Updates to "Shaky..."
With apologies for the email bandwidth impact.
Wanton recklessness!
In my effort to offer a cautious interpretation of the DNA integration study yesterday, I was a bit incautious, perhaps over-sensationalizing the paper’s use of cancer cells to research DNA integration.
It is certainly a valid concern, given what the authors are trying to show, and merited better effort on their part to test out their own methods (such as by using another type of cell line). But essentially I was recycling the point that in vitro studies have inherent limitations, and those limits are magnified whenever researchers are working in a context that isn’t “time-tested.” I have adjusted my text to be less gotcha-y.
Modern Discontent, who has done a sequence or two, offers feedback in the comments that the language surrounding control 5 and 6 lacks clarity but doesn’t seem to suggest control 6 should be a positive.
I think the analysis of the gel may be incorrect. It appears that Ctrl 5 and 6 were done to show that their amplicon had to have been arrived from DNA, such that Ctrl 5 and 6 essentially did an RNA extraction. Because both did not have any RNA, no amplicon was found. I think their wording made it confusing. They should not have said they performed PCR on RNA purified from the cells but that they did an RNA extraction to see if they could find any RNA to begin with.
Also, I would like to once again recommend MD’s excellent essay exploring possible harms related directly to mRNA-metabolic takeover, and resulting cellular stress, including as an etiology for myocarditis. MD’s substack is a wealth of well-crafted investigation, the product of a full-time devotion to the reader - but requires financial support to keep going, as the author has exhausted the financial cushion used to get the blog running. Please consider subscribing!
Back to controls 5 and 6. Before Modern Discontent’s comment, I had already added another view of Figure 5 to show how “integration” oddly seems to reverse after 24 hours. I think this supports what would be expected if the results are to some measure a false positive.
And, again, I would like to emphasize that the theoretical and common-sense-caution arguments for “DNA integration is possible, perhaps even likely” were already robust, and remain that way. DNA integration is possible, perhaps even likely.
On that sunny note - Happy weekends, and thanks for subscribing to Unglossed!
The cmRNA vaccines are coded with Pseudouridine, an isomer of Uridine. This means that the spike proteins will be isomeric as well (as will the antibodies). The result of this is that the situation is much worse than that described in the paper: the heat shock proteins.
Sars-Cov-2 and M. bovis include identical genome sequences which include heat shock proteins. During a thermal shock, these proteins will be activated (as will the binding isomeric antibodies), with huge consequences on the DNA transcription phenomenon.
“The response to thermal stress in yeast is one of the most dynamic examples of transcriptional control known. Within 1 to 5 min of temperature upshift (30°C to 39°C), dramatic changes in protein-DNA interactions take place within HSP gene promoters, and these are accompanied by equally dramatic increases in transcription.”
“Lipid mediated gene transfer (lipofection) has been widely used to transfer genes into various cell types (1–4). Lipofection works very well in many cell lines, resulting in high transient transfection efficiencies (our observations). However, the rate of DNA integration into the genome following lipid-mediated transfection is relatively low (5) as compared to other methods, such as retroviral systems. This inefficient integration has been thought to be a major disadvantage of plasmid vectors and has limited their use in gene therapy trials.
We have attempted to overcome this hurdle by achieving higher rates of stable integrants in lipid-mediated transfections through treating the transfected cells with a mild heat shock.”
“Another factor commonly overlooked is the fact that bacteria produce reverse transcriptase via retrons, suggesting possible viral-bacterial interaction. Indeed, LPS is known to strongly impact the process:
“When we stimulated spleen cells with lipopolysaccharide (LPS), L1 mRNA levels apparently increased about 4-fold in the presence of AID and about 17-fold in its absence””
There is also this: “the possibility of telomerase HTERT, which is a reverse transcriptase enzyme, having any potential to insert the mRNA spike protein sequence into telomeric DNA.”
From the wmcresearch website:
"SARS-CoV-2 MAY OR MAY NOT WRITE ITSELF INTO YOUR DNA, BUT IT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY CUTTING/PASTING YOUR GENES, WRITING THEM BACK “WRONG" INTO YOUR DNA. LINE-1 ELEMENTS MUST BE TESTED IN ALL THOSE WITH COVID.
Retrotransposons (also called Class I transposable elements or transposons via RNA intermediates) are a type of genetic component that copy and paste themselves into different genomic locations (transposon) by converting RNA back into DNA through the process reverse transcription using an RNA transposition Retrotransposons can be further subdivided into two subclasses: those with Long-Terminal Repeats (LTR) and those without (non-LTR). LTR elements, also known as endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), comprise ~8 % of the human genome. LTR ) elements are thought to be inactive in the human lineage. That is, until SARS-CoV-2 activates them. This is why the HERV-K protein has never before been seen circulating in the body."
one must not forget that synthesis of the spike protein is also occurring at the same time.If presented to the adjacent cells or even in the medium ,several pathways may be activated ,be it via TLRs 2 or 4 or others such as CD 209/ L-SIGN.Another publication ( not yet peer reviewed) presented evidence for activation of HERV-W in some volunteer lymphocytes upon spike exposure.There could be also ER stress.