ENTERTAINMENTUSWORLD

Did You Know They’re Adding “Luciferase” To The C-19 Vaccine? Yes, It’s True!

To begin, I just want to say this is 100% true.

And I have all the citations below to show you.

Now, what an interesting name….”Luciferase”.

They are mocking us, folks!

They hide this stuff in plain sight and then sit back and laugh.

Take a look:

Copy

I know what you’re thinking…..

Those are just Twitter posts!

Who knows who wrote those!

That’s true.

And that’s why this article does not stop there.

That was just for fun….just the warm up!

Does the FDA work for you as a good source?

Because here you go:

From that FDA article:

Researchers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have developed a simple, rapid, and sensitive test that identifies individuals who have made antibodies against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), the most common cause of serious lower respiratory tract infection in infants and young children worldwide. RSV also affects many elderly individuals, especially those with underlying heart or lung disease, accounting for nearly as many hospitalizations as influenza.

The development of the new assay is important because it could be a valuable tool for assessing the efficacy of RSV vaccines during clinical trials since it can help to identify individuals infected with RSV following a winter season.  Since many of the current candidate vaccines contain or express only one or a few of the proteins found in the virus, antibody responses to non-vaccine RSV antigens can serve as a marker of exposure and infection in subjects given these vaccines.

An important advantage of the new test, called a Luciferase Immunoprecipitation Systems (LIPS) assay, is that it is less complicated and easier to perform than other assays now available. Moreover, unlike some currently used tests, it readily differentiates immune responses against the two major subtypes of RSV, RSV-GA and RSV-GB.

The LIPS assay detects antibodies against G glycoprotein, (G protein), a molecule that occurs on the surface of the virus.  To develop the assay, the FDA scientists genetically engineered RSV G proteins from both subgroups. They tagged each G protein with luciferase, an enzyme that interacts with a protein called luciferin to release light.

The luciferase-tagged G proteins (RSV-GA and RSV-GB) acted as “bait” to antibodies against the G proteins in samples of human serum (the clear fluid of blood without red or white cells), causing them to bind to the tagged proteins. The scientists added special protein beads that bind the antibodies with the luciferase-tagged G proteins to the bottom of a plastic test well. Then they added luciferin and measured the amount of light released when it interacted with luciferase, which enabled them to calculate how strong the antibody response was to the G proteins.

The FDA scientists showed that the LIPS assay could specifically detect anti-RSV-GA and -GB antibodies in mice that had been infected intranasally with RSV-A or -B strains. In addition, the assay detected antibodies against either RSV-A or RSV-B in samples taken from infants who had contracted the disease—depending on which subtype was present. The assay also found that serum from adolescents had antibodies against G proteins from both subtypes, suggesting that adolescents had been exposed to both RSV-A and RSV-B by that time in their lives.

Title

Development of Luciferase Immunoprecipitation Systems (LIPS) Assay to Detect IgG Antibodies against Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus G-Glycoprotein

Vaccines 2019, 7, 16; doi:10.3390/vaccines7010016

Now how about TMC.edu:

Scientists at The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB) have employed an unlikely partner in their quest to develop treatments for COVID-19 disease: the common firefly.

Fireflies, also known as lightning bugs, are insects in the Lampyridae family who use bioluminescence to attract potential mates and prey. Their conspicuous glow at twilight comes from an enzyme called luciferase, which can be isolated in the lab. Now, UTMB virologists are using the enzyme to develop faster and more accurate diagnostic tests for COVID-19 as well as to analyze potential therapies and gain a clearer understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself.

“We are very much interested in using basic research knowledge to develop systems … to support translational work, for example, diagnosing disease, vaccine development, medical countermeasures and therapeutic drugs—all those things that can be applied to the public health and human well-being,” said Pei-Yong Shi, Ph.D., professor of human genetics in the department of biochemistry and molecular biology at UTMB. He is leading the research by labeling viruses with glowing tags like luciferase to study them.

Prior to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, Shi’s team had been focused on flaviviruses, including West Nile virus, Zika and dengue. His lab developed the first infectious clones of the epidemic strain of both West Nile and Zika and have established new pathways for flavivirus vaccine and drug discovery.

But as the COVID-19 pandemic swept the globe, Shi’s lab adapted by altering research techniques to address the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

First, researchers harnessed luciferase to develop faster diagnostic testing through innovative assays—investigative procedures that measure the activity or amount of a substance. The lab can now visually confirm the presence of antibodies that can block a SARS-CoV-2 infection earlier than through previous methods.

