quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
This seems double-plus-ungood.


An accepted and published Swedish study demonstrates for the first time the presence of Pfizer-BionTech vaccine DNA in the nucleus. It is reverse transcribed by LINE-1 proteins of the cells.

Can someone far more medically inclined than me provide a summary in layman's terms of what this actually means?

I'd like to know also. The vaccine is supposed to be mRNA, not DNA.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
This seems double-plus-ungood.


An accepted and published Swedish study demonstrates for the first time the presence of Pfizer-BionTech vaccine DNA in the nucleus. It is reverse transcribed by LINE-1 proteins of the cells.

Can someone far more medically inclined than me provide a summary in layman's terms of what this actually means?

Well, from what I've gathered, the mRNA vaccines have been writing themselves into the host's DNA in their liver. This is particularly bad because no one knows what the fuck this is going to do long term to the humans that have this new DNA sequence floating around in their body, in particular with regards to their livers. All of a sudden I'm trying to become a quick study on this shit because my wife got their shots, as did two of my 4 children that were "old enough" for the vaccines at the time. After their pediatrician (who I used to trust) looked me in the eye and said that this was a better alternative to the children he'd seen in our local hospital, hooked up to vents.

I myself am still in the control group, as are my two younger boys.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
After their pediatrician (who I used to trust) looked me in the eye and said that this was a better alternative to the children he'd seen in our local hospital, hooked up to vents.

I have cirrhosis. The doctor my gastroenterologist works under looked me straight in the eye last year and told me there was absolutely no reason not to get the Pfizer "vaccine" because it wouldn't affect my rotten liver. I told him I wanted to wait and see and he actually tried to argue with me. I told him I appreciated his input, but I wasn't worried about Covid and wanted to wait and see how the vaccine worked out for people longer than just a few months.

From what I gather from the video, the vaccine RNA writes itself to the DNA in the liver cell, and also affects the Line-1 protein, which causes cells to replicate faster. New cells also have the spike protein. The RNA to DNA effect happens very quickly, in about six hours. You wouldn't need a long term study to determine that. The video goes on to explain that essentially these cells could trigger auto-immune hepatitis, as the immune system attacks these mutated cells. That's... really bad. Ya'll do not want liver problems, I can tell you that for damn sure.

Just got out of the hospital this evening, home with oxygen, and glad to be home.

I’ll say again, the Covid ward is the worst place to get put.

quote:

Originally posted by 95flhr:

Just got out of the hospital this evening, home with oxygen, and glad to be home.

Great to hear that you're doing better!

The science changed? CDC about-face on masks follows political winds, ignores its own study

https://justthenews.com/govern..._campaign=newsletter

The CDC is fond of justifying changes to COVID-19 guidance by claiming the science has changed. But as Kenan Thompson's character in a sketch from the most recent "Saturday Night Live" puts it: "When I make a mistake at work, I don't get to say 'the science changed.'"

Through a fraught and surreal dinner party conversation triggered by a Bloomberg science columnist's skepticism that mask mandates worked, the venerable sketch comedy show gave permission to the nation's weary COVID faithful to question the interventions they long endured without protest — and reconsider their judgment of COVID skeptics.

Recounting a child's birthday party where the kids did gymnastics in masks and then removed them to eat pizza inside, Kate McKinnon's character asked with trepidation: "Did they really need the mask ... Did any of us ever need the mask?"

ust the day before, the CDC implicitly questioned its own approach of nearly two years, finally adding hospitalizations and hospital capacity to raw case counts in deciding whether a given county should practice universal masking indoors. The result: Three-quarters of Americans were no longer covered.

Those include schoolchildren in low- and medium-risk counties, a stark change from what CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told a closed-door congressional hearing 10 days earlier, Reason reported, citing a leaked recording it didn't publish.

She reportedly said universal masking for schoolchildren should remain, regardless of transmission rates, and explicitly refused to offer a timetable for when kids could breathe unencumbered, claiming masks were crucial for schools staying open in person.

By Feb. 25, however, Walensky was echoing the Great Barrington Declaration "fringe epidemiologists" who were targeted for "take down" by Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health. The CDC wanted to ensure "we were focusing on severe disease" leading to hospitalization, not mild or asymptomatic infections, she said in a media briefing.


Then-NIH Director Francis Collins conspires to "take down" Great Barrington Declaration
Francis Collins

One of those epidemiologists, former Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff, took a short victory lap in response. Another, Stanford Med's Jay Bhattacharya, said it was now time to "address the devastating harms" caused by the CDC and Collins' email chain participant, Anthony Fauci.

Capitol Physician Brian Monahan followed suit on Sunday, declaring masks no longer required in the House, which is hosting President Biden's State of the Union address Tuesday.

The CDC's about-face came just three weeks after it released a study to justify its indoor mask guidance, purporting to show that consistent mask-wearing strongly predicted lower infection rates.

Between those events, and in light of worrisome poll numbers for the November midterms, a slew of Democrat-led states ended or scaled back across-the-board mask mandates, making Hawaii the lone holdout.

