Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: Spikopathy: The Pathology of the Spike Protein

Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: Spikopathy: The Pathology of the Spike Protein

Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude is a geneticist and Director of Research at the French National Institute of Health.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on November 22, 2021. The full meeting can be viewed here.

[00:00:00]

[00:00:30] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Okay. Now we’re we’re also blessed to have Alexandra Henrion Caude to take us over to the science area and to teach us what she been studying and learning about the poisonous effects of the spike proteins that are being generated within the people who’ve had these interesting injections.

[00:00:48] Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: Can you hear me all right.

[00:00:50] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Yes, we can. Thanks for being here.

[00:00:52] Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: Thanks for inviting me. First of all I need to apologize before I even start my presentation because it was very short notice and I had actually two very short notices that I did grab. The one was way Reiner Feullmich a couple of days ago.

[00:01:08] And now today, and given the fact that I had to hand over report to four lawyers in Canada, and I have to say that I’m just completely drown and overwhelmed. So please accept my apologies beforehand before I even start because it’s, it may be a bit messy, but it is I thought it was really important that I would share with you my thoughts at the moment because they might change a view whether in terms of science or in terms of our clinicians as to really get categories of what we are facing.

[00:01:47] With that, I will share my screen if I’m entitled to. Which I probably can you see my presentation?

[00:01:55] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Yes. Perfect.

[00:01:57] Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: All right. Thank you. And so the, those are really it’s a very it’s a view on the pathogenicity of MRN vaccine. And in fact, I’m really taking the path towards coining a new category of disease.

[00:02:14] I would say, which I coined the word of “spikopathy”, because I think that once you’ve coined names, you get to think things in an easier manner. So first of all, I go into some generalities because there have been so much false information as to the mRNA injection that I really need to take a couple of,

[00:02:37] I, in the past are mRNA injection, some therapies, are we well advanced and, are they so well known that that we were to try them on everyone of us on this planet to let’s go back in to the past. The very first trial that was a very promising one came from 1992.

[00:02:59] We’ve this injection into the brain of rats of this mRNA encoding vasopressin. And it was very impressive results that they got with a temporary reversal of the disease that had these rats, the diabetes insipidus, and and that could be observed within hours of injection.

[00:03:21] And I really prompt you to go to that review. That’s a review from 2019 that was comparing a plasmid DNA and M RNA as vaccine technologies. And basically what you will learn from this review is that as much as we have been in great hope for gene therapy using DNA. We are a bit lag behind with mRNA and it is very disappointing because one would have hoped that we, the path would have been much more successful already. And it is not yet, maybe we don’t know for the future. So what were the regular R&D concerns for mRNA vaccines? And you can find this table in this very article that I pointed out to you, the family.

[00:04:16] The one aspect was to stabilize and protect the messenger. How did we do that in our mRNA injection that people widely injected. They have been doing that. So the protection goes by an encapsulation into a lippy, the LMPs lippy nanoparticles, and the stablization basically roughly is based on the fact that there have been changes in the genetic code in a manner that has never been tested yet, because it was a systematic change before that we used to use that kind of modification, but not in a systematic way, which is called absudo you regulation.

[00:05:02] Now we in the R&D you want to target the messenger to the desired cells. And in fact at this stage of our knowledge, I just wish to know if there is any, if there is any cells that cannot be reached out by the common technologies that we are using. It seems to me that any cell type we, we look at, we find that the possibility of the injection to, to go and to reach [inaudible].

[00:05:34] The other aspect is the increased escape of messengers messenger for and from endosome. I will not go into this detail because it will lead me to too much. The deliver and messenger RNA directly to the dendritic cells. This is important for me to bring because a lot of people and colleagues have said that the technology we were using were going to reach only the dendritic cells, which is not the case. Increased amount of protein translated.

[00:06:05] Yes, it has been very well designed as to get a very strong efficiency for the messenger to get translated. Increased duration of protein production. So this is actually an issue that we have because to the best of my knowledge I cannot find any insight as to when we really get the messenger to be degraded.

[00:06:30] So I’m looking for any sort of information related to this specific mRNA degradation and not a, another model. Optimize immune responses from, for the antigen. We know that it has been quite of a concern lately and this is this, again, I will not go into details because it has been discussed elsewhere. Decrease or select desired inflammatory effects of messengers and optimize the above for potentially safety, complexity of formulation, cost of manufacture, product stability.