“The great thing about luciferase, and the one that we specifically use which is nanoluciferase, is that it’s really bright,” said Coleman Baker, a fourth-year graduate student in the department of microbiology and immunology at UTMB who works in the Shi lab. “We found that these detection assays can be read earlier than most people thought. Most people would do these 24 to 48 hours after infection and we found that you can read them as early as 4 hours post-infection.”

Not only does the enhanced brightness provided by luciferase decrease turnaround time for a diagnosis, but it also helps speed up the process of vaccine development.

“For vaccine studies, you need to find out how much of a response somebody has to a potential vaccine,” Baker said. “So, instead of the traditional way—which could take days—we can get results in four hours after infection.”

Shi said his team has been collaborating with leading pharmaceutical companies to help them evaluate their vaccine candidates, specifically by measuring the immune response in humans in clinical trials. His lab’s system—based on reporter viruses in which the luciferase enzyme is inserted into the virus’ genome to make it easy to follow—measures the concentration of neutralizing antibodies while also allowing for a much higher throughput. According to Xuping Xie, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of biochemistry and molecular biology at UTMB, this way of measuring the immune response is more accurate than traditional methods.

“The sensitivity and the dynamics of the assay, because of the luciferase, can really allow us to discern any small changes that the conventional way would not,” said Xie. “It’s much more sensitive, much more accurate, when you test antiviral compounds.”

The compounds to which Xie is referring are potential therapies, including antiviral drugs already on the market for non-COVID-19 viral infections.

The researchers recently tested every antiviral drug approved by the FDA for human use to see if any were effective against SARS-CoV-2.

“These assays allow us to very rapidly look at each in a very sensitive way very accurately,” Shi said. “That’s really allowed us to decide whether there is a potential so-called repurposing of these drugs for COVID-19 treatment, including remdesivir, chloroquine and others.”

The virologists also have created a system for manipulating and studying SARS-CoV-2 itself, paving the way for a deeper understanding of what happens when the virus enters the human body.

“Because of this system we created, we can study and understand the virus in ways that others cannot,” Baker said. “We have the ability to go in and make changes in the virus and see what those changes affect in the different cells that it’s infecting. So, not only have we developed these assays to look at drugs—to look at antibody responses—but we also are probing the virus itself and looking at how it interacts with the immune system.”

Even more, the team is studying the virus’ genome to analyze how it has evolved and what that means for human health—including how it affects the body and how it transmits among different populations—using techniques they developed for studying Zika and its connection to microcephaly, a neurological condition in which an infant’s head is significantly smaller than other infants of the same gender and age.

“When we manipulate the viruses, it allows us to address a lot of important questions, such as how the virus is adapting and changing over time,” Shi said. “For example, SARS-CoV-2 now has been spreading in humans for six months—has the virus changed? Do these changes affect viral transmission and disease severity? Scientists around the world have been chasing the virus to answer those exact questions.”

How about Nature.com next:

Abstract
A high-throughput platform would greatly facilitate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serological testing and antiviral screening. Here we present a high-throughput nanoluciferase severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2-Nluc) that is genetically stable and replicates similarly to the wild-type virus in cell culture. SARS-CoV-2-Nluc can be used to measure neutralizing antibody activity in patient sera within 5 hours, and it produces results in concordance with a plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Additionally, using SARS-CoV-2-Nluc infection of A549 cells expressing human ACE2 receptor (A549-hACE2), we show that the assay can be used for antiviral screening. Using the optimized SARS-CoV-2-Nluc assay, we evaluate a panel of antivirals and other anti-infective drugs, and we identify nelfinavir, rupintrivir, and cobicistat as the most selective inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2-Nluc (EC50 0.77 to 2.74 µM). In contrast, most of the clinically approved antivirals, including tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, sofosbuvir, ledipasvir, and velpatasvir were inactive at concentrations up to 10 µM. Collectively, this high-throughput platform represents a reliable tool for rapid neutralization testing and antiviral screening for SARS-CoV-2.

Introduction
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China in late 20191,2 and caused global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Two other human coronaviruses emerged in the past two decades and caused severe respiratory syndrome, including SARS-CoV in 2002 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) in 20123. In addition, four endemic human coronaviruses (i.e., OC43, 229E, NL63, and HKU1) cause common cold respiratory diseases. For COVID-19 diagnosis, nucleic acid-based RT-PCR assays have been used to identify individuals with acute viral infection. The RT-PCR assay is essential for detecting and contact tracing to control viral transmission. Given the unknown extent of asymptomatic infections, rapid and reliable serological assays are urgently needed to determine the real scale of local community infections. In addition, the ability to quickly measure neutralizing antibody levels is required to determine the immune status of previously infected individuals, to identify convalescent donors with protective antibodies for plasma therapy, and to evaluate various vaccines under development. Although various serological assay platforms have been developed [e.g., lateral flow immunoassay, ELISA, microsphere immunoassay, and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) pseudotyped with SARS-CoV-2 spike], the conventional plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) remains the gold standard of serological diagnosis because it directly measures the neutralizing antibody levels required to block an authentic viral infection. However, the low throughput and long assay turnaround time make PRNT impossible for large-scale diagnosis, representing a critical gap for COVID-19 response and countermeasure development.

