I'm getting really tired of this being called an mRNA vaccine. There is so much ignorance, confusion, and generalizations going around about this.
Most of the arguments about this assume 2 things,
1: the vaccine is mRNA (it's not)
2: DNA transcription goes one way, and the vac can't alter your DNA. (also not true)
Time to 'follow the science'
to start, a little about how DNA works.
searchx/startpage: "reverse transcriptase"
- Reverse transcriptase An enzyme that generates DNA
"A reverse transcriptase (RT) is an enzyme used to generate complementary DNA (cDNA) from an RNA template, a process termed reverse transcription. Reverse transcriptases are used by viruses such as HIV and hepatitis B to replicate their genomes, by retrotransposon mobile genetic elements to proliferate within the host genome, and by eukaryotic cells to extend the telomeres at the ends of their linear chromosomes. Contrary to a widely held belief, the process does not violate the flows of genetic information as described by the classical central dogma, as transfers of information from RNA to DNA are explicitly held possible. "
normally info flows from DNA- RNA but we have latent code from old viruses AND DNA repair / anti-cancer code that will try to 'fix' DNA in your cells by repairing it with RNA.
kind of a "look at the RNA floating around, better make sure it source code is in the DNA" situation going on in the body. It doesn't happen 100%, as in it won't update the DNA in all your cells overnight, but it DOES happen, and if it happens in the sperm/eggs it can be passed down.
Now, most people DON'T have mRNA floating around in their blood. even the vaxxed. They mostly have the spike protein coursing through their bodies, which can be transmitted to you but won't directly alter your DNA. You will just make antibodies for the spike proteins you are exposed to.
The people that get vaxed have a not zero chance of DNA alteration in one or more cells in their body, but probably not their entire body.
Ok, now that we have that out of the way, onto the main attraction.
I have noticed this is something that people don't talk about at all. I would like to change this, so please help me spread some of this science info.
The vaccine is NOT mRNA!!!! There are enzymes in your body that go around looking for mRNA, find it, and break it down into component parts to be re-used. mRNA is supposed to create a message to do something, then vanish once that something is done. On-going effects, normally cause continuous streams of RNA to be made.
This was undesirable from the point of vac manufacturers.
So they 'stabilize' it. to keep this normal safe process from happening. How do you keep the RNA from breaking down so fast and sticking around longer? They change it so it's not real RNA and your body doesn't detect it to break it down normally. They do a TON of stuff, under the term 'stabilization', and play it off like all they are doing is adding salt to the mixture and keeping the vax cold. Nothing could be further from the truth.
They are doing 6 things to the 'RNA' that make it, well not really RNA...
-
A 'cap' is put on the start of the RNA. This cap is made out of 3 different sub caps stringed together. 'nucleotide methylation' This 'header' of non-RNA at the start of the RNA does 4 things, makes it hold together better, attracts transcription enzymes to make more than normal proteins out of it, stops the body from recognizing it as foreign, and stops the breakdown enzymes from attaching.
-
A flag is attached between the cap and the RNA that allows the transition enzymes attracted by the cap to latch on and transcribe easier than normal RNA. all 4 of the above molecules are NOT RNA and are NEVER found on normal RNA
-
nucloside modified 'mRNA' RNA normally consists of adenine (A), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and/ or guanine (G) strung together. The 'fraken-RNA' includes the incorporation of modified nucleotides in the mRNA sequence, such as methylated nucleosides or pseudouridine.
Cytidines can also be replaced with numerous chemical modifications, including 5-methylcytidine (m5C); uridines can be converted into 5-methyluridine (m5U), 2-thiouridine (s2U), 5-methoxyuridine (5moU), pseudouridine (ψ) and N1-methylpseudouridine (m1ψ), while adenosines can be replaced by N1-methyladenosine (m1A) and N6-methyladenosine (m6A)
So normally DNA / RNA has an alphabet consisting of 4 letters each, from a total of 5 letters. the DNA->rna process transcribed the 4th letter for the 5th, which is what makes DNA and RNA actually different.
The 'vaccines' introduce 8 new 'letters' to the RNA sequence, that do not get detected by your body as RNA. They get transcribed by the transcriber, sure. but it is NOT RNA. The current batch is using "pseudouridine (ψ)" as a substitute for uridine.
-
Another noncoding flag is put at the end of the sequence, further increasing stability and preventing the breakdown
-
followed by another artificial not even pretend RNA tail at the end to help hold shape for optimal transcription and to prevent breakdown.
