Every time I attempt to show counter arguments to you, you attack the messenger, not the message. It makes for a very difficult conversation.

You seem to have a tendency to quote people who support your view, but rarely do you address an opposing view directly. Instead you rely on what you think "an authority" is saying in their abstract. I'm not saying using that as counterargument is bad, but without directly addressing the argument you only make things 10 times harder on someone trying to have a conversation with you.

I can go through the science papers you have posted, and break them down, piece by piece, and show you the flaws, but if you refuse to listen, refuse to look at evidence, and only say "you must be wrong", "your source is not credible", etc. it doesn't promote me to endeavor to have good conversation with you.

You assume a science paper is correct because "science doesn't lie". What you fail to realize that an abstract, or discussion section of a paper are the parts of a science paper where scientists give their opinions (and quite frankly, very often do lie, or unintentionally say things that are completely false). It is the data, the experimental methods, what they actually found and not their interpretation of it that matters in science.

On the other side, using wikipedia for basic science, or pictures is convenient and can only be discounted if you can find contrary evidence to discount it. For example, if I use Wikipedia to post a picture of a liposome so I can explain what is going on, and you think a liposome is something completely different, prove it. Don't go off on some crazy diatribe about how everything on wikipedia is suspect. OF COURSE ITS SUSPECT. But here's where you and I differ tremendously; to me, EVERYTHING is suspect. Every source. I look at everything closely to see if the source has made a mistake, or mischaracterized, or injected damning bias into their analysis, etc.

Let me be specific regarding this paper that you love so much. I will be very brief and will not make a full case, but it essential that you recognize that what you think you see is not what you are seeing.

You always tout it as proof that the vaccine mRNA can be written to DNA. But the paper doesn't show that at all. Not once does it look at mRNA of any sort, not from the vaccine, not endogenous, not from the virus.

What it does look at is possible SARS-CoV-2 RNA being written to DNA. Viral RNA is not the same as mRNA. They have similarities, but they are not the same. What makes mRNA special is modifications that allow it to be read by the ribosomes. The 5' cap is one such modification. I am using a non-wikipedia link, even though the wikipedia link is much better at explaining it in a way that is understandable to a non-biologist (which is why I use it. I always check the info first).

I really don't want to go into too much detail on all the reasons the paper doesn't say what you think it says, but I will point out a few: if you look at page 22 the caption for their data says:

Figure 2. SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the host genome in cells with reverse transcriptase expression

(Bolded for emphasis). What they are showing here is that the virus RNA (not the vaccine mRNA), when it is allowed to infect a host AND they introduce ANOTHER viral vector (cDNA) that expresses HIV1-RT (the reverse transcriptase from HIV) or LINE-1 ORF2p (a reverse transcriptase that can be expressed in some cancers) AND you induce mitosis in these cells THEN you will find some SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the DNA.

Notably its just fragments and not a whole genome, which is very important, but that's not the most important part here and I won't get into why it is. The important part is that they are making the cells do something they otherwise wouldn't to show that its possible.

They then go on to show that SARS-CoV-2 infection causes LINE-1 ORF1 RNA expression. Please note that ORF1 RNA is NOT the same as the actual reverse transcriptase ORF2p. While I admit it is likely that ORF1p will be coexpressed with ORF2p, there may be other downregulations of the second protein, and testing for the first and not the actual protein is hugely problematic. Its bad science to assume they are coexpressed equally, and indeed there are specific reasons to think that in this case they will not be which I will get to in a moment.

First, here's the reality of LINE-1 ORF2p expression in somatic cells (cells of the body). Here is a study looking at ORF2p expression in various cancer cell lines. If you look at figure 3, and look at the ORF2 expression in the WI-38 cell line (normal human fibroblast) you will see that its expression is zero within the error bars. Now its probably not exactly zero, but its close enough that when the paper in question looked for ORF1 increase it found ~ twice as much. What's twice as much as zero? Let me do the math on that. Also, a two fold increase is next to nothing in biological terms. Usually when something is upregulated in a meaningful way its on the order of ten or twenty times.

Extremely important to what they found, they aren't looking for the protein itself, but its mRNA expression (how much ORF1 mRNA there is when they cut the cell open and fractionate it). The thing about mRNA expression is, it may not be the full transcript (which means when its translated, it won't create the actual protein). You have to test for the full transcript, or much better yet, test for the actual protein.

This paper shows that ORF2 expression is regulated at the mRNA level by cutting it short (which would not produce an actual ORF2 protein). Please see the top of figure 1 to see these alternative cuts to the mRNA. Only the top one would produce the ORF2p protein.

So they proved that it could be done when they introduced things that may not exist at all, in a cell line that is genetically designed to grow rapidly and live forever (aka not a somatic cell but a genetically modified one), and then they showed that SARS-CoV-2 infection (the virus, not the vaccine) could increase ORF1 mRNA expression. But ORF1 mRNA is not the ORF2p protein. Why did they not test for ORF2p protein but instead chose to look at the ORF1 mRNA? Why didn't they even look for ORF2 mRNA? This would have at least shown whether or not the full ORF2 mRNA was being transcribed. I mean seriously, WTF? ORF2p is the reverse transcriptase that even has a chance of writing mRNA to DNA. It is a necessary ingredient. Why aren't they testing for that directly?

There is so much more, but I hope I have made my point. It was a very poorly done test, and their data does not support their abstract, which is where scientists put their opinions on their data, not the data itself. Scientists are not authorities. Only the argument matters. Do I ever deviate from that? Yes. I am human, and sometimes it is frustrating trying to explain very complicated things to people who are both obstinate and not well educated on the fundamentals. That is my bad, and for that I apologize. But please don't discount my arguments, or my sources based on arguments of authority (mine or someone else's, for or against). There is nothing more frustrating than that.