schultz
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2014
- Messages
- 2,653
Agreed it would be unpredictable and dangerous but that’s not how the genetics people think which makes it difficult to believe they haven’t tried it.
Doesn’t that paper suggest the the virus is capable of reverse transcription even if you just catch the virus (and not just via an mRNA vaccine)?
Yeah I think that's the only thing it's saying. I don't think it mentioned mRNA vaccines. But the current belief is that only retroviruses are capable of altering DNA, which is why they say that an mRNA vaccine wouldn't be able to alter a person's DNA. I'm sure you're aware of this though as we've all heard Ray talk about the dogma being that DNA can move to RNA and RNA to proteins but never in reverse. I think that kind of thinking has made scientists think there can't be any harm done by injecting RNA into the body, but the study I posted seems to contradict that and gives a plausible mechanism.
My understanding is limited though.
There is a German cell biologist who discussed the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine. IIRC she said that the vaccines do contain traces of DNA. She said that this was mentioned in official papers. This happens because the mRNA is made from DNA, and if the process was not completed there is DNA left in the batch.
Another thing she said was... The stuff used for research is manufactured in relatively small amounts in the lab, with processes that are suitable only for small amounts, and It's very pure. For higher output (as in mass vaccination) the manufacturing processes are different, and they bring about their own impurities.
Another avenue for error. Things we do not think about but once pointed out seem so obvious. When I hear people talk about science they treat it as if it's synonymous with fact. Like we can use science to come up with ideas that can't be contradicted. This is actually how people view science! In actuality it's almost the opposite. We (humans) make observations based on the parameters we (humans) have set. If we don't know to look for something we may not find it and we may not know to include it in a study design. Science is a series of observations and interpretations.
I was listening to the radio the other day and a lady was interviewing a doctor who is on the Canadian vaccine task force I believe. She asked him why some countries have greenlit certain vaccines while other countries have not. He said their interpretation of the data was different than our countries and she was confused and said "But isn't it science? How can there be interpretations of science?" I suppose suggesting that science is fact and you cant interpret fact. It gave me a bit of insight into how the general public think of science. I guess that's why they say things like science denier. If you don't accept science then you don't accept fact. I'm not even sure what science denier even means...