The goals of this study were to (i) develop a rapid neutralization assay that maintains the gold standard of PRNT for serological COVID-19 diagnosis, (ii) establish a high-throughput assay for reliable antiviral screening, and (ii) screen exploratory and FDA-approved anti-infective drugs for potential COVID-19 repurposing. We established a nanoluciferase SARS-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2-Nluc) as a platform for rapid serodiagnosis and high-throughput drug screening. When used to test COVID-19 patient sera, the rapid neutralization assay yielded results commensurate with the conventional PRNT. A version of the SARS-CoV-2-Nluc infection assay has also been developed for high throughput screening of antivirals and validated using known SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors such as remdesivir and chloroquine. The developed assay was employed to test a collection of approved and investigational anti-infective drugs, including established antivirals against HIV and HCV.

More:

And

https://twitter.com/MattsterBlaster/status/1294309441882542081?s=20

And I want to end with this, from Academic Logos, written by Matthew L. Halsted, PhD:

In an article published last week on theLAB, COVID-19 and The Mark of the Beast, I claimed that the mark of the beast (666) is most likely not a physical or visible mark (Rev. 13:16). The biggest objection I received from readers had to do with this very point: how could the mark be non-physical and invisible if having the mark was what allowed people to “buy or sell” things (Rev. 13:17)? Wouldn’t the mark need to be visible in order to do that? Furthermore, isn’t there enough evidence that the vaccine is the “number” of the beast, including a bill currently before the House of Representatives (6666) and the very letters “C-O-R-O-N-A” themselves?1 These are good questions, and I think a response would be helpful. But first, we need to start from square one and do some background work.

Letter to the Churches

First, we must remember that Revelation is a first-century letter to seven churches in Asia Minor (Rev. 1:4, 11). Letters in antiquity are much like modern letters—situational, personal, and contextual. To understand a letter between two people (or groups of people), you really need to know a thing or two about what necessitated the sending of the letter in the first place. In other words, you need context. In order to rightly interpret the letter of Revelation, we need to investigate these churches’ historical situation.

Many evangelicals tend to skip over this step and jump straight to application. This is a grave mistake. If we completely detach our modern-day applications from a text’s original, historical context, we risk misapplying the text—sometimes in embarrassing ways. Revelation 13:17 (“no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name,” ESV) is one such text. In order to interpret it rightly, we need to know its context. We need some historical data from the letter’s time period in order to gain clarity into its meaning. Is there any such data that might shed some light on this passage? As it turns out, there is.

Worshiping the Emperor

If you want to reconstruct the historical context of Christian people living in first-century Asia Minor, you must take into account the Roman imperial cult. There’s simply no way around it. The cult itself presented clear challenges to early Christians. But what do I mean by “imperial cult”?

For starters, Roman emperors were often deified after they died, becoming “gods” for Roman citizens to worship. For example, after Julius Caesar died, he was deified. His adopted son, Augustus, took for himself the title “son of god.”2 The logic was simple. If his father became “god,” then he got to be called, well, you guessed it: “son of god.”

Though it was true an emperor would be deified after he died, many Greeks living in various cities throughout the eastern parts of the empire jumped the gun; they would worship the Roman emperor while he was still alive.3 It is interesting to note that this was true of Ephesus (just like the letter to the Ephesians).4 The city of Pergamum, too, had long been a hotbed for imperial worship.5 Smyrna needs to be thrown into the mix as well.6 The list goes on. In fact, this was also true of the other four cities to which John directed his letter.7

The more despotic emperors of the first century sought to be recognized as gods while they were still living. Nero was one such emperor; Domitian was another.8 Suetonius, the well-known ancient historian, says Domitian demanded to be addressed as both “Lord and God” (Suetonius, Dom. 13). The situation was such that Domitian was “everywhere hated and feared” (Dom. 14).