[00:07:06] And as you may know, all these aspects are actually troublesome to say the least. The issues that are to be addressed for efficacy and safety in this paper, again, in this review from 2019, where the following, the potency in terms of the impact of the messenger innate immune responses dependency in terms of the impact of other drugs.

[00:07:32] And we all know that there have not been any sort of. At least to the best of my knowledge. Again, I do not know a lot of interaction between typically antibiotics maybe and mRNA injection. And how does it affect the extent of translation into proteins? So this is just to give you the number of questions that we have currently potential toxicity of messengers due to inheritance messenger, inflammatory activity the use of unnatural modified nucleoside, just as I told you, this, pseudo formulation and and yes, this almost last type with the anti self RNA antibodies that will be generated how they will play a role, any role in auto immune diseases.

[00:08:24] Once again, this is I believe quite an open question and basically how we should be designing clinical trials to detect inflammation and toxicity due to the messenger. And fortunately the design of the clinical trials, as we, you may know was not well-designed and specifically as to show any aspect on cancer or genicity and, toxicity. If it’s so well known that we could, that we had everything enhanced that we could spread it to the planet.

[00:08:58] This is an, updated list of the registered MRNs based clinical trials that you can find on clinical trials.gov and overall I Vanessa could find 70 clinical trials 53 only targeting COVID-19 and 17 on other diseases. So this is just to give you again, an insight as to the fact that we were not so advanced into these kind of technologies.

[00:09:30] And most of them were phase one, phase two, and hardly reaching phase. So as you see on the left, so this is not the COVID-19 one. I just selected the one on other diseases to give you a glance. Some were finished. But they were actually stopped when they are finished, on the left column, that on the right column, they were actually finished, but stopped in phase one or, and so not fulfilled to the end or they were under recruitment or ongoing.

[00:10:03] The next slide is: did we have any other special warning with these vaccine idea of of injecting most of the people? We did have, and I really liked this article that was put by Cardos et Veazey who specifically asked that we would get an informed consent disclosure to the vaccine trials, subjects of risk for COVID-19 vaccines as to the possibility that they would worsen the clinical disease.

[00:10:37] Why do they, what was their basis? Why did they say that? They were not anti-vax. They were just mentioning the fact that vaccines for south Merce and RSV had never, ever been approved and that the data generated in the development of such technology was actually leading to a serious mechanistic concern.

[00:11:03] And typically the possibility that there was this issue with the spike protein to elicit neutralizing antibodies and have an impaired answer into in the antibodies with ADE, which is the antibody dependent enhancement. And so the conclusion as they stated, it was really light.

[00:11:25] And, but I think very based and sound. It was the specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standards of patient comprehension for informed consent.

[00:11:56] Unfortunately in most of our countries that haven’t been so a special consent, the complexity of all this is extremely high. And I like to quote that sentence from this article on micro RNAs, in solving COVID-19 puzzle from infection to therapeutics that states that SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to dysregulate new murals cellular pathways, perhaps leading to an increase in anomalies in patients with comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases, renal failure, pulmonary complications, cancer, obesity, diabetes, and so on.

[00:12:39] And with that drawing, this actually states the number of dysregulation of micro RNA in the different disorders that are linked to COVID-19 and their targets. And, obviously from our understanding, the thing is that a lot is being performed at the level of dysregulation of the target.

[00:13:05] And unfortunately those target typically like ACE2 or Neuropilin-1 are the one that will bind, be bound, that are the receptors for spike protein. And so therefore, one really needs to ask how much of the diseases that we are currently facing at the moment can be spike related and spike related, meaning maybe despite that is being produced by the vaccines, because why not?

[00:13:35] So at very first was playing the right target for vaccination. The thing is that we know that there is a very high load of RNA, of mutation in RNA viruses, and the thing is that we all knew that spike was actually a hotspot for mutation. So if one wanted to elaborate many sorts of products because you would have variants and you had changed tangents in the spike, it was probably a good idea.

[00:14:06] Now, if you wanted it to be an efficient procedure, we all knew, again, that a spike would be a tedious choice to say the least not only because of the high load of mutation in to the spike protein, but also because due to the high load the high number of potential binding and entry receptors, such as ACE2, CD 1 4 7, CD 26, TLR and GP2b3a and Neuropilin-1 again.

