Swiss Study: mRNA Alters DNA. And is Genotoxic.

[Blues Man]

Okay. You know more than the scientists then. Good luck!

The study clearly states its protocols

But then again you didn;t read it so..

And I happen to know that if the reverse transcribed DNA does not cross the nuclear membrane that it cannot alter the genome of the cell. Scientists know this which is why in the study write up they clearly said that there was no evidence that the reverse transcribed fragments actually changed the cell's genome.

So you are jumping to conclusions based on facts not in evidence

 

[SweetSue92]

The study clearly states its protocols

But then again you didn;t read it so..

And I happen to know that if the reverse transcribed DNA does not cross the nuclear membrane that it cannot alter the genome of the cell. Scientists know this which is why in the study write up they clearly said that there was no evidence that the reverse transcribed fragments actually changed the cell's genome.

So you are jumping to conclusions based on facts not in evidence

Well there you go. The scientists say that more studies are needed but BM says he read the study and the case is closed!!

 

[Blues Man]

Well there you go. The scientists say that more studies are needed but BM says he read the study and the case is closed!!

Where did I say that?

I SAID the conclusion of the study says nothing about any alteration of DNA

You thread title is completely unrelated to the study conclusions

So one again we see you are assuming facts not in evidence because you didn't bother to read the study report you linked to.

Just admit your statement is wrong and move on

 

[SweetSue92]

Where did I say that?

I SAID the conclusion of the study says nothing about any alteration of DNA

You thread title is completely unrelated to the study conclusions

So one again we see you are assuming facts not in evidence because you didn't bother to read the study report you linked to.

Just admit your statement is wrong and move on

Here is from the entire beginning:

Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells. In this study, we investigated the effect of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. Huh7 cells were exposed to BNT162b2, and quantitative PCR was performed on RNA extracted from the cells. We detected high levels of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells and changes in gene expression of long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1), which is an endogenous reverse transcriptase. Immunohistochemistry using antibody binding to LINE-1 open reading frame-1 RNA-binding protein (ORFp1) on Huh7 cells treated with BNT162b2 indicated increased nucleus distribution of LINE-1. PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.

"Reverse transcribed INTRACELLULARLY into DNA"---?????

 

[SweetSue92]

The study clearly states its protocols

But then again you didn;t read it so..

And I happen to know that if the reverse transcribed DNA does not cross the nuclear membrane that it cannot alter the genome of the cell. Scientists know this which is why in the study write up they clearly said that there was no evidence that the reverse transcribed fragments actually changed the cell's genome.

So you are jumping to conclusions based on facts not in evidence

Where did I say that?

I SAID the conclusion of the study says nothing about any alteration of DNA

You thread title is completely unrelated to the study conclusions

So one again we see you are assuming facts not in evidence because you didn't bother to read the study report you linked to.

Just admit your statement is wrong and move on

Also from the study:

Our results showed that BNT162b2 mRNA readily enters Huh7 cells at a concentration (0.5 µg/mL) corresponding to 0.5% of the local injection site concentration, induce changes in LINE-1 gene and protein expression,

 

[Blues Man]

Here is from the entire beginning:

Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells. In this study, we investigated the effect of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. Huh7 cells were exposed to BNT162b2, and quantitative PCR was performed on RNA extracted from the cells. We detected high levels of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells and changes in gene expression of long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1), which is an endogenous reverse transcriptase. Immunohistochemistry using antibody binding to LINE-1 open reading frame-1 RNA-binding protein (ORFp1) on Huh7 cells treated with BNT162b2 indicated increased nucleus distribution of LINE-1. PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.

"Reverse transcribed INTRACELLULARLY into DNA"---?????

But the study did not show that any cell genome was actually changed so that assumption of yours in completely invalid. Intracellular only means anywhere inside the cell membrane if nothing enters the nuclear membrane the genome of the cell cannot be altered. A few free floating bits of DNA or RNA outside the nuclear membrane is not the same as saying the DNA of the cell genome is altered

And it made clear that it was unknown if any of the liver cell genomes were changed.

To me that is a glaring negative for the validity of the research.

But you are clearly under the influence of confirmation bias

 

[Blues Man]

Also from the study:

Our results showed that BNT162b2 mRNA readily enters Huh7 cells at a concentration (0.5 µg/mL) corresponding to 0.5% of the local injection site concentration, induce changes in LINE-1 gene and protein expression,

At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome

If it is NOT integrated into the genome the4 DNA of the cell is NOT altered

 

[krichton]

I will answer for myself as to why I didn't get vaccinated, same answer I have given several times here. I have two autoimmune conditions, one can be pretty life-inhibiting, one is just annoying. Both in remission. I have noticed in years I get flu shots, I might not get the flu, but I'm sicker than ever with everything else. Finally asked my dr about it and she said, yeah, that can happen. Haven't had a flu shot in years and I rarely get viruses or bugs.

So when the Covid shots came out I decided to wait and see what happened. If they turned out to be sterilizing I would have gotten them even at cost to my own health, to protect my family and students. But almost immediately it was clear they were not. My choice was not going to affect anyone else. So then I knew I was not going to get them.

I'm so glad I didn't.

The vaccines work at preventing most hospitalizations and death, the numbers bear that out. There are no such thing as miracle cures in medicine, which is what you've set the bar at. Your hysterical fear of them is why you aren't taking them. The nutter fairytales you continually share on here is what you are using to justify that fear.

