First of all, this is in July of last year, before anyone knew much about the vaccine. Secondly, Zuckerberg is barely a programmer, much less a biologist. Thirdly, as someone who knows a great deal about the technology, and having read a great deal about the Pfizer vaccine specifically, it does NOT alter DNA unless it is not what it says it is at all.
According to the listed ingredients it does not contain any of the tools required to change the DNA content in the nucleus of a cell. DNA is just not that easy to change. It takes very specific biological tools, and mRNA alone is not one of the tools. I'm not saying its impossible for mRNA to write to DNA. Its not, but it is impossible without a lot of help that just isn't there (unless the vaccine contains a whole mess of stuff that isn't listed). More important perhaps is the fact that there are much better tools we can use to write DNA (again, ways that are not in the listed ingredients).
I am NOT advocating for the vaccine. Do not under any circumstances take the vaccine for like 20 reasons I won't go in to now. But please, for the love of God, stop posting about it "changing our DNA" without actual evidence the vaccine contains the tools required to do so.
Such a post will require a fair bit of time to do correctly (with all required sources). I may make a post to the board about it to help with the disinformation. If I do, I will post here to let you know.
Yes, but the part where Zuckerberg says "change DNA" is from July of 2020. No one had any idea what was going on back then. It sounded to me like one more person who has zero clue what they are talking about spewing their own fears.
This particular immunotherapy has been used as a cancer therapy for quite a while. It's "new" in the sense that it was applied to a coronavirus, which quite frankly I think was stupid: I mean its still in the testing phase as a cancer therapy (it takes many years to do the testing).
However to just swap in the virus mRNA instead of the one used in any particular cancer therapy is almost trivial. Its a plug and play technology. Its designed to do exactly that.
As for Cuckerberg "knowing," he is a tool. He knows Jack Shit about anything even remotely related to biology.
doesn't he have access to people at the highest levels of society? Is it possible he heard something to make him question the vaccine for personal use?
Who knows what or who he has access to or what he may have heard and from whom? Is it possible he heard "inside information"? Yes. Is it possible he is an ignorant person believing what all the other ignorant people are believing? Yes.
The first "yes" requires that there is more in the vaccine than is listed. The second "yes" happens ALL THE TIME when it comes to cell biology. That is because cell biology is very complex. VERY COMPLEX! It took years of schooling for me to gain a reasonable grasp of cell/molecular biology. Based on my own experience, at least half of those with only an undergraduate degree are mostly clueless.
Even M.D.'s often don't have sufficient level of education in cell biology. While it is certainly taught in both a pre-med degree and in med school it is not a focus, and therefore a great deal of information and understanding is not required to complete those degrees. When I talk to doctors about these topics well over half are almost completely ignorant of the finer details and oftentimes even the basics (like believing mRNA can be written to DNA without a lot of extra stuff).
So ya, my money is on Zuck being ignorant as the most likely case in his response, but I will admit the other is not impossible.
Yes. First, this was many months before the vaccine was released. Second, again, Fauci didn't say it, Zuckerberg did, and it was barely in passing. If I wasn't trying to stop the spread of disinformation I wouldn't correct someone on the specifics of this, it's just not worth the effort otherwise. Third, Fauci is an idiot. I don't know what he knew at the time. Maybe he knew and didn't care to correct Zuck, maybe he didn't know. The one thing I know for sure is that I trust my knowledge more than I trust Fauci's words or lack thereof.
So what happens when a cell tries to divide after wasting resources building spike protein(s) instead of what it should have been building? Is it possible the resulting cells are damaged in some way?
Yes, the cells can be damaged and that damage can carry over through mitosis. This is extremely unlikely however.
Mitosis is an highly regulated process. There are numerous checkpoints a cell adjudicates before moving on to the next part in the cycle. It is extremely rare for a cell to get through mitosis with substantial damage without specific manipulations to bypass those checkpoints. This particular alteration (over production of a non-interactive protein) seems very unlikely to me to even begin to be problematic, much less be able to manipulate the checkpoints in any meaningful way. Even if it did make it through, by far the most likely outcome would be the induction of apoptosis (controlled cell death). It is for all these reasons that a cell becoming cancerous is so rare, despite the fact that our DNA is damaged (actual DNA modification) regularly. To put it into perspective, the actual virus (ANY actual virus) does a lot more damage to a cell than this treatment does, yet that does not cause the problems you are suggesting.
Of course the only way to be sure is through testing, but I do not see this as being problematic at this time. In other words, this is not where I would look first (or second, or third, etc.).
Without the context of the rest of the original Bill Gates video, your quote likely means one of two things:
the "shape" could be the spike protein the mRNA is supposed to be the code for. The spike protein is the antigen (the shape) for the immunotherapy that is this misnamed "vaccine". I think this is what he means.
the "shape" could be referring to something else for which there is no context, and that is the fact that RNA folds up into specific shapes for various purposes. This is just normal molecular biology and by itself is not a reason for concern.
Again, with the whole video (which I'm pretty sure I've seen in the past, but don't recall the specifics of right now) I could tell you more.
The video then goes on to discuss CRISPR, which is a technology that can alter DNA. But it talks about it as a FUTURE technology. As I said, if we assume that the vaccine does not contain extra ingredients (like all the stuff required to make CRISPR work) then it cannot alter DNA.
Now, I am not suggesting we should just assume the vaccine contains exactly and only what it says it does. I wholeheartedly welcome testing to determine that. But unless there is some shred of evidence to support such an assertion, I am not going to indulge what is otherwise pure fantasy. There is more than enough evidence of REAL bad things. We don't need to make shit up as well, in fact, that way leads to ruin.
