Pfizer + BioNTech COVID vaccine tested in a lab alter DNA, Swedish study finds.

[ReuleauxMan]

Note: This is probably old news, but I couldn't find a topic about it here with the search function.

I took two doses of the old Pfizer vaccine back in 2020 or so and I'm [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed because I blindly trusted them. Their vaccines were reported by a Swedish study to do more than provide RNA resistance/immunity (which doesn't sound too great to me in the first place because it seems closely related to DNA, I don't know on this point) - IT CHANGED DNA of liver cells. Not to mention it has also been found to cause long-term ill health effects! Booo, I don't want my DNA tampered with at all - especially by a company that lies about it (and still denies it) or didn't faithfully test for this possibility - especially by something made by the mere intelligence of (possibly corrupt) people! I want my DNA the way God / nature, working with and from all the laws of the Universe, made me!

Even if this ain't true, because there are plenty of authoritative "de-bunkers" which I don't trust because there would be plenty of conflict of interest for them to do so, I cite the following source (debunking the de-bunkers), and have nothing else to cite because nobody else has really been interested in or taken up the torch of repeating the experiment and making those tests available for reporting / public use (probably also because of conflict of interest).

Pfizer mRNA vaccine goes into liver and changes into DNA, Swedish study finds

The original study is here at this link:
Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line

If vaccine makers are now making vaccines that can at least subtly alter DNA, this is only the beginning if this isn't stopped or the people refuse the vaccines. If more deadly viruses or deadlier strains of COVID come about. It may be either risk (severe) sickness or death and spreading it to others, hopefully having alternative medicinal treatments (not citing any here unless requested - will try to nail these down again and find them) or take the DNA-altering vaccine that the companies deny alter DNA. What a convenient, strong incentive for the drug/vaccine companies to use to get people to get DNA-altering vaccines that cause sickness and deviation from God's / nature's perfect creative ability for every generation afterwards!

Call me paranoid, and you'd be right. Why on earth would these giant pharma companies ever want to hurt us, intentionally or unintentionally?

 

[Nithavela]

"In vitro".

This can also happen with the virus itself.

There was a thread about this in the spring when this study came out.

 

[ReuleauxMan]

"In vitro".

This can also happen with the virus itself.

There was a thread about this in the spring when this study came out.

Thanks, that helps clear up my understanding (the in vitro environment if I understand means this kind of stuff is likely to happen under those conditions but not real-world conditions) . I probably am being a bit paranoid .

 

[Nithavela]

Thanks, that helps clear up my understanding (the in vitro environment if I understand means this kind of stuff is likely to happen under those conditions but not real-world conditions) . I probably am being a bit paranoid .

At least there should be a study of this happening in living cells before.

Also: our DNA is full of virus DNA. This happens all the time.

Science | AAAS

 

[sandman]

Why on earth would these giant pharma companies ever want to hurt us, intentionally or unintentionally?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Nithavela]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Indeed. They want to kill their customers so they can't sell them any more drugs, thus making.. profit?

 

[sandman]

Indeed. They want to kill their customers so they can't sell them any more drugs, thus making.. profit?

Your missing it ...they are not customers ...they are numbers, very large numbers ...they are looking to crest 100 billion by years end ... due to vaccines. And being immune from any law suites in conjunction with the vaccines is the silver lining.

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Indeed. They want to kill their customers so they can't sell them any more drugs, thus making.. profit?

Mostly they want to offer treatments and never cures, so they can keep making money. The medicine is made for maximum profit by being very expensive and needing to be on for a long time, many times life long. With a succulent twist, the medicine even creates dependencies (e.g. thyroid medicine) where the body needs it even more and nasty side-effects to keep people sicker and end up needing more medicines that themselves etc....

 

[com7fy8]

Pfizer mRNA vaccine goes into liver and changes into DNA, Swedish study finds

Well, the theory I have been told is that the COVID vaccines' mRNA is what helps the body to make part of the COVID virus' spike protein. And then the body can produce immunity against that portion of the spike so antibodies and attack cells can then find spikes on a real virus and take the virus out, or I think they can find a human cell with the virus in it and destroy the cell so its resident viruses are taken out.

