/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15937142

>>15937148
Thank you doctor CHUDov

I'm legit worried about the creation of a novel transmissible prion now.
Exactly how many of these vaccines have they injected into people now? What are the odds? At rate rate/speed are the odds increasing?

Can we plot/graph this out? How many more years of covid vaccines at current pace of vaccination will it be till the a transmissible prion is formed?

>>15937197
>I'm legit worried about the creation of a novel transmissible prion now.
given this happens with literally everything on the regular and not unique to mrna vaccines no you should not be "legit worried"

Your body fucks up proteins all the time and so does your immune system. If the fuckups pile up too much ordinarily you just get plain ol' cancer as your immune system declines due to age. Not transmissible prions you fucking idiot

>>15937142
It means the people saying it would produce dangerous proteins were correct after all.

And the "you are here" graph advances another step.

>>15937739
Oh yeah sure that death gap with the unvaccinated will totally close and reverse just two more weeks guise
just two more weeks guise we were right after all
just two more

>>15937743

>>15938084
So let's assume this correlation is entirely due to something that isn't coincidental. Big assumption but you've got two possible explanations then,
1. Covid is responsible, mechanism well documented immune system damage, and corresponds to wide proliferation
2. Vaxx did it because schizo conspiracy with magical leprechaun delays and magical mechanisms that never make sense

Guess which one it is? You don't have to because if there is a cause it's called "sars-cov-2" with worldwide documentation of widespread immune system damage you fucking dumbass.

>>15937608
different sequences foreign to body.

>>15938210
dna not purified from manufacturing that been found in vaxes. dna enters cytoplasm thanks to lipid nano particles forms complexes with particles and transported to nucleus for integration. nothing magical about it.

>>15938248
*forms complexes with proteins

>>15937142
Why did they need to add the "harmless" qualifier at all?

>>15937142
Imagine the amount of kidney failure and renal cancer, yikes
I almost feel bad for vaxxies
>>15937197
I've been warning you faggots about RNA gene therapy for years even before covid. The nuclear shedder will come and we'll all be fucked, except for me. Lmao total urbanite death and all we had to do what let them kill themselves.

>>15938248
>different sequences foreign to body.
This is meaningless.
>nothing magical about it
Besides everything? You described no mechanism leading to cancer being inferred and did nothing to explain why you discount covid despite obvious mechanism being immune dysfunction from extensively documented lymphatic damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_senescence#Clearance_of_senescent_cells_by_the_immune_system
A mechanism and cause. You gave schizobabble.
>dna not purified from manufacturing that been found in vaxes
Not a thing. You don't know how transcription works or what you're talking about. To be transcribed requires elements for initiation, translation, termination, etc. See also https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-021-00358-0 box 1 in particular.
Random garbage fragments won't be transcribed and that isn't what >>15937142 is about either. That article is about frame shifting the transcription of mRNA due to slippage leading to the immune system to "model" its target incorrectly. That also happens all of the time and a certain percentage of inaccuracy is also helpful for adaptive and predictive functions of immunity, though that much inaccuracy isn't but it does still occur because your body is not perfect. If your body was just a carbon-copy machine we'd all be dead.
>dna enters cytoplasm thanks to lipid nano particles forms complexes with particles and transported to nucleus for integration
And it would not be integrated if it was not encapsulated with the right sequences to start and meaningfully interpret what is read. Your body also has all sorts of built-in regulatory functions because it has to avoid "too many" errors while keeping "just enough" errors or it could not predict target evolution. If it were truly random junk it wouldn't be processed. Your body also has systems for finding said random junk which is then properly encapsulated and transcribed by your immune system all the time as part of trying to predict pathogens.

>>15938413
https://osf.io/preprints/osf/mjc97
>1. Residual plasmid DNA from Process 2 manufacturing is found in all Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines as high as 4.27 ng/dose.
>2. Using Qubit fluorometry the residual plasmid DNA is as high as 5,100 ng/dose equating to 188 – 509-fold excess of the FDA and WHO 10 ng/dose guidelines.
>3. Pfizer contained more amplifiable DNA than Moderna and all Pfizer contain the SV40 promoter-enhancer-ori.
>4. A positive dose-response relationship was observed for the Pfizer lots based on qPCR estimation of residual DNA.
>5. The most recent Moderna XBB.1.5 vaccine contained similar levels as other Moderna lots suggesting that DNA residues have not been reduced and remains an issue.

