The one thing every single one of these arguments of "mRNA gets written to DNA" forgets to mention is, there are many thousands of times more of all the rest of our mRNA than there are mRNA from The Jab floating around in our cells at any one time, whether the cell is cancerous or otherwise. Unless the mRNA in The Jab has special signals to increase the likelihood of being written to DNA during some failure of the safeguards in place to prevent it (which is not impossible, but I have seen no evidence for), it is just as likely to be written to DNA in a cancer cell as any of our other mRNA. In other words, you are much more likely to have "normal" mRNA written to a cancer cell than Jab mRNA. MUCH more likely. And even that event is pretty rare. With respect to Jab mRNA, it breaks down completely within a couple weeks (3 at most), so if it doesn't happen then, it won't happen at all.

Unless and until there is some evidence that the mRNA from The Jab has such a molecular signal attached to it that increases the probability, or evidence that it is actually being written to the DNA (by finding it in the DNA), such ideas are nothing but fear porn.

Even if it does get written to a cancer cell, that means they own your cancer. Sue them and make them take it back.

Having said that, I think there may be other methods by which our DNA may have been written. The only evidence for this however is the recent Q post. Perhaps there are signals on The Jab mRNA molecule that increase the likelihood. Perhaps there are other additions to The Jab (CRISPR e.g.) that increase the likelihood. But all these things that talk about "a chance to write to DNA" and all this other shit ignore all the evidence to the contrary, through millions of experiments. By ignoring such evidence, the argument is weak and easily dismissed by those who have done such experiments. This is exactly what controlled opposition looks like.

I'm not saying Malone is such. I haven't listened to him for a while, and when I have he seems very reasonable. I haven't listened to this argument because I don't give a shit. It doesn't matter what he says here, it matters what we focus on when we jump on that train. If we present such ideas, that are based on "what ifs" as meaningful evidence, we look foolish.

The one thing every single one of these arguments of "mRNA gets written to DNA" forgets to mention is, there are many thousands of times more of all the rest of our mRNA than there are mRNA from The Jab floating around in our cells at any one time, whether the cell is cancerous or otherwise. Unless the mRNA in The Jab has special signals to increase the likelihood of being written to DNA during some failure of the safeguards in place to prevent it (which is not impossible, but I have seen no evidence for), it is just as likely to be written to DNA in a cancer cell as any of our other mRNA. In other words, you are much more likely to have "normal" mRNA written to a cancer cell than Jab mRNA. MUCH more likely. And even that event is pretty rare. With respect to Jab mRNA, it breaks down completely within a couple weeks (3 at most), so if it doesn't happen then, it won't happen at all.

Unless and until there is some evidence that the mRNA from The Jab has such a molecular signal attached to it that increases the probability, or evidence that it is actually being written to the DNA (by finding it in the DNA), such ideas are nothing but fear porn.

Even if it does get written to a cancer cell, that means they own your cancer. Sue them and make them take it back.

Having said that, I think there may be other methods by which our DNA may have been written. The only evidence for this however is the recent Q post. Perhaps there are signals on The Jab mRNA molecule that increase the likelihood. Perhaps there are other additions to The Jab (CRISPR e.g.) that increase the likelihood. But all these things that talk about "a chance" and all this other shit ignore all the evidence to the contrary, through millions of experiments. By ignoring such evidence, the argument is weak and easily dismissed by those who have done such experiments. This is exactly what controlled opposition looks like.

I'm not saying Malone is such. I haven't listened to him for a while, and when I have he seems very reasonable. I haven't listened to this argument because I don't give a shit. It doesn't matter what he says here, it matters what we focus on when we jump on that train. If we present such ideas, that are based on "what ifs" as meaningful evidence, we look foolish.