Now, I think the mRNA's production of the spike portion is supposed to get started at the location where the needle goes into the muscle; the person giving the shot is supposed to be competent enough not to inject the vaccine into the blood which might take those cute little mRNA molecules elsewhere in the body; plus I suppose such a foreign molecule might get into a run-in with the body's immune system before it could get around the body much.

In goes the mRNA, and right there the body detects its spike protein portions and develops immunity. I am not sure if the mRNA can travel far from the injection site. And how ever could such a complicated chemical cross liver cell membranes and enter liver cells?? If it could . . . well, I suppose it could morph itself into a portion of DNA which would correspond to the mRNA molecules. And then . . . what do they claim it could do? It's only enough DNA so its mRNA mate can produce spike portion molecules; I am not sure a tiny piece of DNA like that could do much.

Also, if a human cell gets invaded by something that does not belong there, it can signal the immune system and the immune system has killer cells destroy that cell so its unauthorized residents get taken out. So, even if some mRNA molecule started morphing into DNA in a liver cell . . . how long could it stay there before the raided liver cell put out a destroy-me signal?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your missing it ...they are not customers ...they are numbers, very large numbers ...they are looking to crest 100 billion by years end ... due to vaccines. And being immune from any law suites in conjunction with the vaccines is the silver lining.

So, in your expert opinion, the plan of pharmaceutical CEOs is to make a ton of money this year, and then have declining profits for the foreseeable future?

I don't follow...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Mostly they want to offer treatments and never cures, so they can keep making money. The medicine is made for maximum profit by being very expensive and needing to be on for a long time, many times life long. With a succulent twist, the medicine even creates dependencies (e.g. thyroid medicine) where the body needs it even more and nasty side-effects to keep people sicker and end up needing more medicines that themselves etc....

I would have to ask, why did other countries (where healthcare isn't a for-profit model like it is in the US) end up with the same conclusion that the vaccines were the best course of action to tamp covid down?

One can certainly make a well-reasoned argument that US healthcare industries are profit hungry and it many cases, focus on symptom treatment rather than a cure, and abuse their power and influence, but it's a big world out there and not every country has their healthcare model structured the same way.

I would also argue that the solution to the problem of "how to we break the stranglehold that the US drug companies have on us?" is already available in the form of changing eating habits and embracing healthier lifestyle choices, but the people who are the quickest to complain about "lab coat tyranny" aren't terribly keen on embracing that solution.

The same people who complain about "the grip of big pharma" are the same people who gravitate toward pop-culture personalities advocating "the carnivore diet", claimed "m'freedom is getting ripped away" about McDonald's getting rid of the super size or the soda taxes that were tried in certain cities, and who mock vegans or any effort to get people to eat a more plant based diet and less meat.

"It's my right as an American to eat at McDonald's as much as I want!" (which leads to obesity and diabetes and high cholesterol...all of which require pharmaceutical interventions to stop one from dying at 58)

Doesn't gel with the talking point of "we need to stop giving big pharma so much power!"

I would argue that a substantial portion of the people who object to how much influence pharma has, are actively playing into their hand by willingly engaging in lifestyle choices that all but guarantee that they'll need to be on at least 2-3 maintenance drugs by the time they're 55.

 

[ReuleauxMan]

I would have to ask, why did other countries (where healthcare isn't a for-profit model like it is in the US) end up with the same conclusion that the vaccines were the best course of action to tamp covid down?

One can certainly make a well-reasoned argument that US healthcare industries are profit hungry and it many cases, focus on symptom treatment rather than a cure, and abuse their power and influence, but it's a big world out there and not every country has their healthcare model structured the same way.

I would also argue that the solution to the problem of "how to we break the stranglehold that the US drug companies have on us?" is already available in the form of changing eating habits and embracing healthier lifestyle choices, but the people who are the quickest to complain about "lab coat tyranny" aren't terribly keen on embracing that solution.

The same people who complain about "the grip of big pharma" are the same people who gravitate toward pop-culture personalities advocating "the carnivore diet", claimed "m'freedom is getting ripped away" about McDonald's getting rid of the super size or the soda taxes that were tried in certain cities, and who mock vegans or any effort to get people to eat a more plant based diet and less meat.

