d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > What Do You Think The Covid Vaccines Will Do
Prev1202122
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 33,925
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Aug 3 2022 06:46pm
Quote (TiStuff @ Aug 3 2022 08:08pm)
new stuff coming out
A Swedish study shows the Pfizer vaccine reverse transcribes and installs DNA into the human genome.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Xst4xmi65ScJ/


That is incorrect.

https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73

In the experiment itself, the Swedish scientists used separate laboratory samples of Integrase and Reverse transcriptase to insert the vaccine RNA into the DNA of laboratory liver cells.

The COVID vaccine cannot alter the genome on its own.
Member
Posts: 23,553
Joined: Jul 3 2008
Gold: 3,469.67
Aug 3 2022 06:58pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Aug 3 2022 07:46pm)
That is incorrect.

https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73

In the experiment itself, the Swedish scientists used separate laboratory samples of Integrase and Reverse transcriptase to insert the vaccine RNA into the DNA of laboratory liver cells.

The COVID vaccine cannot alter the genome on its own.


sky'd
Member
Posts: 9,899
Joined: May 7 2006
Gold: 550.00
Aug 3 2022 07:01pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Aug 3 2022 05:46pm)
That is incorrect.

https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73

In the experiment itself, the Swedish scientists used separate laboratory samples of Integrase and Reverse transcriptase to insert the vaccine RNA into the DNA of laboratory liver cells.

The COVID vaccine cannot alter the genome on its own.


The papers garbage but they are claiming its an endogenous LINE-1 insertion. The reverse transcriptase you read about is just their qrtPCR assay to look at gene expression downstream.

Edit: Since I have time I can tell you why the papers garbage:

Their model is a liver cancer cell line that greatly over-expresses endogenous line-1 compared to normal liver cells which should be the first red flag that they're fishing for a sketchy result. The dosage of mRNA they're using is pretty extreme for a cell culture model, most things are 1000-fold less than what they use. For comparison, the pfizer vaccine is 30 ug of mRNA into the human body.

Figures 2/3 they use students T-test which is inappropriate for both the comparisons they're making. There are very few occasions in science where you can use students T and gene expression data isn't one of them.

Figure 4: This should have rejected the paper on its own, they've manipulated the images to hdie the line-1 expression at baseline which you can tell by the hoescht intensity which should be consistent across all 4 images.

Final point, looking at mRNA to look at whether or not your gene is integrated from mRNA is a really poor measure of integration. They never demonstrate their pfizer drug washed out from their cell cultures before showing increases in spike protein mRNA which is important since they added spike protein mRNA. It'd be pretty trivial to toss some primers in for your target and sanger sequence the genomic DNA up and downstream of your presumptive insertion to get an idea of where it went into the genome. The sequencing that they do inclue is just confirming the mRNA they use is the pfizer vaccine.

They're lacking proper controls which would be a scrambled mRNA sequence of similar length to the pfizer vaccine as opposed to empty vehicle.

This post was edited by Sioux on Aug 3 2022 07:16pm
Member
Posts: 2,877
Joined: Oct 1 2007
Gold: 103.00
Aug 3 2022 07:30pm
Quote (Sioux @ Aug 3 2022 08:01pm)
The papers garbage but they are claiming its an endogenous LINE-1 insertion. The reverse transcriptase you read about is just their qrtPCR assay to look at gene expression downstream.

Edit: Since I have time I can tell you why the papers garbage:

Their model is a liver cancer cell line that greatly over-expresses endogenous line-1 compared to normal liver cells which should be the first red flag that they're fishing for a sketchy result. The dosage of mRNA they're using is pretty extreme for a cell culture model, most things are 1000-fold less than what they use. For comparison, the pfizer vaccine is 30 ug of mRNA into the human body.

Figures 2/3 they use students T-test which is inappropriate for both the comparisons they're making. There are very few occasions in science where you can use students T and gene expression data isn't one of them.

Figure 4: This should have rejected the paper on its own, they've manipulated the images to hdie the line-1 expression at baseline which you can tell by the hoescht intensity which should be consistent across all 4 images.

Final point, looking at mRNA to look at whether or not your gene is integrated from mRNA is a really poor measure of integration. They never demonstrate their pfizer drug washed out from their cell cultures before showing increases in spike protein mRNA which is important since they added spike protein mRNA. It'd be pretty trivial to toss some primers in for your target and sanger sequence the genomic DNA up and downstream of your presumptive insertion to get an idea of where it went into the genome. The sequencing that they do inclue is just confirming the mRNA they use is the pfizer vaccine.