[00:14:40] This gives you once more, the sort of complexity that one can get just by being having its body to produce at a high level spike proteins. What do we have in terms of dated publication and knowledge, we have this insight that is really important, I believe, which is that on top of that you have the circulation of spike within the brain by the possibility that you even get the internalization through of spike through the recipe.

[00:15:16] And that is a very recent papers that was shown that actually proved that the spike proteins would induce pathological changes in the delivery and the metabolic function in the brain. So it’s a very worrisome. Now let’s zoom in to the strategy a bit further. So they did encapsulate the MRNs into NLPs.

[00:15:42] The thing is that they chose a different lippy nanoparticles and we’ve wrote a letter to the European medicinal agency, the EMA, and the EMA did answer as to the possibility that those injection would be leading to cancer or toxicity.

[00:16:04] And so we were wondering what they were doing to circumvent or to trace any of these aspects. They did answer to us, and the answer was rather puzzling. The first part of the answer was basically that no, they didn’t do such studies because it would take time and money and human resource constraint as to do such studies.

[00:16:29] So it is a very puzzling answer. When you just think that you’re injecting billions of doses. The other part of the answer was a bit puzzling as well. It was focusing on ALC 0 1 5 9, which is one of the lippy nanoparticles. And they were saying that one shouldn’t really worry as to the toxicity of this specific LNP, because we were using low doses of it.

[00:16:57] And we were to only inject it twice. That was the answer we got at that time. Maybe they didn’t know that the idea was to, repeatedly use this injection and to have this booster thing. So it is a concern that the scientific community has, and I like to point out that people are actually looking for other alternative for delivery of the messengers and typically to be trying to use the exosome edited messenger delivery.

[00:17:31] And in the abstract, they did say that they would like to have this alternative approach because it’s in contract to LNP, which elicited pronounced cellular toxicity. And that’s why they wished to have exosomes because they think they have no adverse effects, at least in vitro or in vivo at any dose tested.

[00:17:54] So you just, have more and more insight into the fact that everyone in the scientific community knows that we do have this toxicity and specifically in the liver. And I prompted clinicians to look at any liver dysfunction with the LFTs the liver functional tests. So if we zoom further in the strategy it seems to me that on addition to having this toxicity or diseases or sicknesses through the mRNA injection strategy, you have to add to it, the fact that you are having your body to produce quite an amount of spike. At first for doing this presentation,

[00:18:36] I wanted to throw all the publication that gave evidence that that spike was somewhat toxic for us or did lead to some pathogenicity. Then I was just so overloaded by the literature that there was no way that I could do that. So I will just go through quickly a number of concern that maybe in the event of this spikopathy, as I coined it, one is the activation of sleeping andogenous viral genome sequence, typically the H E R V – W envelope which this paper very nicely showed that.

[00:19:19] Not only SARS cov two but also just spike stimulation did lead to an increase in the expression of this sleepy messenger in our cells. And this is all very much problematic when one understands the number of concerns that the production of an envelope of H E R V – W leads to. Another rant of concern

[00:19:47] is this recent paper, which is an in-vitro prepare again mostly all the papers are in vitro that leads to the data that a spike impairs the DNA. So the DNA repair system, and on top of that inhibits VDJ recombination. So this is also a very big concern, especially when we are talking of throwing some COVID-19 drugs, such as Mo most of your per inovia, which I can never pronounce well that is mutagenic.

[00:20:22] And so on the one hand you may be throwing mutagenic drugs. And on the other hand, you may have impaired your DNA repair capacity. Another aspects, which is not the least, the mitochondrial dynamics is again, it seems to be altered. And this has been shown repeatedly just by spike protein and the spike in the endothelial cells is also problematic.

[00:20:49] There is more because not only, we have this spike as I said earlier, that can enter despite one, for instance, that can enter brain endothelial cells, but we also have circulating example zooms. So that is just really released November 20th as current as they, it was just it’s pre-published online October 15.

[00:21:12] And in fact, what you see here is that the spike protein is you have, by the injection of Pfizer, you do have circulating exosomes with the spike protein. This is to me, a very important piece of data, because it means that you will essentially get the spike protein everywhere and very easy to disseminate because circulating exosomes are a fantastic mode of transport into the body and also into liquid external fluid.