 

[SweetSue92]

But the study did not show that any cell genome was actually changed so that assumption of yours in completely invalid. Intracellular only means anywhere inside the cell membrane if nothing enters the nuclear membrane the genome of the cell cannot be altered. A few free floating bits of DNA or RNA outside the nuclear membrane is not the same as saying the DNA of the cell genome is altered

And it made clear that it was unknown if any of the liver cell genomes were changed.

To me that is a glaring negative for the validity of the research.

But you are clearly under the influence of confirmation bias

I believe this dr. refutes this in the first few seconds, and states it again at 3:10--"found in the NUCLEUS"--and reaffirmed at 4:12--"and that DNA is present IN THE NUCLEUS"

 

[SweetSue92]

But the study did not show that any cell genome was actually changed so that assumption of yours in completely invalid. Intracellular only means anywhere inside the cell membrane if nothing enters the nuclear membrane the genome of the cell cannot be altered. A few free floating bits of DNA or RNA outside the nuclear membrane is not the same as saying the DNA of the cell genome is altered

And it made clear that it was unknown if any of the liver cell genomes were changed.

To me that is a glaring negative for the validity of the research.

But you are clearly under the influence of confirmation bias

Again it already enters the nucleus-- 6:32. The question is: does it reprogram the GENOME.

See video I linked

 

[SweetSue92]

But the study did not show that any cell genome was actually changed so that assumption of yours in completely invalid. Intracellular only means anywhere inside the cell membrane if nothing enters the nuclear membrane the genome of the cell cannot be altered. A few free floating bits of DNA or RNA outside the nuclear membrane is not the same as saying the DNA of the cell genome is altered

And it made clear that it was unknown if any of the liver cell genomes were changed.

To me that is a glaring negative for the validity of the research.

But you are clearly under the influence of confirmation bias

Video again: "INSIDE the nucleus"...17:29

 

[L.K.Eder]

Well there you go. The scientists say that more studies are needed but BM says he read the study and the case is closed!!

you are the fucktard jumping to conclusions.

 

[theHawk]

This is terrible, if it holds beyond "test tubes" and in real human bodies.

From the study itself:

in this study, we aim to examine the effect of BNT162b2 on a human liver cell line in vitro and investigate if BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed into DNA through endogenous mechanisms.

(BNT162b2 refers to the Pfizer mRNA shot)

Discussion:

In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro......In the current study, we employed a human liver cell line for in vitro investigation. It is worth investigating if the liver cells also present the vaccine-derived SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which could potentially make the liver cells targets for previously primed spike protein reactive cytotoxic T cells. There has been case reports on individuals who developed autoimmune hepatitis [39] after BNT162b2 vaccination. To obtain better understanding of the potential effects of BNT162b2 on liver function, in vivo models are desired for future studies......Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects.

"Genotoxic" generally means cancer.

Right.

Study here:

Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line

Preclinical studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2, developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, showed reversible hepatic effects in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection. Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human...

www.mdpi.com

I’m so glad all those people volunteered to take the experimental jab. Now we can watch and see how this plays out for their health compared to pure bloods like us.

 

[SweetSue92]

But the study did not show that any cell genome was actually changed so that assumption of yours in completely invalid. Intracellular only means anywhere inside the cell membrane if nothing enters the nuclear membrane the genome of the cell cannot be altered. A few free floating bits of DNA or RNA outside the nuclear membrane is not the same as saying the DNA of the cell genome is altered

And it made clear that it was unknown if any of the liver cell genomes were changed.

To me that is a glaring negative for the validity of the research.

But you are clearly under the influence of confirmation bias

Direct quote from 18:33: "RNA is now converted into DNA. Now this part is open: What will it DO. When will it get degraded. It will get degraded...(talks about other vaccines)....so maybe it is degraded. Maybe it is not degraded. Maybe it is DNA toxic....genotoxic....more studies need to be done."

Which is exactly what I said. And the study said.

 

[SweetSue92]

The vaccines work at preventing most hospitalizations and death, the numbers bear that out. There are no such thing as miracle cures in medicine, which is what you've set the bar at. Your hysterical fear of them is why you aren't taking them. The nutter fairytales you continually share on here is what you are using to justify that fear.

Absolutely wrong. The hysteria is all on YOUR side. How many examples do you want from this board when the vaccines came out--are you kidding? Now millions upon millions of people have taken them, and these yokels don't even know if they cause cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Ain't that a kick in the head?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Direct quote from 18:33

It saddens me to see you reduced to quoting from a crap, fund seeking study and a suspicious, YouTubing medical doctor with clearly limited experience. Why not an immunologist or an accredited biological researcher at the very least? You fish to find confirmation for your bias -- and succeed -- wowza, big surprise!

 

[SweetSue92]

It saddens me to see you reduced to quoting from a crap, fund seeking study and a suspicious, YouTubing medical doctor with clearly limited experience. Why not an immunologist or an accredited biological researcher at the very least? You fish to find confirmation for your bias -- and succeed -- wowza, big surprise!

It's not a crap study. Sorry, but not sorry it doesn't confirm your pre-existing biases about how wonderful the shots are.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's not a crap study. Sorry, but not sorry it doesn't confirm your pre-existing biases about how wonderful the shots are.

Fine, enjoy your stupidity. Just try not to contaminate any kids with it.

 

[SweetSue92]

Fine, enjoy your stupidity. Just try not to contaminate any kids with it.

From a dr in practice:

 

[SweetSue92]

Fine, enjoy your stupidity. Just try not to contaminate any kids with it.

Did you just believe what the government told you?

Why?

You TRUST them?

Why?