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.

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 'vaccines' introduce 8 new 'letters' to the RNA sequence, that do not get detected by your body as RNA.

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".

Your white blood cells will consume these, travel to the heart, and die

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.

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.

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 'vaccines' introduce 8 new 'letters' to the RNA sequence, that do not get detected by your body as RNA.

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".

Your white blood cells will consume these, travel to the heart, and die

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 transcribed 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.