>>15938413
>This is meaningless.
except primary structure.
>A mechanism and cause.
except trash plasmid dna integration.
>Not a thing.
see: >>15938450
>transcription
this is not about that.
pfizer didn't purify the plasmid dna they used in manufacturing.
>And it would not be integrated if it was not encapsulated with the right sequences to start and meaningfully interpret what is read.
that's a gamble. the dna frgaments could have those sequences seeing as they are literally plasmids.
>Your body also has all sorts of built-in regulatory functions because it has to avoid "too many" errors while keeping "just enough" errors or it could not predict target evolution.
funny how those fail all the time seeing as there is this thing called cancer. and we never had fragmented plasmid dna bound to lipid nanoparticles in vivo before. you can shill for your corporation and bootlick all you want but i said my bit and don't care to waste my time with the licks of a scumbag drone like you.

>>15938450
So did you miss the part where I pointed out your immune system will hoover up fragments as part of pathogen detection or did you just not read anything in my post?
>DNA contamination could trigger an unwarranted innate immune response and may be prothrombotic
In other words this matches what I already explained to you and does not support your schizobabble here at all. >>15938391

Secondly, only one method (ng/dose) showed a dose-response curve for SAE/total AE and it was the least accurate one. Qubit fluorometry had negative curves for both.
>It is important to emphasize that because qPCR cannot quantitate molecules smaller than the size of the amplicon (105-114 bp), qPCR underestimates the total DNA in each vaccine.
So the worse estimator (fig 9) produced a positive signal while the better estimator produced a negative curve.

...And this is your evidence? One that, even IF it were right, follows from my explanation and would result in more immediate anaphylactic or prothrombotic responses and do NOTHING like you wrote? In a paper where the authors make up a bullshit excuse to only use outside-USA data, and then coyly gloss over figure 9 contradicting their conclusions and estimate by other means?

Did you even read this fucking paper? Or my post? Or anything?

>>15938471
>muh paper's model right
>your paper's empirical findings wrong
lol do you bootlick for free?

>>15938471
>the immune system is 100% effective
funny how covid gets passed it. not even electrical systems have the kind of idealised function your argument hinges on.

>>15938458
>except primary structure.
Still meaningless.
>except trash plasmid dna integration.
Still not a thing.
>see: >>15938450
See >>15938471 also I meant fig 8 vs fig 9, accidentally wrote fig 9 twice but that should be obvious if you read the thing.
>this is not about that
Then you're not talking about oncogenesis anymore you're talking about immediate short-term adverse reactions. Which you'd know if you knew what you were talking about and of course you don't.
>that's a gamble. the dna frgaments could have those sequences seeing as they are literally plasmids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfection
So at its utmost if you assume a whole lot of highly improbable coincidences the most you're going to get is a transiently transfected cell. You will also note as the article explains, if you further assume an even less probable sequence of events, and somehow a lipid contains short-RNA that also somehow could be transfected, ***that does not modify the cell's DNA***.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
>funny how those fail all the time seeing as there is this thing called cancer
Remember how covid-19 damages the immune system greatly increasing those errors? While you postulate a chain of events so unlikely that STILL end up without cancer as the explanation.

You're so clueless most of my time is spent trying to guess where to even start.

>>15938474
>lol do you bootlick for free?
No I just pointlessly explain why trolls like you are wrong for fun. Like how the paper contradicts itself on top of bizarrely cherrypicking non-USA VAERS submissions?
>your paper's empirical findings wrong
The same empirical findings that produce a null result with the more accurate method? Did you even read the post you replied to?
>>15938475
What the fuck are you on about? You've gone from being fundamentally wrong to just totally incoherent.

>>15938491
>labrat takes experimental gene therapy
>defends it because labrat

>>15938517
I see you're out of ideas. Hard to bullshit someone knows what they're talking about innit?

can we just stop making these dogshit threads? it is just vaxcattle. who cares? they took something developed at 'the speed of science' for a flu with an infinitesimal mortality rate. they tried to coerce everyone into their hysteria. who cares what happens to them? worst case scenario it gets them and we have a more rational world thereafter. stop making these threads.