The timing suggests politics were a bigger factor than science for an agency increasingly accused of promoting weak research that fits its COVID agenda through the CDC's in-house Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), which is not peer-reviewed.

Medical experts took an ax to MMWR studies purporting to show school mask mandates heavily reduced COVID transmission and unvaccinated children were much likelier to develop diabetes, and they next pounced on the CDC's indoor mask study, published as an "early release" Feb. 4.

Through a telemarketing survey of roughly 1,800 randomly selected Californians who were tested for COVID Feb. 18–Dec. 1, 2021, University of California Berkeley (UCB) and California Department of Public Health researchers determined that people had lower odds of a positive COVID test if they said they consistently wore masks indoors.

They buried the finding that cloth masks were statistically insignificant, confirming a finding from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Bangladeshi villages.

UC San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad wrote in his newsletter that the MMWR study marked "a new scientific low point" in mask research. His own meta-research found no statistical significance from the vast majority of randomized controlled trials on masks and disease transmission.

Only 13% of people who tested positive and 9% of negatives in the MMWR study answered the phone. "We could stop right now" given the low response rate, Prasad said. The testing populations were also very different, with 78% of positives resulting from people who got tested due to symptoms and 11% from "routine screening through work or school."

Negatives, by contrast, were more than twice as likely to test from routine screening (43%) as from symptoms (17%). They were also much more likely to test as required by an upcoming medical procedure (17%) than did positives (6%).

Inexplicably removed from the dataset: those with a known COVID contact. "Masks work but not if you met someone who FOR SURE had covid? Seems a very odd analytic choice," Prasad wrote, arguing in a later essay the CDC had "abandoned science."

UCB professor Ben Recht, who studies machine learning and previously took apart the Bangledeshi RCT, said the "test-negative control" design of the study couldn't work with a population that reported vastly different reasons for testing.

"Clearly the treatment and control are different groups of people, and you can't 'control for' such wild confounding," Recht wrote in a tweet thread.

Carnegie Mellon University mathematician Wesley Pegden, who cowrote an essay with Prasad challenging the usefulness of COVID vaccine trials for children, noted the CDC "found a near-perfect lack of correlation" between masks and negative tests in a fall 2020 MMWR study.

"I wonder how many times they've done [this kind of study] since then before getting the result they wanted?" Pegden tweeted. Had the CDC used a test-negative design in the earlier study, UCB's Recht responded, it might have achieved the desired results.

The CDC didn't respond to queries from Just the News either about the timing of its revised guidance and what it says about the MMWR study, or to confirm the accuracy of Walensky's reported comments to Congress about schoolchildren and why she apparently changed her mind 10 days later.

The ‘news’ feed on YouTube has literally gone from 100% Covid to 100% Ukraine/Russia. Interesting…

My brother-in-law who lives in New Orleans had Covid around late December or first of the year. He is vaccinated and boosted, and always touted wearing a mask and avoiding people that were unvaccinated. I just found out today that he has a fresh case of Covid again. I’m not sure how severe, but regardless this is more proof that these “vaccines“are nothing but garbage.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
The ‘news’ feed on YouTube has literally gone from 100% Covid to 100% Ukraine/Russia. Interesting…

"Look!!! Shiny ball!!! Go get it!"

It's exactly what they want, divert the attention to something else. The more people think about THAT, the less they will pay attention to THIS, because we all know that THIS is bullshit.

quote:

SNL to Liberals: It's OK To Question Nonsensical Mask Mandates
Mocking COVID public health theater is finally going mainstream.
ERIC BOEHM | 2.27.2022 1:40 PM

The best Saturday Night Live sketches feel like funhouse-mirror versions of real life—echoes of conversations or situations we've experienced, but with comedic exaggerations. I mean, who hasn't seen lobster on a menu in a diner and wondered: "Why?"

The best sketch in last night's show, hosted by former SNL writer and recently out-of-rehab standup superstar John Mulaney, is a perfect example. It could have been yanked out of probably thousands of conversations around the country this week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally loosened their guidelines for masking—guidelines that have been used to justify all sorts of local and state polices that often make little sense. Like, say, the rules in D.C. and several other major cities requiring you to wear a mask to enter a restaurant even though you're going to take it off as soon as you sit down to eat.

Full article: SNL to Liberals: It's OK To Question Nonsensical Mask Mandates

The SNL video:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
The best sketch in last night's show, hosted by former SNL writer and recently out-of-rehab standup superstar John Mulaney, is a perfect example. It could have been yanked out of probably thousands of conversations around the country this week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally loosened their guidelines for masking—guidelines that have been used to justify all sorts of local and state polices that often make little sense. Like, say, the rules in D.C. and several other major cities requiring you to wear a mask to enter a restaurant even though you're going to take it off as soon as you sit down to eat.

Sorry, but no. I find zero humor in this given these are the same people who've been carrying water for this administration and vilifying anyone who didn't bend a knee. SNL can kiss my lily white *ss.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Sorry, but no. I find zero humor in this given these are the same people who've been carrying water for this administration and vilifying anyone who didn't bend a knee. SNL can kiss my lily white *ss.