"It's my right as an American to eat at McDonald's as much as I want!" (which leads to obesity and diabetes and high cholesterol...all of which require pharmaceutical interventions to stop one from dying at 58)

Doesn't gel with the talking point of "we need to stop giving big pharma so much power!"

I would argue that a substantial portion of the people who object to how much influence pharma has, are actively playing into their hand by willingly engaging in lifestyle choices that all but guarantee that they'll need to be on at least 2-3 maintenance drugs by the time they're 55.

Excellent points! Indeed big-pharma I'm sure can be toppled with enough people choosing better options for health just as Big Tobacco can be toppled with everyone abstaining from or quitting cigarettes. Better companies and industries would take their place, like holistic medicine and even perhaps clinics/centers dedicated not just to treating disease but bringing health beyond the normal too (besides just gyms lol).

Lifestyle choices is a big one. I would like to blame "the system" e.g. dr's prescribing / pushing pills instead of suggesting lifestyle changes and advising how much better these changes would help than medicine, schools not doing an adequate job of this, etc. but with the internet and supporting family all that's left is initiative and determination to change habits. It's an example of one of the many ways in which americans or anyone sabotages themselves by some behavior I can't pin down (for example, buying China when every two dollars to them builds a bullet or a hundred gigabytes of propaganda and influence, constantly repeating past mistakes over and over and not learning, etc.). Part of this may be too that there's just too much information available, not all of it quality, with quality information perhaps being buried in it, with the need for enough discernment to recognize quality information/help.

But also, on that last point, "the system" is itself causing problems for the people by actually limiting other alternatives via these alternatives not being explored or made economic commodities themselves. Prime example: severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. Medicine for life, and it's just a band-aid and not a cure. Are there alternatives! YES! But they're EXPENSIVE and extremely difficult to do without professional help and most times a safe/controlled environment specialized in this, the only insurance-accepting coincident alternative of which is the pharmaceutical model and in-patient hospitalization where people are force-fed drugs and by most psychiatrists indoctrinated into the model. Other than that, there's just reading reading reading and near endless searching searching searching until one discovers how to figure out how to best live with, work with, and master one's own brain and mind and the root of their dysfunction, while slowly peeling the band-aid off to better see and address the root causes. This would be a lot easier and a lot more people would find this method and the method would be more well-researched and developed if it were actually state-sponsored instead of pharmaceuticals being the be-all end-all.

Virtually any chronic illness, I theorize, has a cure with, as you've said, lifestyle or if not that, (yet-to-be-invented) medicine that actually cures with a dose or a few doses or, if it is psychosomatic or psychogenic or energetically/emotionally/trauma based, self-mastery basically (usually with lifestyle choices being a pre-requisite for the body/etc. actually able to heal). And it would be stellar if there was more effort with either the medical industry or for there to be a new industry for making people for, lack of a better term, super-humans even or at least ultra-healthy humans rather than just normal health.

 

[sandman]

So, in your expert opinion, the plan of pharmaceutical CEOs is to make a ton of money this year, and then have declining profits for the foreseeable future?

I don't follow...

I know you didn't really say that seriously... I suppose a bit of hyperbole was needed in effort to make me look stupid............Lets just keep a eye on their profits with forthcoming viruses.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Lifestyle choices is a big one. I would like to blame "the system" e.g. dr's prescribing / pushing pills instead of suggesting lifestyle changes and advising how much better these changes would help than medicine, schools not doing an adequate job of this, etc. but with the internet and supporting family all that's left is initiative and determination to change habits.

Well, yes and no.

There's certainly been a lot of flip flop from the medical and scientific community with regards to certain foods. IE: look at how many times eggs have been good, then bad, then good again, then bad again.

And I would agree schools could do a better job of certain aspects of dietary awareness.

But a lot of the big ones (with regards to food choices) are ones that have remained pretty constant for at least 40-50 years.

I'm 38 now, and I remember back when I was a kid it was already well-established that fast food isn't good for you, and that there was a link between high red meat consumption and cardiovascular risk.

...and I think there are a lot of doctors who do push for lifestyle changes, but there's only so much pushing they can do at a yearly physical with a person they see 30 minutes once a year. ...and a lot of times, they deal with "stubborn as a mule" patients who aren't even receptive to their recommended changes.

