!
reply 36
My wife and I skipped the jab after consulting our doc friends. They are all guys and gals who have been in the medical profession for 30+ years and know better than to buy the latest bunch of bullshit spouted by the Pharma shills.
Thank you. The explanation was most admirable. I’d seen articles about the clots found in autopsies. Just hadn’t heard much about them in some time. I appreciate your effort.
I assume this stuff is in your wheelhouse?
Will this problem be passed on to the children of people with this issue?
Thank you for that answer.
Appreciate your coming back to provide it.