Thank you very much!

In fact, I largely agree!

"Does the modRNA even make the spike protein. Who knows. Probably not."

Very good point! Fully agree!

I myself almost always typed it this way: "spike protein".

Nevertheless, a main point is the ID of the modRNA.

Please think about!

The theoretically most reasonable assay would be protein expression (PE) followed by thorough qualitative and quantitative work-up.

The second best, although presumable far worse, would be full sequencing (NGS). I doubt whether this works properly with modRNA; still they would need to argue a lot about the algorithms of the NGS program..

What they did? Gel electrophoresis. With this they get an approximate impression of the length pf the modRNA, but not at all on the sequence.

Why did they so?

I think that they might have secretly tested PE and maybe also NGS. However, the outcome was, almost for sure, a disaster for them, meaning many proteins maybe beside a "main" one, which they called or claimed to be "spike protein".

Certainly, they cannot publish this and will not allow anybody to do these tests.

Can you expect that protein expression works in the human body more predictable than in a standardized in vitro test?

If or as this is most likely the fact: How could anybody use modRNA for healthy subjects?

How can anybody else use modRNA, if not for ultimate ratio situations?

Exactly this was Biontech's business model before 2019!

All in all, modRNA is a very bad (worst ever) concept for healthy people. Then it is irrelevant whether you pack it into LNPs or not. The modRNA is largely unpredictable,

And: Most likely modRNA was never intended to exert any positive, in the sense of beneficial, effects.