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.

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.

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 have 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 in vivo, 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.

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 have 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 in vivo, 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.

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 your final 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.