Needs Debunking: Proposed COVID Vaccine will become part of our DNA, make us programmable

why does your 3rd paper say (in bold orange at top of page)? did you click that to read the comment?
From the comments noted (bold by me):

External Quote:
Aldén et al. (2022) recently reported the intracellular reverse transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in vitro in a human liver cell line (Huh7) [1] that has raised significant concerns over the consequential genotoxicity among mRNA-vaccinated subjects.
The novel COVID-19 vaccines have been subject to several controversies since the beginning, and concerns over their potential to be incorporated into the human genome or alter human DNA (genotoxicity) have been a major public concern, also exploited by anti-vaccine campaigners, and have significantly affected vaccine uptake and corroborated to vaccine hesitancy globally. This article explains reasons as to why such a phenomenon, demonstrated recently in vitro, may not manifest clinically in vivo and therefore cannot be generalised to the healthy population.

First, although Huh7 responds to INF stimulation and is a promising cell line for studying viral infection and replication in vitro [2], it does not reflect an in vivo environment, particularly the absence of comprehensive cellular and humoral immune response. The experimental model employed by Aldén et al. [1] is scientifically incompetent to evaluate the genotoxicity of mRNA therapeutics, including BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccine distribution beyond the injection site and consequent transfection to hepatocytes, albeit a possibility [3,4], will result in the translation of the mRNA into spike proteins that will attract an immune response towards vaccine-transfected hepatocytes. In the majority of cases, a healthy immune response, mediated by cytotoxic T cells and anti-spike antibodies, will eventually clear off vaccine-transfected hepatocytes; therefore, the reverse transcription of mRNA may not be a reality in vivo.
www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/4/113/htm

So at least this guy disagrees. My younger son is a grad student in phama-chem and speaks often of compounds that are successfully tested in "lab livers", only to have it not work in rats. I'll see if I can get him to look at this this eveing.
 
why does the first line of your second paper say
"In support of this hypothesis, we found that DNA copies of SARS-CoV-2 sequences can be integrated into the genome of infected human cells. " ? what does that have to do with the vaccine?
That's a bad case of cherry-picking, the paper actually begins thus (before the abstract!):
Significance

An unresolved issue of SARS-CoV-2 disease is that patients often remain positive for viral RNA as detected by PCR many weeks after the initial infection in the absence of evidence for viral replication. We show here that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of the infected cell and be expressed as chimeric transcripts fusing viral with cellular sequences.

This says that Covid infections cause this. Presumably, the worse the infection is (more virus!), the higher the chance of this happening, which means that is may be yet another thing that vaccination actually protects you against!

Highlight from the abstract, as quoted by @KalleMP :
We also found, in some patient-derived tissues, evidence suggesting that a large fraction of the viral sequences is transcribed from integrated DNA copies of viral sequences, generating viral–host chimeric transcripts.

There's evidence that this "virus to DNA" thing does happen in the real world, not just in the lab!
 
In relation to the assertion that human DNA may be changed with the mRNA technology [...]
Here is a preprint paper from earlier in the pandemic. It explain how RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus can get transcribed into cellular DNA [...]
While I am inclined to say this is not a very likely event or the biggest threat from the vaccines [...]

You flip between virus and vaccine, which one are you attempting to address?
 
We also found, in some patient-derived tissues, evidence suggesting that a large fraction of the viral sequences is transcribed from integrated DNA copies of viral sequences, generating viral–host chimeric transcripts.

There's evidence that this "virus to DNA" thing does happen in the real world, not just in the lab!

"patient-derived tissues" are not the real world, they literally *are* "the lab".
 
"patient-derived tissues" are not the real world, they literally *are* "the lab".
No. The authors do a lot of work with in vitro infections, but they also analyse tissue that was infected "naturally" in vivo, as well as patient RNA sequences.
External Quote:
Single-cell analysis of patient lung bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) cells from patients with severe COVID [published data (61)] showed that up to 40% of all viral reads were derived from the negative-strand SARS-CoV-2 RNA (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Fractions of negative-strand RNA in tissues from some patients were orders of magnitude higher than those in acutely infected cells or organoids (Fig. 3 C–G). In fixed (formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded [FFPE]) autopsy samples, in 4 out of 14 patients (Fig. 3E and SI Appendix, Table S2), and in BALF samples, in 4 out of 6 patients (Fig. 3G and SI Appendix, Table S3), at least ∼20% of the viral reads were derived from negative-strand viral RNA.
What they're actually observing is chimeric RNA, i.e. RNA strands that carry some SARS-CoV-2 and some human genes, which they theorize must've been produced from human DNA that integrated virus genes. They showed with their in vitro work that the DNA modification is possible, and that these modified cells produce chimeric RNA, and they detected such chimeric DNA in actual patient samples.
External Quote:
It will be important, in follow-up studies, to demonstrate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 sequences integrated into the host genome in patient tissues. However, this will be technically challenging because only a small fraction of cells in any patient tissues are expected to be positive for viral sequences (61).
They're predicting that they can directly find viral genome in human DNA, but it's going to be a "needle in a haystack" situation.
 
Back
Top