Keep in mind that most scholars believe Revelation was written during the reign of one of these two tyrants. Either way, if you were a Christian, you very well might have been plagued with angst, fear, and uncertainty. After all, Nero was infamous for murdering his own mother, as well as killing innocent Christians by turning them into tar-covered human candles to light up the night. Suetonius tells a story of how Domitian once wined and dined his palace steward, lavishing on him kindness and generosity. Then the next day Domitian had him crucified. Why? Simply because he could (Dom. 11).

It is perhaps understandable, then, why other ancient texts came to refer to Nero and Domitian as a “beast.” This is documented in places like Pliny’s Panegyricus, the Sybilline Oracles, and Vita Apollonii.9 I’d say the shoe fits.

“666”: The Number of the Beast

Years ago, I remember hearing how some had taken President Reagan to be the end times “beast.” The reasoning went like this. When you take his full name, Ronald Wilson Reagan, you can see how each name contains exactly six letters. No wave of the wand or hat-trick was needed to see how that dreaded, mysterious number was embedded in the president’s name. To say this is silly is an understatement. (How odd that John wrote in such a way that only a person who was familiar with both the English language and modern American politics could rightly interpret his message!) In order to avoid embarrassing interpretations like this one (and similar ones that seem to prevail in 2020), we must deal with the text’s original context. Again, you can’t simply jump to modern application without dealing with the historical context.

Scholars often associate “the number of the beast” with Nero Caesar. There’s actually good reason for doing so. For instance, we know from Suetonius that many people were at the time toying with the numerical values of Nero’s name (Nero 39). This practice, known as gematria, took a letter of the alphabet and assigned it an equivalent number. So, for example, in the case of Greek, the first letter alpha would be given the number one. The second letter beta would be understood as two, and so on. When you take Nero’s name (Neron Kaisar) and transliterate it into Hebrew, the result is the number of the beast: 666.10

The Image of the Beast

Recall that in Revelation “the mark of the beast” is tied closely to the worship of the beast’s image (Rev. 13:15; 20:4). Since we have a pretty good idea about the identity of the beast, is there any other historical data we could look to that would link the worship of the beast’s image with the worship of Caesar’s image? Again, the answer is yes. From the writings of Pliny, for example, we learn how professing Christians’ faith were put to the test by having them worship the image of Caesar (Pliny, Letters, 10:96-97).11

The emperor’s image was everywhere, especially on coins. Modern folks are used to this. In my country, images of former national leaders are on our money. But Rome was slightly different. Caesar’s image would be on coins along with his claim to divinity. Quite literally, the emperor’s boast that he was in some way “divine” was etched (dare I say marked?) on money, decrees, and the like. One scholar observes that, “One could do little in commerce . . . without handling such a ‘mark,’ because allusions to the emperor’s divinity appeared on many coins and even shipping bills and other documents.”12 During this time period, involvement in local economies would have often required some sort of participation in pagan worship. For example, trade guilds often had feasts that centered around the worship of idols. If you were part of the guild, then your participation in these feasts would have been compulsory—that is, only if you wanted to be able to buy and sell.13

Buying and Selling

What, then, can we conclude about that “buy/sell passage”? When it comes to the beast, his mark, and the worship of the beast’s image, the historical data seems to be pointing us in one direction: It’s simply a reference to how the imperial cult impacted one’s participation in the local economy. If the “mark” is an allusion to the emperor’s claim to divinity (symbolized on Roman coins, statues, images, etc.), then a person in the first century could genuinely be said to “take the mark of the beast” by participating in the economy at the expense of their faith in Jesus. That last part is key. In other words, at certain times and in certain locations in the empire, the only way to be a good-standing citizen would have been to simply curse Christ and worship Caesar’s image (see again Pliny, Letters, 10:96-97). Again, this would have been a particular problem for Christians in Asia Minor. They would often find it impossible to make a living and worship Christ exclusively.

Of course, a person could respond by saying, “Yes, but the text says the ‘mark’ is placed on the ‘right hand or the forehead.’ Does this not therefore necessarily imply a physical mark?” The answer is no. Craig Keener offers helpful thoughts on this point. He notes how “the mark of the beast” in Rev. 13 acts as a parallel to the “seal” that is placed on the foreheads of Christians in Rev. 7:3-4. This “seal” actually has an Old Testament basis, namely, in Ezekiel 9, where a “mark” was said to have been placed on the foreheads of God’s people (Ez. 9:1-6). Keener also points to another Jewish text of the period (known as the Psalms of Solomon) that describes a mark placed on evil people. He observes how the two marks in Ezekiel and the Psalms of Solomon are clearly “symbolic . . . visible only to God and his angels, not to people.”14 And so it is quite reasonable to conclude that the mark of the beast, like the seal of the Lamb, is also symbolic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button