Luciferase Was Bad But It Gets Worse!
Luciferase Was Bad But It Gets Worse!
The new COVID-19 antibody test is actually named: SATiN
I passed a car on the road last week with a bumper sticker that made me chuckle. It read: “Critical thinking — the other national deficit.” I’ve been thinking about that bumper sticker a lot lately — ever since my essay “What is Luciferase” (exclusively on Substack) set off a firestorm. The corporate media issued the same blanket denial with the same regurgitated sentences (a cut and paste journalism job if ever there was one!) seemingly around the world: there’s no such ingredient secretly hiding inside the experimental vaccines!
Did any of these so-called journalists do the homework? Did any of them actually perform a fact-check? Of course they didn’t. Most of them didn’t even read the essay. (Let’s be honest: most of them don’t read anything at all.) I had left the instructions for fact-checking my claim right there for everyone to see:
1) Go to the MODERNA website.
2) Click: the PATENTS page.
3) Click: PATENT US 10,703,789
4) Do a keyword search for: Luciferase.
This was too difficult a task for our dishonest horde of corporate journalists. At least one brave soul bothered to do it — and that honest man happened to be a Google software engineer named Zach Vorhies.
Zach Vorhies posted a nine-tweet thread on November 5th that I want everyone to read.
What did he find?
Let me repeat: Luciferase is INCLUDED in the mRNA sequence of the Moderna patent! So I’m right — and the corporate media is wrong. Does this surprise anybody?
The corporate press has already admitted that Luciferase was used in the testing phase of the vaccines as well. So it’s listed in the mRNA sequence of the Moderna patent AND it’s used in the testing of the vaccines but I’m a conspiracy theorist?
One more thing: the new COVID-19 antibody test is called SATiN and it uses Luciferase. No, I’m not kidding. Just click here to see for yourself.
Let me repeat that information: the antibody test is called SATiN.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not getting anywhere near this dark stuff. Just listen to how the SATiN test works:
“We basically incubate those three little molecular biological pieces with a prick of blood," Stagljar says. "And if there are antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the blood, these antibodies will ‘glue’ the three parts of luciferase into a functional molecule that will start shining."
In other words, you need to have COVID-19 antibodies present to make the enzyme glow. When the glow occurs, the researchers can then measure the amount of light emitted with an instrument called a luminometer. The more antibodies a person has, the brighter the luciferase will shine.
There’s something very wrong here. You know it and I know it. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand: names matter. It’s not an accident that they’ve given this name to this test. It’s a warning.
He who has ears, let him hear.
As a patent lawyer who has been practicing patent law for almost a quarter century, permit me to offer one cautionary note on this:
luciferase is mentioned in the text of US patent no. 10,703,789 numerous times, but it is NOT mentioned in any of the claims of the patent. This, at least in my mind, raises a question as to whether the products covered by the claims of the patent have luciferase in them.
Now, there are many possible explanations for this.
1. It is not unusual for the description/specification in a patent to cover much more than the claims, or to list embodiments that are not covered by the claims. (They are called "unclaimed embodiments.")
2. There may be other pending related applications that have claims that DO list luciferase as one of the ingredients. (This is, in fact, quite likely - the patent itself is quite lengthy, and it is entirely possible that numerous other "child" patents will issue from the same application, claiming priority to all the provisionals listed there.)
3. Since I am not a chemist (much less an organic chemist), nor a molecular biologist, it is possible that luciferase is actually listed in the claims under some different nomenclature, but I am simply not recognizing it.
4. There might be other patents or applications owned by Moderna (unrelated to this patent/application - i.e., they are not parents, grandparents, children or grandchildren of the application that became US Patent No. 10,703,789) that have claims listing luciferase. The moral here is that the story is not quite as simple as it seems, or, at a minimum, it MIGHT be more complex than it seem, if the evidence of nefariousness is solely based on what's in that patent.
None of this is a comment one way or another about the nefarious part of any of it - again, I am not a chemist, so I am not qualified to debate the merits of what evil things luciferase (which I have never heard of until recently) can, or can't, do in the human body. My comment is solely about the fact that listing a chemical compound in the specification, but not in the claims, at least raises an issue in my mind about your theory.
In any case, keep up the good work. Lord knows, there aren't many actual journalists left out there.
Best,
George Bardmesser
I just subscribed here because Newmax has 'suspended' Emerald. I've emailed Newsmax to complain and also attempted to call Chris Ruddy's office to voice my concern over the network removing Emerald. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that I would not be connected to his office.
I look forward to hearing Emerald's take every day and unless Newmax does the right thing they may as well be Fox News as far as I'm concerned. Straight up censorship. Keep going Emerald, you're a voice for so many of us.