The humor is not the point. Read the Reason article.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
This seems double-plus-ungood.


An accepted and published Swedish study demonstrates for the first time the presence of Pfizer-BionTech vaccine DNA in the nucleus. It is reverse transcribed by LINE-1 proteins of the cells.

Can someone far more medically inclined than me provide a summary in layman's terms of what this actually means?

Here is the printed study:

https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045...tm#B39-cimb-44-00073

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



And here is an article that may make it easier to understand.


Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells and Is Converted to DNA: Study

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...2BSymibGTQe7uKgWLgYi

The messenger RNA (mRNA) from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA, according to Swedish researchers at Lund University.

The researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA.

The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA.

Reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus.

“In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro,” the researchers wrote in the study, published in Current Issues of Molecular Biology. “BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 [hours] after BNT162b2 exposure.”

BNT162b2 is another name for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that is marketed under the brand name Comirnaty.

The whole process occurred rapidly within six hours. The vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said would not happen.

“The genetic material delivered by mRNA vaccines never enters the nucleus of your cells,” the CDC said on its web page titled “Myths and Facts about COVID-19 Vaccines.”

This is the first time that researchers have shown in vitro or inside a petri dish how an mRNA vaccine is converted into DNA on a human liver cell line, and is what health experts and fact-checkers said for over a year couldn’t occur.

The CDC says that the “COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way,” claiming that all of the ingredients in both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines (administered in the United States) are discarded from the body once antibodies are produced. These vaccines deliver genetic material that instructs cells to begin making spike proteins found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 to produce an immune response.

Pfizer didn’t comment on the findings of the Swedish study and said only that its mRNA vaccine does not alter the human genome.

“Our COVID-19 vaccine does not alter the DNA sequence of a human cell,” a Pfizer spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “It only presents the body with the instructions to build immunity.”

More than 215 million or 64.9 percent of Americans are fully vaccinated as of Feb. 28, with 94 million having received a booster dose.

The Swedish study also found spike proteins expressed on the surface of the liver cells that researchers say may be targeted by the immune system and possibly cause autoimmune hepatitis, as “there [have] been case reports on individuals who developed autoimmune hepatitis after BNT162b2 vaccination.”

The authors of the first reported case of a healthy 35-year-old female who developed autoimmune hepatitis a week after her first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine said that there is a possibility that “spike-directed antibodies induced by vaccination may also trigger autoimmune conditions in predisposed individuals” as it has been shown that “severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection are characterized by an autoinflammatory dysregulation that contributes to tissue damage,” which the virus’s spike protein appears to be responsible for.

Spike proteins may circulate in the body after an infection or injection with a COVID-19 vaccine. It was assumed that the vaccine’s spike protein would remain mostly at the injection site and last up to several weeks like other proteins produced in the body. But studies are showing that is not the case.

The Japanese regulatory agency’s biodistribution study (pdf) of the Pfizer vaccine showed that some of the mRNAs moved from the injection site and through the bloodstream, and were found in various organs such as the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries of rats 48 hours following injection.

In a different study, the spike proteins made in the body after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot have been found on tiny membrane vesicles called exosomes—that mediate cell-to-cell communication by transferring genetic materials to other cells—for at least four months after the second vaccine dose.

The persistence of the spike protein in the body “raises the prospect of sustained inflammation within and damage to organs which express the spike protein,” according to experts at Doctors for COVID Ethics, an organization consisting of physicians and scientists “seeking to uphold medical ethics, patient safety, and human rights in response to COVID-19.”

“As long as the spike protein can be detected on cell-derived membrane vesicles, the immune system will be attacking the cells that release these vesicles,” they said.

Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, wrote on Twitter that the Swedish study’s findings have “enormous implications of permanent chromosomal change and long-term constitutive spike synthesis driving the pathogenesis of a whole new genre of chronic disease.”

Whether the findings of the study will occur in living organisms or if the DNA converted from the vaccine’s mRNA will integrate with the cell’s genome is unknown. The authors said more investigations are needed, including in whole living organisms such as animals, to better understand the potential effects of the mRNA vaccine.

“At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination,” the authors said.

Anyone else notice that Saint Fauci has been lying low lately? I bet it's killing him not to be the center of attention on every news show.

Almost like the administration told him to shut up 'cause their poll numbers were tanking...

^^^ Yeah, I think that angle is flying south now. Damn....and they were making so much money!

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Sorry, but no. I find zero humor in this given these are the same people who've been carrying water for this administration and vilifying anyone who didn't bend a knee. SNL can kiss my lily white *ss.

The humor is not the point. Read the Reason article.

I read the article from Reason and again I see nothing to celebrate or laugh about in it. Had the article come out and said, "See, you people are morons for believing and putting up with this shit when you should have been telling these idiot 'experts' to stuff their opinions", I might have found a morsel of value in it. But after two and half years of lies, and blatant BS lies, Reason somehow wants to solute these morons on SNL for finally reaching a point most of us arrived at two years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
And here is an article that may make it easier to understand.

Thank you. That helped a lot in better understanding this.