Nostr Web Client

Let’s say I agree with your interpretation ( that’s a big if). That’s contamination of the vaccine … not dna rewriting of the subject which is what I’ve been arguing against. And that’s plasmid dna not chromosomal. Are you intentionally conflating these things or did you jump in with something unrelated ?

Sovereign Being 1y ago

To be clear, it's not my interpretation. Outside of a basic understanding how to design an assay, my expertise on this subject is limited. I am relaying information from people who have studied the material and expressed concerns based on their findings.

Strictly speaking, the mRNA wouldn't be modifying anything if it has no mechanism to enter the cell. However, because we have published evidence from multiple sources that show DNA contaminations in [all] lots of Pfizer and Moderna, the focus on the mRNA aspect is moot IF they do all in fact contain DNA plasmids that are able to enter a cell and modify the genome. If this information didn't exist, I would be agreeing with you.

The qPCR assays were not designed to quantify the amount of DNA present, this is being done independently after the fact.

"Further, it should also be taken into account that DNA impurities in Comirnaty® are apparently integrated into the lipid nanoparticles and are thus transported directly into the cells of a vaccinated person, just like the mRNA active ingredient."

Does that sound like something that isn't able to modify a persons DNA?

https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/7/3/41

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Sovereign Being 1y ago

I missed a bit off the quote:

"What this means for the safety risks, particularly the possible integration of this DNA into the human genome"

That said, the way that regulators and the manufacturers have conducted themselves, such as data obfuscation, lying about these things existing, then lying about them being active, is suggestive to me that these are not contaminations, but they were put there intentionally, and the assays were designed in a way that would hide this information. I am open to having my biased skewed away from 'conspiracy', however, things have been trending in that direction.

This study found twice the amount of mRNA which was approved, and over 500 times the DNA limit.

So, DNA integration is a valid concern with these shots in my opinion.

Adrian Cantrill 1y ago

None of what you have posted or stated says it can rewrite dna. It talks about examining if it can.

Adrian Cantrill 1y ago

And reviewing risks is fine. Be cautious. But other people are stating that it DOES rewrite dna - which there is zero evidence to support. Zero.

Sovereign Being 1y ago

Possible integration isn't rewriting DNA?

Adrian Cantrill 1y ago

Well even if it were. Possible something doesn’t mean the same as actual something. Hence why I said there is no evidence saying it IS happening.

Sovereign Being 1y ago

You're seemingly just a step away from coming to terms with the likely reality. I understand that in order to get something reviewed and published they have to skirt around making certain declarations, but if we have DNA contamination (confirmed as far as I'm concerned), a mechanistic pathway for that to get into cells with a carrier (also confirmed), and the expected outcomes from this (a rise in cancers and autoimmune conditions), I don't need another "peer reviewed" study to recognise what is probably going on. The same way we could use logical deduction to heed caution without a deep understanding of the science involved when this was all first introduced.

Retrospective analysis will determine what is happening, but let's be honest here, the mounting evidence isn't looking good right now. The claims may be proven to be inaccurate, but they are far from baseless.

Adrian Cantrill 1y ago

That’s the issue. You say it’s confirmed. It’s not. There is no evidence showing it DOES happen. You’re taking a potential and assuming an actual.

Adrian Cantrill 1y ago

My concern is how people just take a risk. A speculation. A concern. And then leap to that thing happening. It may well be, but there are many life risks which equally turn out to be nothing. The world has lost respect for knowledge and scientific pow.

Sovereign Being 1y ago

The risk here was trusting the government with a new, undertested and rushed product which people were largely coerced into taking.

Scientific work turned into consensus rather than transparent methodology, that is how we ended up here in the first place. "All the experts agree" is fallacious reasoning and not proof of anything other than a demonstration that people's opinions can be bought, and it is the baseline reasoning for all the claims the establishment makes.

A year ago, or two, or three, the risk was almost entirely speculation, and (warranted) skepticism. Now we have a lot of verifiable data which has confirmed some of the speculation. Other confirmations one way or another will come with time.

Sovereign Being 1y ago

DNA contamination IS confirmed. Integration within the carrier for delivery IS apparent. Genomic alteration and integration is a logical outcome from this. I guess it's up to you to decide what is sufficient evidence, although you may have to come to terms with how the data is/has been manipulated when it comes to an increase in cancers and a decline in birth rates.

Adrian Cantrill 1y ago

Nothing you have shown confirms dna contamination of the subject.

Sovereign Being 1y ago

The paper I linked to doesn't confirm DNA contamination in the Pfizer shot? You're sure?

Adrian Cantrill 1y ago

You’re doing it again. It’s not about contamination of the shot. It’s about if that can rewrite peoples dna. You’re either deliberately conflating these two or you misunderstand there is a distinction.

Sovereign Being 1y ago

Sure, the presence of all the required mechanisms for DNA integration, doesn't guarantee integration. Perhaps someone will fund a formal study on this.