It's interesting you won't speculate on what causes somebody to be a crackpot. A crackpot would have to have a reasonably high IQ to be able to achieve the status in academia or medicine that! Would even allow them to garner enough attention and people to take them seriously. It certainly hurts their careers, so they must believe what they say. Why do people become crackpots? I need to find a psychologist to explain to me maybe.
Covid vaccine does rewrite DNA
Posts
Total:
83
-->
@RationalMadman
Can mRNA trigger extremely calculated, subtle changes to DNA when made by the most advanced genetic scientists on our planet? Yes, for sure.
I have a number of problems with this characterization because what you’re talking about is only theoretically possible. There are much simpler and well-known ways to do this, and if scientists really wanted to disguise one of those as a vaccine, I can think of at least 5 better choices that have established means to do so. mRNA is a shit way to do anything aside from delivering translatable information, that’s why the “m” stands for messenger. Is it possible? I suppose so, in the same way that virtually anything is possible. Is it at all likely? I’d say not.
Does/Do Pfizer and Moderna do this? Na, probably not at least certainly not according to the articles. In the end how would we really know? Those that knew could easily be silenced, don't deny it.
See, this part I don’t get, either. At best, what you’re talking about silencing is the researchers who worked on the vaccine. There are lots of those and I have a hard time believing that all of them could be sworn to absolute secrecy, but supposing they are, there are an even larger number of researchers doing huge work ups on these patients receiving the vaccine. Have they all been silenced, too? Speaking from experience, researchers who find something groundbreaking tend to talk to just about everyone they can about it. Maybe this is the one scenario where they wouldn’t be allowed to do so, but I don’t know how it’s possible to control so many people doing research in so many places, many of whom are not necessarily going to be forthcoming about their work until they get something publishable.
-->
@Wylted
I’m saying what makes a crackpot: someone who is willingly subjecting themselves to great physical danger for the purposes of proving a point that the vast majority of their colleagues agree is a danger. I’m not arguing that someone is a crackpot for disagreeing with a consensus theory.
As for Bechamp, it doesn’t look like he’d be much of an expert on this topic. He was an organic chemist (not a biologist) who lived and died before antibiotics were discovered. He had a storied career, but he seems like an odd choice to support an argument against germ theory when the evidence obtained in the last century+ of time couldn’t have featured in his theory.
-->
@whiteflame
don’t know how it’s possible to control so many people doing research in so many places, many of whom are not necessarily going to be forthcoming about their work until they get something publishable.
The Manhattan project did it right?
The Manhattan project scientists were working on a disgusting thing they felt would contribute to the greater good. It could be a similar scenario
-->
@whiteflame
The evidence gathered is gathered under the assumption germ theory is true right? So if something new is discovered, the theory is made to fit into germ theory.
For example let's say I start with the assumption dogs control the weather. Now a do scientific analysis and see that dogs often sense a lightning storm coming, but now attribute the cause of lightning storms to dogs becoming fearful just before they happen.
We know dogs just pick up on the cues of a storm slightly before humans. However, having a bad theory if it is widely accepted will cause some false but seeming accurate conclusions.
Couldn't some theory like germ theory be the same way?
If that is the case, than the best case against germ theory might be from a long dead scientist
-->
@Wylted
The Manhattan Project involved researchers who were housed on site at specific locations and not allowed to leave. There was also no internet by which to disseminate information. We’re talking about a world with the internet where everyone lives everywhere and interacts with a broad assortment of people. Seems dramatically different to me.
-->
@Wylted
Much of the evidence just is, Wylted. The conclusions from that evidence may be derived from assumptions built on other works, including theories, but that doesn’t mean that the evidence itself is tainted.
And if that’s true that the best evidence may come from before the germ theory was established (from someone who touted himself as a skeptic, which means his conclusions were also biased), then I’ll just ask how he could provide evidence against the germ theory of disease when he didn’t and couldn’t have known about viruses. Considering there’s an entire body of research that he didn’t have any means of knowing, I don’t know how his theories could apply to it.
-->
@whiteflame
mRNA vaccines revolutionised vaccination because what happened was suddenly we skip the 'simulated fight' and just give materials and instructions to cells that let them almost instantly know how to fight the Covid-19 virus.
This is great, it works. It also could potentially mean other instructions, with far more subtle effect, are given. I do not believe they are, I believe it's potentially viable by an mRNA vaccine designed by some of the best genetics-specialised innovators at present.
-->
@RationalMadman
It also could potentially mean other instructions, with far more subtle effect, are given. I do not believe they are, I believe it's potentially viable by an mRNA vaccine designed by some of the best genetics-specialised innovators at present.
The way you’re explaining this is off. It doesn’t give instructions - it encodes a protein that functions as the target for immune responses. The way you’re phrasing it suggests that it is somehow programming the cell, when in reality all it does is get treated like any other mRNA in the cell, being shuttled to the ribosomes and producing protein.
