This paper says absolutely nothing about mRNA altering DNA. It talks about how a modification of a particular base (mRNA is made up of a long chain of bases) can increase protein expression. This subsequent increased protein expression can alter the EXPRESSION of certain genes. This is well known cell biology and has been known for decades. The only thing new in this paper is the understanding that this specific base alteration can cause an increase in protein translation (its not the only one that does that).
Altering protein expression has absolutely NOTHING to do with changing DNA. EVERYTHING alters protein expression. Like, literally everything. Its the main basic function of all cell biology. If you eat too much Vitamin C, or donuts, or coffee, or breath faster, or look to the left, somewhere in your body protein expression is going to change.
The reason why this particular paper is interesting is because the discovery does allow for an increase of protein translation efficiency that would otherwise not happen without the modification of the base. In other words, we can inject mRNA into the cell with this particular modification that would allow it to be more potent than it would be without the modification. The Pfizer immunotherapy (its not a vaccine) has a similar (maybe the same, I'd have to look) technology to make it more potent.
I want to say thank you for such an excellent response in this discussion. I will look at the article you posted tomorrow.
I will also say that yes, Cancer is absolutely DNA modification, but it isn't intentional DNA modification (at least I hope not). At the very least it isn't directed DNA modification, which is what is implied by the term.
The mRNA modification that I was aware of on the spike protein mRNA in the vaccine is used to enhance ribosome binding, thereby increasing its efficacy. This is not an uncommon modification in protein production. I was not aware however of all the studies of other mods that were discussed in the article you linked to. It is quite fascinating that all these effects have been linked to specific mods. It warrants further exploration.
I am not aware of any other epigenetic mods in the vaccine mRNA other than the binding enhancement. That does not mean that they don't exist. In truth, it would be an excellent place to hide a nefarious activator; however, unless there is evidence of it, I will not indulge fantasies (there are too many other more tangible avenues of research that demand attention).
I have not been able to find the exact mRNA of the vaccine (including modifications). In truth, studying it even if I were able to find it would take quite a long time. I am not an expert in epigenetics and would have to look up every detail to get a complete picture. I will keep an eye out for papers on this topic. If anything comes out I will post on it.
I really haven't looked into the likely causes of death yet. Well, I have, but the literature is so shallow, and the reports non-existent, so to dig deeper I have to dig deep (go back in time and look into similar models before it became political).
The basic premise of the drug is to cause an autoimmune response. Its designed to infect the muscle cells, adipose tissue, etc. and cause the body to attack those cells, but only those cells, that are expressing the viral spike protein. This is intended to train the immune system to attack the virus (covered in the same spike protein) when it is encountered.
If I had to guess (and please, this is ONLY a guess at this time), I would guess the deaths that are relatively recent after injection are likely due to a run amok immune response that attacks an organ, or perhaps the blood vessels. For example, if after the injection the mRNA carrying nanoparticles made it through the bloodstream and ended up in epithelial cells in the brain or heart it could cause those blood vessel cells to be attacked by the immune system which could cause a breakdown of the blood vessels. This could cause something that was basically a stroke, aneurism or heart attack.
From the death reports that I have seen of the younger people, they have been of this type, so it fits the (very small amount of) data. Because the data set is so small, and because they are absolutely hiding the data this is STRICTLY a guess I am pulling out of my ass (with a fair bit of knowledge behind it).
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.
I feel like I'm playing Whack-O-Mole.
This paper says absolutely nothing about mRNA altering DNA. It talks about how a modification of a particular base (mRNA is made up of a long chain of bases) can increase protein expression. This subsequent increased protein expression can alter the EXPRESSION of certain genes. This is well known cell biology and has been known for decades. The only thing new in this paper is the understanding that this specific base alteration can cause an increase in protein translation (its not the only one that does that).
Altering protein expression has absolutely NOTHING to do with changing DNA. EVERYTHING alters protein expression. Like, literally everything. Its the main basic function of all cell biology. If you eat too much Vitamin C, or donuts, or coffee, or breath faster, or look to the left, somewhere in your body protein expression is going to change.
The reason why this particular paper is interesting is because the discovery does allow for an increase of protein translation efficiency that would otherwise not happen without the modification of the base. In other words, we can inject mRNA into the cell with this particular modification that would allow it to be more potent than it would be without the modification. The Pfizer immunotherapy (its not a vaccine) has a similar (maybe the same, I'd have to look) technology to make it more potent.
I want to say thank you for such an excellent response in this discussion. I will look at the article you posted tomorrow.
I will also say that yes, Cancer is absolutely DNA modification, but it isn't intentional DNA modification (at least I hope not). At the very least it isn't directed DNA modification, which is what is implied by the term.
More tomorrow.
The mRNA modification that I was aware of on the spike protein mRNA in the vaccine is used to enhance ribosome binding, thereby increasing its efficacy. This is not an uncommon modification in protein production. I was not aware however of all the studies of other mods that were discussed in the article you linked to. It is quite fascinating that all these effects have been linked to specific mods. It warrants further exploration.
I am not aware of any other epigenetic mods in the vaccine mRNA other than the binding enhancement. That does not mean that they don't exist. In truth, it would be an excellent place to hide a nefarious activator; however, unless there is evidence of it, I will not indulge fantasies (there are too many other more tangible avenues of research that demand attention).
I have not been able to find the exact mRNA of the vaccine (including modifications). In truth, studying it even if I were able to find it would take quite a long time. I am not an expert in epigenetics and would have to look up every detail to get a complete picture. I will keep an eye out for papers on this topic. If anything comes out I will post on it.
I really haven't looked into the likely causes of death yet. Well, I have, but the literature is so shallow, and the reports non-existent, so to dig deeper I have to dig deep (go back in time and look into similar models before it became political).
The basic premise of the drug is to cause an autoimmune response. Its designed to infect the muscle cells, adipose tissue, etc. and cause the body to attack those cells, but only those cells, that are expressing the viral spike protein. This is intended to train the immune system to attack the virus (covered in the same spike protein) when it is encountered.
If I had to guess (and please, this is ONLY a guess at this time), I would guess the deaths that are relatively recent after injection are likely due to a run amok immune response that attacks an organ, or perhaps the blood vessels. For example, if after the injection the mRNA carrying nanoparticles made it through the bloodstream and ended up in epithelial cells in the brain or heart it could cause those blood vessel cells to be attacked by the immune system which could cause a breakdown of the blood vessels. This could cause something that was basically a stroke, aneurism or heart attack.
From the death reports that I have seen of the younger people, they have been of this type, so it fits the (very small amount of) data. Because the data set is so small, and because they are absolutely hiding the data this is STRICTLY a guess I am pulling out of my ass (with a fair bit of knowledge behind it).
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.
I trust Zuck's comments against the mRNA shot just as much as I trust Gates' comments for the shot.
Neither of them knows what the fuck they're talking about.
I would love to share this with all my family but they think I'm goofy so it is sad to know they are not doing their own investigation.