First of all, this is in July of last year, before anyone knew much about the vaccine. Secondly, Zuckerberg is barely a programmer, much less a biologist. Thirdly, as someone who knows a great deal about the technology, and having read a great deal about the Pfizer vaccine specifically, it does NOT alter DNA unless it is not what it says it is at all.
According to the listed ingredients it does not contain any of the tools required to change the DNA content in the nucleus of a cell. DNA is just not that easy to change. It takes very specific biological tools, and mRNA alone is not one of the tools. I'm not saying its impossible for mRNA to write to DNA. Its not, but it is impossible without a lot of help that just isn't there (unless the vaccine contains a whole mess of stuff that isn't listed). More important perhaps is the fact that there are much better tools we can use to write DNA (again, ways that are not in the listed ingredients).
I am NOT advocating for the vaccine. Do not under any circumstances take the vaccine for like 20 reasons I won't go in to now. But please, for the love of God, stop posting about it "changing our DNA" without actual evidence the vaccine contains the tools required to do so.
Whenever you are ready I sure would like to know the 20 other reasons.
Such a post will require a fair bit of time to do correctly (with all required sources). I may make a post to the board about it to help with the disinformation. If I do, I will post here to let you know.
Posted 1hour ago by Project Veritas
Yes, but the part where Zuckerberg says "change DNA" is from July of 2020. No one had any idea what was going on back then. It sounded to me like one more person who has zero clue what they are talking about spewing their own fears.
Or perhaps he knew all along. You think they magically made this “vax” in a few months and produce millions of shots?
This particular immunotherapy has been used as a cancer therapy for quite a while. It's "new" in the sense that it was applied to a coronavirus, which quite frankly I think was stupid: I mean its still in the testing phase as a cancer therapy (it takes many years to do the testing).
However to just swap in the virus mRNA instead of the one used in any particular cancer therapy is almost trivial. Its a plug and play technology. Its designed to do exactly that.
As for Cuckerberg "knowing," he is a tool. He knows Jack Shit about anything even remotely related to biology.
Who knows what or who he has access to or what he may have heard and from whom? Is it possible he heard "inside information"? Yes. Is it possible he is an ignorant person believing what all the other ignorant people are believing? Yes.
The first "yes" requires that there is more in the vaccine than is listed. The second "yes" happens ALL THE TIME when it comes to cell biology. That is because cell biology is very complex. VERY COMPLEX! It took years of schooling for me to gain a reasonable grasp of cell/molecular biology. Based on my own experience, at least half of those with only an undergraduate degree are mostly clueless.
Even M.D.'s often don't have sufficient level of education in cell biology. While it is certainly taught in both a pre-med degree and in med school it is not a focus, and therefore a great deal of information and understanding is not required to complete those degrees. When I talk to doctors about these topics well over half are almost completely ignorant of the finer details and oftentimes even the basics (like believing mRNA can be written to DNA without a lot of extra stuff).
So ya, my money is on Zuck being ignorant as the most likely case in his response, but I will admit the other is not impossible.
Shows he's not completely daft.
Yes. First, this was many months before the vaccine was released. Second, again, Fauci didn't say it, Zuckerberg did, and it was barely in passing. If I wasn't trying to stop the spread of disinformation I wouldn't correct someone on the specifics of this, it's just not worth the effort otherwise. Third, Fauci is an idiot. I don't know what he knew at the time. Maybe he knew and didn't care to correct Zuck, maybe he didn't know. The one thing I know for sure is that I trust my knowledge more than I trust Fauci's words or lack thereof.
Yes, the cells can be damaged and that damage can carry over through mitosis. This is extremely unlikely however.
Mitosis is an highly regulated process. There are numerous checkpoints a cell adjudicates before moving on to the next part in the cycle. It is extremely rare for a cell to get through mitosis with substantial damage without specific manipulations to bypass those checkpoints. This particular alteration (over production of a non-interactive protein) seems very unlikely to me to even begin to be problematic, much less be able to manipulate the checkpoints in any meaningful way. Even if it did make it through, by far the most likely outcome would be the induction of apoptosis (controlled cell death). It is for all these reasons that a cell becoming cancerous is so rare, despite the fact that our DNA is damaged (actual DNA modification) regularly. To put it into perspective, the actual virus (ANY actual virus) does a lot more damage to a cell than this treatment does, yet that does not cause the problems you are suggesting.
Of course the only way to be sure is through testing, but I do not see this as being problematic at this time. In other words, this is not where I would look first (or second, or third, etc.).
The RNA vaccine - https://www.bitchute.com/video/AfVy7pMQAaZS/
"You put instructions in the code to make that shape"
Without the context of the rest of the original Bill Gates video, your quote likely means one of two things:
Again, with the whole video (which I'm pretty sure I've seen in the past, but don't recall the specifics of right now) I could tell you more.
The video then goes on to discuss CRISPR, which is a technology that can alter DNA. But it talks about it as a FUTURE technology. As I said, if we assume that the vaccine does not contain extra ingredients (like all the stuff required to make CRISPR work) then it cannot alter DNA.
Now, I am not suggesting we should just assume the vaccine contains exactly and only what it says it does. I wholeheartedly welcome testing to determine that. But unless there is some shred of evidence to support such an assertion, I am not going to indulge what is otherwise pure fantasy. There is more than enough evidence of REAL bad things. We don't need to make shit up as well, in fact, that way leads to ruin.