Now what happened was that Moderna and BioNTech employed the technology developed at the University

of Pennsylvania, which is the random insertion all the way through the RNA of a modified molecule

called pseudo-uridine.

And this is a molecule that is present in natural RNA at very specific points, highly controlled,

which alters the immune response, the inflammatory response associated with the RNA, and it also controls

how long the RNA stays around.

And when they made their discoveries trying to address the problems that caused me to

abandon the technology, they inserted pseudo-uridine all the way through the RNA, this is not

a natural RNA, this is a new synthetic thing.

To call it mRNA is false.

It has characteristics of RNA, it also has characteristics of more like a single stranded DNA.

And we now know this is stuff that should have been done before it was injected into all

of us.

In any case, the logic was that if you put this pseudo-uridine all over in the RNA, it would

make it less inflammatory and it would help it stay around longer.

And they should have characterized that.

Was that actually a good thing?

It equals the lot of things just because it may sound good in some ways.

There's often an unintended consequence.

And they didn't do the non-clinical testing.

That is now clearly documented to characterize where this goes, how long it sticks around,

how much protein it makes.

...