>>15938537
but if they stop I won't be able to edutain people on stuff I know by debunking /pol/tards :c

>>15938491
>Still meaningless.
lmao no.
>Still not a thing.
lmao, look up "naked" dna integration. it is a thing, i'm sorry your understanding of molec bio ended with year 1.
>Then you're not talking about oncogenesis anymore you're talking about immediate short-term adverse reactions.
lmao no, oncogenesis has not been ruled out through naked dna integration.
>So at its utmost if you assume a whole lot of highly improbable coincidences the most you're going to get is a transiently transfected cell.
you have probabilities? show them.
>You have no idea what you are talking about.
says the corporate bootlicker who thinks his simple model for a complex system is how it plays out 100% of the time.
>You're so clueless most of my time is spent trying to guess where to even start.
lmao pottery.
>>15938502
>The same empirical findings that produce a null result with the more accurate method?
you mean the method that underestimates iwo has a much lower recall? so accurate. lmao brainlet.
>What the fuck are you on about?
the very point that you skew your belief that you think the simple models you cling to account for all the fuzzy nonsense that happens in bio. i'm sorry the point is way over your head but i don't have the time to handhold a dullard drone like you.

>>15938491
>>15938491
>Still meaningless.
lmao no.
>Still not a thing.
lmao, look up "naked" dna integration. it is a thing, i'm sorry your understanding of molec bio ended with year 1.
>Then you're not talking about oncogenesis anymore you're talking about immediate short-term adverse reactions.
lmao no, oncogenesis has not been ruled out through naked dna integration.
>So at its utmost if you assume a whole lot of highly improbable coincidences the most you're going to get is a transiently transfected cell.
you have probabilities? show them.
>You have no idea what you are talking about.
says the corporate bootlicker who thinks his simple model for a complex system is how it plays out 100% of the time.
>You're so clueless most of my time is spent trying to guess where to even start.
lmao pottery.
>>15938502
>The same empirical findings that produce a null result with the more accurate method?
lmao imagine not knowing precision vs recall trade-off.
>What the fuck are you on about?
the very point that you skew your belief that you think the simple models you cling to account for all the fuzzy nonsense that happens in bio. i'm sorry the point is way over your head but i don't have the time to handhold a dullard drone like you.

>>15938589
>lmao no.
no argument
>lmao, look up "naked" dna integration.
We are not prokaryotes. That is part of horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes, not eukaryotes. In eukaryotes the copying is generally separate from the cell chromosomes and the analogues are "episomes" not plasmids nor is it "naked DNA integration".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmid#Episomes
This is rather a mechanism used by a very small range of viruses with highly complex multi-stage behaviors to lay hidden until hijacking mitosis.

So like I said "not a thing". The analogue requires a whole specialized virus hijacking mitosis among other things. Leaving the only possibility transient integration that is unable to do what you claim because we are not bacteria. You don't know what you are talking about.
>you have probabilities? show them.
Shifting the burden of proof. But sure go ahead and try to argue a reasonable likelihood short of "end of universe" for extremely small DNA fragments to end up replicating complex multi-stage viral behavior. Your move shithead.
>you mean the method that underestimates iwo has a much lower recall? so accurate. lmao brainlet.
This is incoherent. qPCR cannot quantitate molecules smaller than the amplicon as noted and the fluorometric process found negative correlation. The study's only guessed "caveat" is unknown specificity of the dyes.
>the very point that you skew your belief that you think the simple models you cling to account for all the fuzzy nonsense that happens in bio
Which of us do you think has better understanding of that? You, the one equivocating whole-ass kingdoms out of ignorance and citing a study that doesn't even support you even if it wasn't contradictory, or the one fucking explaining cellular biology to you? Your bullshit is not possible. Cope.

>>15938611
>lmao, look up "naked" dna integration. it is a thing, i'm sorry your understanding of molec bio ended with year 1.
As noted >>15938642 you might want to look it up given you don't even understand the difference between the three domains.

I like how you added that "1st year molec bio" in your edited reply when you're fucking up so badly you can't even distinguish between the three domains of life. Even if you're "trolling" that's just fucking embarrassing.

>>15938642
>We are not prokaryotes.
never said we are. i see your understanding of this starts and ends with you running to wiki.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2022.996778/full
so much for prokaryotic dna like vax plasmids integrating into human genomes and causing cancers not being a thing.
>Shifting the burden of proof.
pottery, you claimed low probs. it's up to you to show it's low. i just presented a mechanism.
>This is incoherent.
you clearly don't know precision vs recall, do you? sad.
>You, the one equivocating whole-ass kingdoms
prokarya is a kingdom now? pathetic.

>>15938649
pathetic schizo making shit up. take your meds, you trust that corporate shit anyway.

>>15938656
>so much for prokaryotic dna like vax plasmids integrating into human genomes and causing cancers not being a thing.
Your furious googling only digs your hole deeper as you have, yet again, linked a study you did not read.