I remember how it was taking my grandpa to his doctors appointments. His cholesterol was through the roof, the doctor told him he needed to limit his egg consumption, cut back on the steaks and burgers, and fried foods. His response was "I've been eating eggs all my life, I'm not going to change it now".

But also, on that last point, "the system" is itself causing problems for the people by actually limiting other alternatives via these alternatives not being explored or made economic commodities themselves.

I would also put that in the "well, yes and no" category with the part above.

I would have no problem with insurance companies providing better coverage and access for things like going to a dietician or nutritionist and having it be covered with a small co-pay rather than your only option being to go to an MD. I'd also like to see them recommend (when possible) going to some sort of physical therapist prior to writing a script for a pain killer.

Where the "alternatives to MDs" gets murky, is when you start getting into the pseudosciences like homeopathy, chiropractic, and naturopaths... for a few reasons.

1) Often times they're just giving false hope to people with non-cures which is morally questionable at the very least

2) People often just use people in those professions as a vehicle for confirmation bias via "A guy who calls himself Doctor telling them what they want to hear", as a means of avoiding the lifestyle changes they should be making.

For example, if a person's regular doctor tells them "your cholesterol is really high as is your blood pressure, you need to make some changes like cutting out a lot of the eggs and red meat, and using less salt", they'll go to a naturopath and the naturopath will tell them "Red meat is a super health food as long as it's grass fed, eggs are a super food as long as they're organic, and you just need to use the Himalayan pink salt instead of regular table salt" - leading them to paying double at the health food store for the same foods, while convincing themselves they're making a meaningful change.

Then there's others like the homeopaths and chiropractors, which are just pushing outright quackery (as opposed to the naturopaths, who at least get a few things right here and there)

 

[Pommer]

I know you didn't really say that seriously... I suppose a bit of hyperbole was needed in effort to make me look stupid............Lets just keep a eye on their profits with forthcoming viruses.

This is how “healthcare” is done in our country.
Private companies (publicly traded or not), vie to produce drugs and vaccines, to make the shareholders a profit overall.
What you seem to be complaining about is “the system”; this is how “the system” functions, it’s operating “normally”.

 

[BobRyan]

Note: This is probably old news, but I couldn't find a topic about it here with the search function.

I took two doses of the old Pfizer vaccine back in 2020 or so and I'm [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed because I blindly trusted them. Their vaccines were reported by a Swedish study to do more than provide RNA resistance/immunity (which doesn't sound too great to me in the first place because it seems closely related to DNA, I don't know on this point) - IT CHANGED DNA of liver cells. Not to mention it has also been found to cause long-term ill health effects! Booo, I don't want my DNA tampered with at all

1. Point 1 - don't get the COVID virus because it can do the very thing you want to avoid.
2. Point 2 - the vaccine is not the entire virus - it is only the spike protein. But COVID is the entire virus.
3. Point 3 - that same Swedish study group admits that the lab test procedure itself is known to cause that very result --- not because of the virus or the vaccine - but because the process they are using is known to erroneously produce that result in the liver cancer cells they are working with.

From: Science | AAAS

“Many researchers who specialize in LINE-1 elements and other "retrotransposons" thought the data were too thin to support the claim. "If I would have had this data, I would have not submitted to any publication at that point," says Cornell University's Cedric Feschotte, who studies endogenous retrovirus chunks in the human genome. He and others also said they expected higher quality work coming from scientists of the caliber of Jaenisch and Young.

"In two subsequent studies, both posted on bioRxiv, critics presented evidence that the supposed chimeras of human and viral DNA traces are routinely created by the very technique the group used to scan for them in chromosomes. As one report concluded, the human-virus sequences "are more likely to be a methodological product, [sic] than the result of genuine reverse transcription, integration and expression."