They're lacking proper controls which would be a scrambled mRNA sequence of similar length to the pfizer vaccine as opposed to empty vehicle.


tl;dr- they threw shit against the (cell) wall to see what stuck
Member
Posts: 22,264
Joined: Aug 17 2021
Gold: 1,546.83
Warn: 30%
Aug 3 2022 07:38pm
Quote (Sioux @ Aug 3 2022 06:01pm)
The papers garbage but they are claiming its an endogenous LINE-1 insertion. The reverse transcriptase you read about is just their qrtPCR assay to look at gene expression downstream.

Edit: Since I have time I can tell you why the papers garbage:

Their model is a liver cancer cell line that greatly over-expresses endogenous line-1 compared to normal liver cells which should be the first red flag that they're fishing for a sketchy result. The dosage of mRNA they're using is pretty extreme for a cell culture model, most things are 1000-fold less than what they use. For comparison, the pfizer vaccine is 30 ug of mRNA into the human body.

Figures 2/3 they use students T-test which is inappropriate for both the comparisons they're making. There are very few occasions in science where you can use students T and gene expression data isn't one of them.

Figure 4: This should have rejected the paper on its own, they've manipulated the images to hdie the line-1 expression at baseline which you can tell by the hoescht intensity which should be consistent across all 4 images.

Final point, looking at mRNA to look at whether or not your gene is integrated from mRNA is a really poor measure of integration. They never demonstrate their pfizer drug washed out from their cell cultures before showing increases in spike protein mRNA which is important since they added spike protein mRNA. It'd be pretty trivial to toss some primers in for your target and sanger sequence the genomic DNA up and downstream of your presumptive insertion to get an idea of where it went into the genome. The sequencing that they do inclue is just confirming the mRNA they use is the pfizer vaccine.

They're lacking proper controls which would be a scrambled mRNA sequence of similar length to the pfizer vaccine as opposed to empty vehicle.

Wow, this is pretty impressive. Are you a molecular biologist?
Member
Posts: 23,970
Joined: Feb 28 2007
Gold: 35,554.14
Warn: 10%
Aug 3 2022 07:44pm
Quote (JessiWan @ Aug 3 2022 08:38pm)
Wow, this is pretty impressive. Are you a molecular biologist?


No, but he did stay in a Holiday Inn Express recently.
Member
Posts: 33,925
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Aug 3 2022 08:22pm
Quote (Sioux @ Aug 3 2022 09:01pm)
The papers garbage but they are claiming its an endogenous LINE-1 insertion. The reverse transcriptase you read about is just their qrtPCR assay to look at gene expression downstream.

Edit: Since I have time I can tell you why the papers garbage:

Their model is a liver cancer cell line that greatly over-expresses endogenous line-1 compared to normal liver cells which should be the first red flag that they're fishing for a sketchy result. The dosage of mRNA they're using is pretty extreme for a cell culture model, most things are 1000-fold less than what they use. For comparison, the pfizer vaccine is 30 ug of mRNA into the human body.

Figures 2/3 they use students T-test which is inappropriate for both the comparisons they're making. There are very few occasions in science where you can use students T and gene expression data isn't one of them.

Figure 4: This should have rejected the paper on its own, they've manipulated the images to hdie the line-1 expression at baseline which you can tell by the hoescht intensity which should be consistent across all 4 images.

Final point, looking at mRNA to look at whether or not your gene is integrated from mRNA is a really poor measure of integration. They never demonstrate their pfizer drug washed out from their cell cultures before showing increases in spike protein mRNA which is important since they added spike protein mRNA. It'd be pretty trivial to toss some primers in for your target and sanger sequence the genomic DNA up and downstream of your presumptive insertion to get an idea of where it went into the genome. The sequencing that they do inclue is just confirming the mRNA they use is the pfizer vaccine.

They're lacking proper controls which would be a scrambled mRNA sequence of similar length to the pfizer vaccine as opposed to empty vehicle.



This is what this thread needed.

Solid.
Member
Posts: 47,089
Joined: Sep 5 2016
Gold: 100.00
Aug 3 2022 08:38pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Aug 3 2022 07:22pm)
This is what this thread needed.

Solid.


cept the contents of the jab are secret you take it on faith the known liars are being honest about it.

another article shows the mRNA gets past the blood brain barrier.

excess mortality keep an eye on it
5000% MORTALITY RATE THIS YEAR 2022
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WcrjNPR6yOio/

more "pandemics" coming to blame it on.........

This post was edited by TiStuff on Aug 3 2022 08:48pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1202122
Closed New Topic New Poll