[00:21:54] So to wrap up for scientists and clinicians, my idea is that we should be looking at any sort of trouble, of the post VAX trouble, into basically three categories. One is really the impairment at the antibody level, like the antibody dependent enhancement and this enhanced respiratory disease that we were to expect, and that we are not so surprised to be facing.

[00:22:26] The other part is the MRNA injection sickness as I call it. So those can be the LNPs as I showed you. But I think we should also take into account the fact that unless there has been a conspiracy against Japan, which I’m not aware of, there have been some metal contaminants in Pfizer, and Moderna in that they could show in Japan and therefore one should worry as to those

[00:22:55] contaminants maybe that will lead to some sickness. So this is more typically the kind of the fact that you will get a very quick answer allergic answer. And so death that suddenly take place I believe the second class, and the last part, which will basically with mRNA strategy would take place not before

[00:23:20] let’s say 15 days is the wide ranch of spikopathy. And so just, by having a look at these three categories, you get the dynamic as to understand when you get, when facing the trouble of post vaccination and the delay from which it takes place. One can probably have a glance at where to look, whether ADE or mRNA injection sickness or wide ranch spikopathy.

[00:23:51] And the second part is one may actually propose some drugs and some way of treating those patients because obviously if one is facing sickness from LMPs, I would believe that you have a liver sickness and therefore you want to limit the disease, the inflammation.

[00:24:13] And so one probably wants to use this modem or other kind of molecules or strategies. Now, if you are spacing your spikopathy, then you probably wish to at least diminish the quantity of spike that is bound to the receptor and therefore to use any sort of strategy that would alleviate the possibility of it to bind.

[00:24:35] Thank you.

[00:24:36] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Thank you so much for your excellent presentation, Doctor Dr. Caude I just want to say, with more and more research coming out, like what you’re showing us, in the beginning, we were just forced to believe things like MRNA, the technology is so great because they’ve been working on it for years and you’ve just exposed that they actually haven’t.

[00:24:53] And with that, you’ve-

[00:24:54] Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: No we have been working for years, but it is the path is difficult.

[00:25:00] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Yes. Yes, I understood. And and it’s with people like you’re giving us the research and the clarity on that point, because whenever we debate with somebody saying that it takes years to develop a vaccine, they very quick to say that they’ve done so many, and you’ve actually enumerated the child.

[00:25:13] And it actually isn’t that many. And like you said, some of them only phase one and phase two, we’ve got many questions for you. And if you can please go to the chat they start off with Q and I think the first question for you is somebody wanted to know, can they get this presentation in French?

[00:25:29] And from that, there’s a lot of questions below that if you can, please answer the questions for us in the chat, so that, that everybody can get a fair share of your attention, because this is absolutely an excellent presentation. I’m definitely going to be using it because you now have shed a light on so many things.

[00:25:44] Thank you. I thank you so much. And with that, I hand you over to to mark.

[00:25:47] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Thank you for this great presentation, Dr. Caude. I hope we’ll be seeing more of you and certainly would love to invite you to be involved in the medicine and science committee of the world council. So I hope we get to see more of you and have more contact with you.

[00:26:01] When you look at this, it’s so shocking and I find myself wondering, at what point did we go from reckless to vandalism?

[00:26:07]

5 Comments

  1. I appreciate the difficulty of having such a complicated subject being presented to non-experts like me. Could someone with the in-depth knowledge of this subject please translate this presentation into simple English? Thanks.

    1. @John Csutorka I think this presentation is done in simple English.
      Dr A Henrion Caude has done an impeccable job to talk about such a complex situation in easy English, don’t forget she’s French speaking!
      I wonder how many English speaking professors will do such an incredible job in French!

  2. Excellent information. I realize the audio and typed word do not always match, just to know that real scientists are working hard to solve this complex dilemma gives me hope!

  3. mercy Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude, the your lesson was very interesting , highlight the real complexity of the mRNA technologies , and above all the most great shadow on medical science, that is safety of this products . I believe on scientist as you because the medical science is not for businnes , exist to find the truth , only this ensure healty to all people.
    Many good wishes to you.

Leave a Reply

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