"There is a second barrier in the genome of eukaryotic cells: the nucleus. Usually, DNA is tightly condensed in chromosomes, which restricts the splicing of foreign DNA fragments into the genome. DNA generally cannot exit the nucleus because it is a D+ protein, which is too large to pass through the nuclear pore (ignore nuclear pore identification first). Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus. [...] Bacterial DNA can interact with nuclear compounds and enter the nucleus of host cells through nuclear pores. In the process of bacterial pathogenicity, the bacterial type IV secretion system (T4SS) mediates the DNA transfer of cell-to-cell binding and the cross-border protein transfer to eukaryotic host cells (Schröder et al., 2011)."

This is specific to bacteria and the manner in which bacteria secrete DNA. What now dumbass? Doesn't change anything I wrote and still doesn't support your asinine hypothesis.
>pottery, you claimed low probs. it's up to you to show it's low. i just presented a mechanism.
A mechanism for oncogenesis that is unique to bacteria secreted DNA. I recommend reading the paper next time you google trying to "win" an argument. So then, where's the mechanism and probability of random DNA fragments being integrated like this and causing integration oncogenesis without the specific encodings of secretions from the type IV secretion system?

Still waiting asshole.
>you clearly don't know precision vs recall, do you? sad.
By all means you go right ahead. Show me your work. I can hardly wait. You're not making shit up so you can do that, right? You know how to use the mathjax input and everything. You go right ahead and show me.

>>15938656
Oh and in addition to >>15938702 as if it wasn't bad enough you then have to somehow show this is persistent, not transient.

You know, because unlike bacteria hanging around forever spamming your cells the vaccine doesn't produce in perpetuity.

I can hardly wait for you to furiously google more keywords and post yet more random research you haven't read. Oooh maybe next you'll equivocate immunocompromised patients with poor clearance rates to everybody and claim the vaccine magically works like a virus replicating itself in perpetuity too! That is about the only way you could get any more retarded than you've been so far.

>>15938702
>Your furious googling only digs your hole deeper as you have, yet again, linked a study you did not read.
lmao:
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.
>This is specific to bacteria and the manner in which bacteria secrete DNA.
lmao, i really have to hand hold you through everything don't i? and what do lipid nanoparticles do with nucleic acids? exactly, retard. you are so dumb it's just sad. i'm going to bed, i really don't care what gibberish you regurgitate from wiki.
>By all means you go right ahead.
your concession is noted, brainlet.

>>15938708
>You know, because unlike bacteria hanging around forever spamming your cells the vaccine doesn't produce in perpetuity.
you'd love for people to be jabbed in perpetuity tho so don't even pretend. and also not all bacteria are assaulting your cells 24/7.

>>15938712
Yeah I thought not. Run away little chicken. Bawk bawk bawk bawk baaaawk!
>and what do lipid nanoparticles do with nucleic acids?
Not what you need to make your bullshit make sense. Remember how eukaryotes have a cell nucleus? Or did you forget I explained transfection already? >>15938491

So tl;dr you haven't the first fucking clue what you're talking about and ran out of furious googling. Which couldn't save your ass when it came time to put up or shut up and you chose "shut up". Bye bye troll, you lost again.

>>15938718
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.

>>15938719
I love that you clung to that like a life raft. Sorry little buddy but that's what hung you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_IV_secretion_system
You might, you just MIGHT, want to understand what that secretion system is and does and the differences between that and what random fragments are. Or, you know, in-context what the sentence means.
But there's an even simpler way to show how full of shit you are. You're basing what you think is a "gotcha" on a myth about how the mRNA vaccine works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine#Hesitancy
>>15938713
I don't do this to save you idiots I do this to humiliate you. By all means please reject modern medicine and keep dying in higher numbers. It genuinely only makes the world a better place.

>>15938729
> It is able to transport proteins and DNA across the cell membrane.[1]

>>15938729
scrambles to wiki again and produces nothing. enjoy being a corporate tool in perpetuity.

>>15938731
Not the nucleus. Which is the whole point and why the encoding by Bacteria as you cited is uniquely different. Oh, right, you didn't know that because you didn't read your own googled paper. mRNA ends up caught in the cytosol and rapidly degrades, and if the DNA fragments are bound into the transport lipid it would likewise degrade. Doesn't matter either way though because the very next sentence from what I quoted gives example contextualizing bacteria's secretion system's mechanisms,
>Bartonella henselae can transfer its cryptic plasmid into the human endothelial cell line EA.hy926 by its T4SS VirB/VirD4. DNA transfer to EA.hy926 cells were demonstrated by the insertion of reporter gene derivatives of Bartonella-specific mobile plasmids generated by the eukaryotic EGFP expression cassette. Egfp gene expression in EA.hy926 cells required cell division, suggesting that nuclear envelope rupture might facilitate passive entry of transferred ssDNA into the nucleus, a prerequisite for EGFP gene synthesis of complementary strands and transcription. During human infection with Bartonella, T4SS-dependent DNA might be naturally transferred into host cells (Schröder et al., 2011).