-
Encapsulation: normally your body would detect a Frankenstein molecule like this as not RNA and destroy it before it ever gets into your cells to pretend to be RNA. However, the vaccines encapsulate it in something else to stop this from happening. 6a) lipid foam - wrapped up in vacuoles, pretending to be tiny not-cell cells, that look like tiny cells from the outside but are basically empty inside. Your white blood cells will consume these, travel to the heart, and die releasing them to build up in the cardio system (myocarditis) 6b) nanoparticles with iron cores, same problem as the lipid foam but ALSO these make you magnetic 6c) wrapped up in a viral shell, like old school vaccines.
source: National Institute of Health: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8299225/
TL;DR RNA contains URIDINE (U) PSUDO RNA CONTAINS pseudouridine (ψ)
RT is almost never expressed in most cells (Line-1 specifically is the most common endogenous RT and it is never expressed in most cells). If it is expressed, it is almost never expressed during cell division. Getting mRNA from the cytosol into where DNA is almost never happens except maybe during cell division. Even if both of those "extremely unlikelies" happened, the mRNA would have to then be placed into a region thats "translatable", i.e. with a TATA box the right distance away, promoter regions nearby, etc.
The probability of it happening at all is basically zero. Is it exactly zero? Of course not, but it might as well be. To say "it can happen" is, according to the evidence, a lie of context. Yes, it is biologically possible, but its probable that not one single individual on the planet has had a germ cell altered in such a way as to create a "GMO" sperm, which would then have to go find an egg and be the lucky victor in that battle.
As for any cells having it happen at all. IF (BIG IF) it has happened at all, the most likely scenario for that cell is that it will be removed by the immune system, since that is the design purpose of the "vaxx". It is inappropriate to address this and suggest it is a possibility. It really isn't in any meaningful way.
The nucleoside modifications are found in nature and are used by the body for the same purpose, to extend the half-life of the mRNA in the cytosol. The average mRNA half-life is about 10 hours. For the vaxx the mRNA is about 2 days (from memory, I can't find the source atm, I read it in the pfizer docs). That's a substantial extension, but its not "omg".
Can you show me some evidence to support this?
As for the rest, I agree with the statements if not the conclusion. To say it is "not mRNA" is getting too technical. It is effectively mRNA, and that is important. The Ribosome attaches by the same mechanisms. It is translated by the same mechanism. It is broken down by the same mechanism. Even if it uses a bit of special chemistry to achieve all these results better than the average mRNA, It is for all intents and purposes exactly mRNA. To call it "not mRNA" would only be true for people who really understand what that means.
With regards to what it is and what it does it is more appropriate to call it mRNA than anything else. Even saying "artificial" mRNA, even if that is technically more accurate, is also more misleading for the vast majority of people. The audience matters for communication. To deny that allows for the creation of disinformation by telling too much of the truth without all the required contextual knowledge to understand what it means.
What about somatic hypermutation by antigen stimulation?
Do you mean with regards to RT activity?
First, SHM uses pre-mRNA, not mature cytosolic mRNA. There is no reasonable mechanism to get cytosolic mRNA into the area of the nucleus where the hypermutation activity is occurring
Second, their is no reason to suspect that the "vaxx" (S) mRNA would be preferably used by any such hypothetical mechanism to get cytosolic mRNA into the nucleus out of the millions of mRNA floating around at any one moment.
Third, it mismatches on a regular basis (thus the mutations), which means whatever it uses will not be what is written. Who knows how many more mismatches will occur because of all the nucleoside modifications? If its all errors, can you really say its "being written to DNA"?
Once again, its a contrivance of "what ifs". Yes, I concede it is possible because biology is surprising, but its not reasonable. Everyone seems to always forget the milieu of the cytosol in all their "what if" predictions. All of our cells are chock full of mRNA all the time. Adding in a little more is not a large concern. What is a concern is what they produce (i.e. a cell surface presenting toxic protein designed to create an autoimmune response). I'm not saying there aren't any other legitimate concerns, but "writing to DNA" is not one of them as far as I can see.
Unless someone can show me a mechanism by which cytosolic mRNA gets written to DNA with any meaningful frequency AND that these S mRNA are preferential I just can't give this idea any credence.
Thank you for your informative post. It's helping me in my search to find and spread some truth amod the lies, coverups, and misguided overreactions.
I feel like i should post a baby yoda picture where i adoring read your posts back and forth and admire a conversation thats about 10 levels above my simple brain. I know enough enough to know i have no idea what half of that means but you both are very smart and I am going to re read your posts and responses and try to build a better understanding. What is your thought on the Andrea Noack hypothesis about graphene hydroxide and the rumor he was apparently killed right after posting his video about it?