Do you find it odd that the newer version of the EMA document doesn't contain the contents of the previous versions in its tracking? Wouldn't that be a cause for concern?

Why "Cell-free protein synthesis" would not be a proper test is that the concern with truncated mRNA is the runaway generation on protein rather than showing a single instance with "background noise".

The "background noise" can exponentially replicate in the real world which is what the NIH document raises as a concern. This can become a dangerous artifact.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6791314/#:~:text=As%20highlighted%20earlier%2C%20damage%20to,affect%20ribosome%20homeostasis%20through%20stalling

Seems that saying truncated mRNA was found to be inconsequential in "cell-free in vitro expression system" tests is not reflected in real world trials. Did they go beyond cell free testing?

Cell-free protein synthesis, also known as in vitro protein synthesis or CFPS, is the production of protein using biological machinery in a cell-free system, that is, without the use of living cells. The in vitro protein synthesis environment is not constrained by a cell wall or homeostasis conditions necessary to maintain cell viability. Thus, CFPS enables direct access and control of the translation environment which is advantageous for a number of applications including co-translational solubilisation of membrane proteins, optimisation of protein production, incorporation of non-natural amino acids, selective and site-specific labelling. Due to the open nature of the system, different expression conditions such as pH, redox potentials, temperatures, and chaperones can be screened. Since there is no need to maintain cell viability, toxic proteins can be produced.

This testing seems to be mechanical and may be used to incorrectly create a pro result statement.

Only Fat Libs and Lab Rats need to get Boosted and stay double masked ✊🏽💉💉💉💉💉💉💉

The CDC lies and we love it!