And just because it’s produced by “some of the best genetics-specialized innovators” doesn’t mean you can or should attribute magical qualities to their work. What you’re talking about here would be a massive discovery in the field, one that would revolutionize our ability to modify genes. Why do you think CRISPR was and is such a huge deal? Scientists could only modify genomes in a specific, targeted fashion with highly specialized proteins before it was discovered, and even that requires the delivery of a protein and a guide RNA (very different from an mRNA) into cells. If we could do it with mRNA alone, that would break the field wide open and make much of the existing technology for it obsolete overnight. Why on earth would scientists be wasting that discovery on some random alteration to the DNA of vaccine recipients?
-->
@whiteflame
@FLRW
I know someone IRL who I trust and is in the medical field. I asked/discussed about motives to invent mRNA vaccines and now have realised two legitimate ones:
- People with partial/reaction-delay (not completely innate) immunodeficiency are not suited well risk-wise to AZ/JJ-type vaccines but (unlike those with severe innate immunodeficiency) can indeed benefit significantly from mRNA vaccination.
- While the research towards it was costlier and just as time-consuming, the physical production of mRNA vaccines is cheaper and even easier to maintain (viruses need to be extremely refrigerated or even frozen while mRNA is less severe in this respect and has longer span before expiry).
-->
@RationalMadman
Sounds like your friend knows what they’re talking about.
-->
@whiteflame
You should have replied that to Wylted. Are there more reasons btw? When I search online it just says for the sake of innovation, glory etc as motives.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Ok, from the site, https://phys.org/news/2020-01-rna-effect-dna.html
mRNA is messenger RNA
Clarification: Modified RNA is distinct from messenger RNA, which simply comprises instructions for building proteins; messenger RNA, the basis of two prominent COVID vaccines, does not affect DNA.
Theweakeredge, probably the most intelligent person here, is right on the money.
I think messenger RNA is a type of RNA and that the ones in the vaccine are likely modified
-->
@RationalMadman
Not sure what response you’re referring to, but I believe it was correctly directed at you.
The development cycle was a lot faster with mRNA vaccines. They may be relatively novel technology, but a lot of the groundwork for them had already been laid in response to previous coronaviruses, so really it was just about reproducing what other labs had already done with those viruses and seeing if they worked as well in humans.
-->
@whiteflame
You say 'alot faster' but Pfizer, which I believe was the first, was only around 1 month faster than AstraZeneca. Maybe I am understanding the situation wrong and maybe UK was nearly singlehandedly responsible for both things happening so rapidly but it appears to me the 'so much faster' factor, considering how long since March 2020 it took to invent the vaccines vs the ~1 month disparity, it isn't really that much faster unless I'm understanding something wrong.
In America, it's true that JJ took significantly longer vs Pfizer and also vs Moderna. JJ was produced with significant delay but I don't think research time was the reason (I actually don't know why they were so late).
-->
@RationalMadman
The AstraZeneca vaccine has a similarly bleeding edge technology it uses, and is similarly based in previous research. The difference is just in the means by which expression occurs, with AZ using a virus to express them in the cell, and Moderna/Pfizer using an mRNA in a lipid coat. The latter is more limiting, in that the survival of the mRNA is inherently limited, but I would regard both in a similar light. J&J has a similar vaccine to AZ.
-->
@whiteflame
Are you willing to tell us which you are vaccinated with (I am presuming you've been vaccinated both jabs by now given your location, age etc)
-->
@RationalMadman
Pfizer. Didn’t have any choice in the matter, though if given the option, I would have chosen it as well.
-->
@whiteflame
Is that because you work in science? I noticed medical and science staff in many nations are being given the mRNA ones.
Is the reason that the first jab is relatively symptom-free for them in comparison to the 'viral' ones? What were your symptoms?
-->
@RationalMadman
My familiarity with the research helped. While it was very distinct work, I have done a good deal of research on viral RNAs and I thought the mRNA vaccines were a solid concept with strong execution.
Can’t say I experienced much in the way of symptoms. Second jab gave me extreme exhaustion the next day, but otherwise I only had a bit of arm pain. My wife had a more severe reaction to the first jab (she got Moderna) in the form of more severe arm pain that lasted about a week. Wouldn’t be surprised if the stronger reaction to the viral ones is based in their eliciting their own immune responses.
27 days later
The purpose of rewriting your DNA is quite simple. You cease to be a natural human. The law says that science can not patent that which occurs naturally in nature. The law also says science can patent something altered by science. The purpose of the vaccine is ownership of you. You are now generically altered by the inventor of the vaccine and the inventor now owns your generically altered DNA. You took the vaccine willingly therefore gave up all rights to your natural existence by allowing science to alter you natural DNA. You are no longer a natural human.
A gene patent is the exclusive rights to a specific sequence of DNA (a gene) given by a government to the individual, organization, or corporation who claims to have first identified the gene. Once granted a gene patent, the holder of the patent dictates how the gene can be used, in both commercial settings, such as clinical genetic testing, and in noncommercial settings, including research, for 20 years from the date of the patent. Gene patents have often resulted in companies having sole ownership of genetic testing for patented genes.
On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature." The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. Prior to this ruling, more than 4,300 human genes were patented. The Supreme Court's decision invalidated those gene patents, making the genes accessible for research and for commercial genetic testing.
