Discover more from Unglossed
Updates to "Shaky..."
With apologies for the email bandwidth impact.
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!