The manipulated RNA force your body to become a factory of the spike protein. There is no evidence to show this process EVER STOPS.

Typical mRNA half-life in cytoplasm is 10 hours.

The mRNA in the Pfizer vaccine is modified to last longer in the cytoplasm, nevertheless it only lasts a little longer. (I can't find the reference right now, but I assure you it exists. I think the half-life for this mRNA once it was in the cytoplasm was around a day. There is just too much stuff in your post to go through to find it right now).

Even outside of the cytoplasm, in solution, it was not lasting as long as they hoped. I dug through the leaked documents from Pfizer and found it had degraded from their estimated 78% to 55% in transport, despite the -80F temperature it was being stored at. Here is a report on that. It is not the original leaked document because that information was deep in there, and I don't want to have to find it again.

mRNA degradation is standard cell/molecular biology. Anyone who has studied biology knows this. It is fundamental. mRNA can really be thought of as a cells software. Imagine if it did not degrade. At some point you would never be able to change cellular function because your cell would be full of previous mRNA! All life would cease to exist if mRNA did not degrade relatively quickly.

The amount of evidence I can show you that it DOES stop is, I don't know, millions, billions of pages of evidence? From a molecular biology point of view its like questioning if 1+1=2.

There are countless Vaccine afflicted willing to testify their side effects from these “cures” last a lifetime.

This is because of memory immune cells. This is how vaccinations are supposed to work. The immune response is such that it stores the "cure" within the immune system itself. This has absolutely nothing to do with the mRNA or the proteins on the cells, or even the vaccine itself, but in the intended response of the immune system. To explain the immune system in sufficient detail to help you understand how it works would take too much time right now. Your post is just too big (seriously, smaller chunks next time, please).

Why would people experience lifelong side effects after a vaccine is out of their system, as you say it is?

There is potential for something called pathogenic priming, which could last years afterwards. This is due to the memory immune response I mentioned above, not the vaccine staying in your body. The vaccine could also just cause permanent damage from the initial immune response. Again, permanent damage is not the vaccine staying in your body. It is organ damage and has absolutely nothing to do with the vaccine after the fact.

Where is your evidence the vaccine leaves the system in just a few days?

Ugh, there is too much to look this up again. I've seen reports on this particular PEGylated lipid nanoparticle, but I can't find it on a quick search. There is too much stuff... Regardless I do research on very similar systems. The body is designed to break down any foreign invader. The PEGylation is designed to avoid the immune system, however, it only works so well. The immune system is really good at getting rid of foreign shit in our blood. They also just break down due to other things (mechanical forces). In my experience working on very similar tech the half life of a well designed system is about two days. Take my word for it or don't but find me a single resource that says otherwise. I will take a look at it.

These doctors have grave concerns.

The first article is about population level concerns of the types of vaccines being deployed (they are not whole virus shell vaccines, which is problematic). It has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I have said. Nevertheless, I agree that what he is saying is concerning and is grounds to stop the vaccine "experiment".

The second also agrees with everything I have said here and elsewhere. I am not sure why you think that refutes anything, on the contrary, we are in complete agreement.

The third is well written, but he makes a mistake:

With so many sources of reverse transcriptase, it is quite probable that the RNA introduced into our cells via the vaccine could be reverse transcribed into a segment of double-stranded DNA, and then integrated into our core genetic material in the nucleus of the cell.

His use of the term "quite probable" has nothing to do with reality. We measure things. When we measure things we can determine how likely something is to happen. He should have used the word "possible". Indeed it is possible, but the truth is, it is incredibly unlikely. This is a well measured effect. For an mRNA that is already in the cytosol it is unbelievably unlikely. In the case of the vaccine the mRNA is already in the cytosol. Without the proper signals imbedded into the mRNA (for which I have seen zero evidence) it is nearly impossible for it to get into the nucleus. Even if it did get into the nucleus it is nearly impossible for a reverse transcriptase to even be active at all, much less pick up the one mRNA that happened to (impossibly) get into the nucleus. So that's 3x nearly impossible for it to happen at all. If those 3x's did happen, it would maybe happen in a SINGLE CELL of a SINGLE PERSON (out of millions). That cell would then be expressing the exact thing intended to cause an immune response and is more likely to be removed by the immune system than not.

He then goes on to talk about it changing stem cells which is again, incredibly unlikely for an ADDITIONAL reason to the ones above. Stem cells are incredibly well protected in something called a stem cell niche. Blood born pathogens rarely make it into the niche. I'm not saying its impossible, its just one extra level of improbable on top of the others.

His discussion of bone marrow transplants is woefully misplaced which is surprising, since in general he knows what he is talking about. But as I have said many times, biology is incredibly complicated. Even experts make mistakes some times. Bone marrow transplantation is a transplantation of stem cell niches. These off target effects he mentioned have absolutely nothing to do with mRNA but with the transplanting of stem cells themselves.

He even says himself:

I think most molecular biologists would look at my thesis and discount it as improbable, and I wouldn’t argue with them too strongly

What he fails to mention is how improbable it is (maybe once in a generation does an mRNA incorporation of any type have a permanent effect at an organismal level (a single person), and much more rarely in the germline).

You have to understand, our cells are full of mRNA. That is one of the most important and prolific molecules in our bodies. If our mRNA was being written constantly to our DNA we would cease to exist. The cell is designed to prevent it from happening. It is one of the most important systems in our cells. mRNA writing to DNA (outside of very specific circumstances) is incredibly rare. To think it can change an organism (a person in this case) with any reasonable degree of probability is frankly, idiotic. Its not impossible, its just not something to worry about. You are more likely to get hit by lightning 18 times in the next 5 seconds without a cloud in the sky than for this to happen without other ingredients that are not listed as part of the vaccine.

This is the difference between someone speaking theoretically and inappropriately extrapolating (what the person in the article does) and someone who is an actual cell biology researcher who studies and tests these specific things (me).

As for the rest:

The vaccines are killing people. It is not being reported. This is a crime against humanity. None of these things have anything to do with the viral mRNA being written to the DNA.