My boss asked me, he's heard it from me and now his brother-in-law and he tried googling it and of course sees all the "fact check" stuff that no, mRNA doesn't change your dna.
There are a lot of Mikovitz and Tenpenny videos out there but he'd probably be more receptive to something in print.
They (the MSM etc) are actually saying that mRNA doesn't change your DNA.
Every cell that we call life on this planet is chock full of mRNA at all times. If mRNA wrote to DNA with any meaningful frequency life as we know it would not exist. Our DNA would be an ever fluid soup of information, and none of what makes us up would survive to the next generation. The idea that mRNA writes to DNA at random or frequently has no basis in biology.
In the example from Moderna he talks about "code". Articles written about it mistakenly think when talking about "changing code" he means DNA. He does not, and in context it is obvious he is speaking about altering the SOFTWARE of the cell. mRNA is largely considered to be software of the cell. It is thought of in this manner because it is a perfect analogy. DNA on the other hand can be thought of as the HARD DRIVE. Again, this is a perfect analogy. Extrapolating talking about changing software code with changing hard drive storage is the fault of the interpreter. The Moderna rep who spoke about altering code did NOT misspeak, and was not talking about altering DNA.
In the second to last example they are talking about a modification to a particular base in a particular type of RNA (not mRNA) that physically interacts with DNA. This RNA is NOT being written to the DNA but provides a structural component to a certain process. A lot of RNA is structural. A lot has an enzymatic function. There is even a very specific sequence of RNA (rarely created) that fits a very specific (though rarely expressed) reverse transcriptase that writes to the ends of DNA. This part of the DNA is called the telomere. None of these types of RNA is mRNA. That type of RNA has very specific sequences that tell it to be transported out of the nucleus for which it is basically always a one way trip.
In the final example the premise of the study was based on the fraudulent PCR test. Regardless of that, what they did was show that the VIRUS (not the vaccines) could be written to DNA under certain conditions. They first showed that it could happen with relative frequency when they took away the safeguards that protect cells from writing mRNA to DNA under induced mitosis AND caused the cell to express various reverse transcriptases (that do not exist normally in a human cell). There is zero surprise that it happened, since they made it happen.
Then they showed that it could happen with just removing safeguards during induced mitosis, albeit with much less frequency. That's great, that's still not a normal cellular condition. What they did not do was show that it could happen with any meaningful frequency, during normal operations, though they did get a small signal. But remember, this super low occurrence signal arguably above the margin for error is with the VIRUS, under non normal conditions, not with the mRNA from the vaccines in vivo.
so the DNA is referenced by the injected mRNA to do something (make the spike protein) which the body would not normally do.
So people are saying "OMG it changes your DNA" but what they should be saying is "OMG it is changing the expression of DNA via foreign mRNA I'VE BEEN HAXXXORED" which is basically what these pharma people have been saying, they're hacking the operating system.
I can make a good analogy about computer viruses changing running code in memory to maliciously change the operation of the computer, without having to ever change the code on the hard drive.
Either way you're hacked.
So, are you saying the fact checkers are technically correct that the C19 vax don't change your DNA?
And the people who are saying they DO change DNA are wrong because they are using the wrong words to describe the genetic hacking that is being done?
The mRNA is released into the cytosol (not the nucleus, which it can't get to from the cytosol). The ribosomes attach to the mRNA and make the spike protein. No DNA is involved in this process whatsoever.
No DNA is involved in this process whatsoever (for the mRNA vaccines).
More like a temporary software change. Its important to understand that there are thousands of these programs running at any one time in all of our cells. The vaccine just adds one more to this mix. It stops running after a few days (the mRNA gets degraded with a half-life of about a day in the case of the vaccines).
This one software program from the mRNA really doesn't interfere with normal cell operations in any meaningful way (at least not as you are suggesting here). It will likely ultimately result in the cells death because of the intended immune response, but the protein being created is a transmembrane protein. It doesn't interact with the internal operations directly at all.
Its not as "hacked" as this statement makes it sound, but its not entirely wrong either. I'll give you this one.
Yes
Sometimes. Mostly they get the actual biology just plain wrong. Regular doctors don't have to understand the minutia of cell and molecular biology to be doctors, so they don't. Even a geneticist doesn't have to know this stuff. Even a molecular biologist doesn't have to know cell biology that well (though they are the most likely subcategory to do so other than cell biologist). Cell biologists know this stuff because that's the focus of our study. It is many years of study just to get a basic grasp of all the interactions, and even then its quite complicated and much remains unknown.
So here's a question, do you think these covid vaccines are safe, in that the benefits outweigh the risks?
I see no benefits to the vaccines. Vitamin D and Zn are likely all one needs to survive unless you are already on your death bed. Ivermectin and HCQ (both together is good) seem to be excellent if you do get sick (along with the vitamins).
The data suggests the risks from the vaccines on the other hand are very real. There is about a 1:4,000 to 1: 20,000 chance of death (depending on how accurate the VAERS data is) and about a 1:500 chance of serious side effect (subject to that same condition). These are not HUGE, but they're no joke either. I think it is likely that every age group takes less risk from the virus than the vaccine. And that's just the short term effects.
We don't know what the long term effects might be. Pathogenic priming could be a very serious issue. One data set I saw suggested its probably less than 1% death rate from this potential long term effect. It could even be much less than 1%, we won't know until we get more data. But if its 1% that's millions of people across the world. I hope it's not that bad, but it could be. There could be other long term effects. This is an experiment. No one knows for certain.
There are genuine fears from the vaccines. I am only trying to alleviate those that have no basis. I can't alleviate all of them, some are quite genuine, even if overblown to an extent. For example, even if the short term death rate is on the high end 1:4,000 that's still a 99.98% survival rate, most in people over 60. It's not actually that bad, but it is legit.
Then there's what I consider to be an even bigger risk from the vaccines than the potential health issues. The voluntary (or forced) removal of our inalienable rights. This could literally destroy the world; this simple act.
So no, the benefits (none) do not outweigh the risks (eternal slavery).