“In their new paper, Jaenisch, Young, and colleagues acknowledge that the technique they used accidentally creates human-viral chimeras. "I think it's a valid point," Jaenisch says. He adds that when they first submitted the paper to a journal, they knew it needed stronger data, which they hoped to add during the review process. But the journal, like many, requires authors to immediately post all COVID-19 results to a preprint server. "I probably should have said s____ you, I won't put it on bioRxiv. It was a misjudgment," Jaenisch says
​

=======================================

So I am all for avoiding needless boosters after getting natural immunity from OMICRON etc .... I still say "pay attention to details" in these flair-up sensation grenades that the media sometimes drops into the discussion only to see the very source of that sensation idea later admit that they were in error. IN this case Jaenisch tries to blame the journal that published his not-yet-fully-verified half-baked conclusions.

 

[Diamond72]

Their vaccines were reported by a Swedish study to do more than provide RNA resistance/immunity (which doesn't sound too great to me in the first place because it seems closely related to DNA

All viruses have to replicate themselves. They do not have any DNA they only have RNA. This means they have to have a host cell to hijack to replicate themselves. A virus replicates itself in a cell until there are so many that the cell breaks and then they go seeking new cells to hijack.

The problem with the Coronavirus is that they have been modified to make it easier for them to invade a cell. There was a ban on this research but Frances Collins removed the ban and that was when the virus escaped the lab and began to attack people. The first people to come down with the virus were older delivery men who delivered lunch to the people working in the lab in Wuhan.

Bill Gates paid for the research for Pfizer using tax free money. He calls this philanthropy. He then owns 10% of Pfizer through a holding company so he brags about a 150% return on his investment. Everyone else is getting a 3% return on their investment. He just announced that he is going to start to hide his investments so that people will not know how rich he is.

My son is a computer engineer and he actually worked on the computer program that Pfizer uses to make the vaccine. They have to give an account to the FDA on everything that goes into the vaccine. So there are no surprises there. They are not sneaking anything into the vaccine. This is all coded machine language. He just translates it so the FDA can read it.

 

[Diamond72]

He and others also said they expected higher quality work coming from scientists of the caliber of Jaenisch and Young.

Money talks, nobody walks. Very, very few people make an honest living. There was a book that talked about this called: "What Would Jesus Do". People even use to wear WWJD bracelets.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would have to ask, why did other countries (where healthcare isn't a for-profit model like it is in the US) end up with the same conclusion that the vaccines were the best course of action to tamp covid down?

One can certainly make a well-reasoned argument that US healthcare industries are profit hungry and it many cases, focus on symptom treatment rather than a cure, and abuse their power and influence, but it's a big world out there and not every country has their healthcare model structured the same way.

I would also argue that the solution to the problem of "how to we break the stranglehold that the US drug companies have on us?" is already available in the form of changing eating habits and embracing healthier lifestyle choices, but the people who are the quickest to complain about "lab coat tyranny" aren't terribly keen on embracing that solution.

The same people who complain about "the grip of big pharma" are the same people who gravitate toward pop-culture personalities advocating "the carnivore diet", claimed "m'freedom is getting ripped away" about McDonald's getting rid of the super size or the soda taxes that were tried in certain cities, and who mock vegans or any effort to get people to eat a more plant based diet and less meat.

"It's my right as an American to eat at McDonald's as much as I want!" (which leads to obesity and diabetes and high cholesterol...all of which require pharmaceutical interventions to stop one from dying at 58)

Doesn't gel with the talking point of "we need to stop giving big pharma so much power!"

I would argue that a substantial portion of the people who object to how much influence pharma has, are actively playing into their hand by willingly engaging in lifestyle choices that all but guarantee that they'll need to be on at least 2-3 maintenance drugs by the time they're 55.

Or the people that go into a moral panic about the government taking away their gas stoves.

Basic respect for the scientific method isn't part of alot of Americans worldview, even if it would protect their long-term health. Of course, there is alot of misinformation out there being pumped up by corporations to cast doubt on the methods of science itself.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, yes and no.

There's certainly been a lot of flip flop from the medical and scientific community with regards to certain foods. IE: look at how many times eggs have been good, then bad, then good again, then bad again.

At least the government has been pretty clear about eggs over the past decades. It's not legal in the US to advertise eggs as healthy, for instance... and that's based on well-documented scientific research. People might not like the answers, and industry front groups spend alot of dark money to prop up controversy, but the government itself has been pretty consistent in prohibiting the egg industry from advertising eggs as healthy.