The Supreme Court's ruling did allow that DNA manipulated in a lab is eligible to be patented because DNA sequences altered by humans are not found in nature. The Court specifically mentioned the ability to patent a type of DNA known as complementary DNA (cDNA). This synthetic DNA is produced from the molecule that serves as the instructions for making proteins (called messenger RNA).
You are now basically just a generically modified vegetable or farm animal with all the same rights and privileges according to the law.
-->
@sadolite
...I'm sorry, what?
First off, what is a "natural human" in your estimation? Is it someone without any DNA modifications or insertions? Because that kind of person doesn't exist. The notion that you suddenly cease to be a natural human on the basis that there is some stretch of DNA that was modified by a treatment or infection of any sort would render the entirety of humanity unnatural.
Second, your understanding of this patenting law is more than a little problematic. Look at the article more closely - it says that the specific gene sequence is patentable, not that the entire organism in which the sequence now resides is suddenly under patent. The goal of this type of patenting system is to protect the intellectual property of the gene sequence so that other people can't just steal it and put it to their own uses. Sometimes, that is associated with a lot of work in a given plant or animal, but even then, the patent is on the genetic sequence, not on the organism.
Third, and I'll point this out again, it does not alter the human genome. The production of cDNA in very small amounts from the vaccine mRNA does in no way rewrite our genomes, and as such, doesn't change anything about our "natural" DNA. By this logic, any introduction of RNA into our system is rewriting our DNA because it can all be reverse transcribed.
-->
@whiteflame
Hey, you read the law the way you want, you can be sure govt will. The law says I cant be forced to take an experimental drug yet govt is moving forward to do just that. The law is what ever the people in power say it is.
-->
@sadolite
Considering no one has forced you to take it, I don't know where you're getting that, nor do I understand how the vaccine is experimental when it's undergone such rigorous testing. But honestly, considering that your point incorporated factually inaccurate information about how the vaccine works (and you were apparently trying to say that the law outright condones ownership of other humans via gene patenting, a point you seem all too willing to declare unimportant now that the government can apparently grant whatever it wants regardless of existing patent law), it's not just about what the government chooses to allow. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to generate nonexistent facts.
-->
@whiteflame
Have you looked into how lead was seen as really healthy by the scientific community and how it is still having effects on the population until today?
-->
@Wylted
...What's your point? That the scientific community has made mistakes in the past? I'm not contesting that there have been issues with what the scientific community has produced in the past. I'm not even saying that they are consistently rigorous today, so I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've said.
-->
@Wylted
Lead was never seen healthy by the scientific community. It was capitalism that loved it. By the 1920s, lead was an essential part of the middle-class American home. It was in telephones, ice boxes, vacuums, irons, and washing machines; dolls, painted toys, bean bags, baseballs, and fishing lures. Perhaps most perniciously, it was in gasoline, pipes and paint, the building blocks of urbanization and a growing housing stock.
That was precisely how the lead industry wanted their product to be seen. Despite the fact that lead was known to be toxic as early as the late 19th century, manufacturers and trade groups fiercely marketed it as essential to America’s economic growth and consumer ideals, especially when it came to their walls. Latching onto the nation’s post-Depression affection for clean, bright colors, they were successful.
That was precisely how the lead industry wanted their product to be seen. Despite the fact that lead was known to be toxic as early as the late 19th century, manufacturers and trade groups fiercely marketed it as essential to America’s economic growth and consumer ideals, especially when it came to their walls. Latching onto the nation’s post-Depression affection for clean, bright colors, they were successful.
-->
@whiteflame
Um all vaccines are still experimental. It takes 4to 5 years to approve a vaccine. You are confusing approved for "emergency use" with actually being a FDA approved vaccine. That is why you cant sue any of the companies that make vaccines if you are permanently injured or die from it.
Anthony Fauci said on Sunday that he believes there should be more mandates at the local level requiring people to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
The nation's leading infectious disease expert also said that he believes there’s more hesitancy at the local level to get the vaccines because they are under an emergency use authorization and have not been officially approved, but he predicted more mandates would be issued once they haves been fully approved.
Federal law provides that at least until a vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, individuals must have the option to accept or decline the experimental drug. No thank you you can be a guanine pig if you want, not me, no way in hell. I'll take my chances of dying from a flu virus with a 99.6% survival rate. I am more likely to die in a car accident while simultaneously being struck by lightning than dying of covid
-->
@sadolite
I disagree that all vaccines are experimental. I also disagree that the time frame need be long in order to determine whether a vaccine is either safe or effective. The fact that it was approved via emergency use authorization does not make it experimental.
Anthony Fauci doesn't dictate public policy by his lonesome. The mandates that he supports haven't and almost certainly won't become reality, even after it's fully approved.
I don't consider myself a guinea pig because I've read up extensively on the science behind these vaccines including the trials and understand both how they theoretically and actually work. If that's how you see me, then I suppose that's your prerogative, though I find it odd that you consider the well-established risks of the virus so much less than the virtually nonexistent risks of the vaccine. If you want to take the risks of the virus, you're welcome to do so. No one's forcing you to do anything.