So not only did you not read the study you googled, you didn't think to check the VERY. NEXT. SENTENCE. You just clung to whatever you superficially thought supported you, don't know what you're talking about, and now your hand is caught in the cookie jar on all accounts.

>>15938739
Better luck next time dipshits.

>>15938741
lmao, you really are dumb beyond help. the secretion system secretes the dna that is picked up by the eukaryotic cell (in the case of lipid nanoparticles that is practically guaranteed\ as that is what they are made to do) and since "Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus." it is then transported into the nucleus of the euklaryote from the cytoplasm. like holy shit, the inability to put two and two together with you is so sad. lmao.

>>15938744
imagine thinking you won anything. have fun with your russian roulette jabs that don't do shit.

>>15938750
>it is then transported into the nucleus of the euklaryote from the cytoplasm
Nope. That's the myth. You can't even read a wiki page. Sad. It gets caught on the cytoplasm and unlike bacterial secretions does not have either mechanism to penetrate, doesn't last long enough, and assuming it somehow did it lacks the reverse transcriptase explained earlier.

So you're wrong on all accounts when you have to be right on all three. Big oof.

Anyhow as quoted the reason bacterial DNA secretions end up penetrating into the nucleus is due to their structure. It is not in fact just because "they're small", but specific and varied codes differing between bacteria produced by by that T4SS. As I said, literally the next sentence after in the same paragraph begins that explanation and ends as I quoted.

>>15938759
>That's the myth. You can't even read a wiki page.
great source, meanwhile in the actual; literature:
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.
what do you think this is referring to? it is crossing the nuclear membrane from the cytoplasm. like good grief you're dumb. the secretion system is for transport to the cytoplasm, not nucleus.
>Anyhow as quoted the reason bacterial DNA secretions end up penetrating into the nucleus is due to their structure.
no it does not, it literally is saying from your own wiki article:
> It is able to transport proteins and DNA across the cell membrane.[1]
> It is able to transport proteins and DNA across the cell membrane.[1]
> It is able to transport proteins and DNA across the cell membrane.[1]
that'as not nuclear membrane, dipshit.

>>15938759
>reverse transcriptase
lmao you can't even tell the difference between nucleic acids. lmao

>>15938762
Holy shit are you actually having a mental breakdown? Lmao the fucking cope.
>meanwhile in the actual; literature:
It explains the mechanism and it isn't just "because it's small". Which is why you're throwing a tantrum now.
>it is crossing the nuclear membrane from the cytoplasm.
Bacterial DNA does, but not just because of size. mRNA vaccine does not. Did you lose the plot that badly?
>no it does not, it literally is saying from your own wiki article: "It is able to transport proteins and DNA across the cell membrane." that's not nuclear membrane, dipshit.
Yeah? Wow you really lost the plot. The carcinogenesis from bacteria stems from nucleus penetration and integration with chromosomal DNA. Whole point being citing that paper was pointless on every possible point and further reinforced why mRNA vaccine and DNA fragments would not, and could not, because unlike the bacteria example it lacks any of the listed mechanisms.

But do please keep tantrum copy-pasting "but it's small! It's small! Lipid small too therefore same!!!" it makes you look very smart.

>>15938771
lmao you're really bad at this. they found dna frags from plasmids in vaxes, dna like rna will be transported to the cytoplasm thanks to the lipid nanoparticles and since these frags are small will be transported to the nucleus for integration. it's really not hard to see unless you're desperate to justify your poor life choices or just that much of a dumb corporate tool. not like there is much meaningful difference here.

>>15938771
>The carcinogenesis from bacteria stems from nucleus penetration
it just skips over the cell membrane does it?

>>15938764
And you can't read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine#Hesitancy
The point regarding reverse transcriptase concerns mechanism for transcription from RNA. With regard to DNA you're back to the problem outlined at the start >>15938413 re: the necessary coding for initiating, translating, etc. Which has never been addressed, I might add.

>>15938778
lmao i remember when you retards were saying there was no dna in the vaxes and now here we are. again you coping like the integration can't be a thing. you are repeatedly wrong and have to move your goal post like with efficacy.

>>15938775
>lmao you're really bad at this.
So bad that all you can do is cling to your life-raft that makes you look dumber with each repetition, and now you're stuck forever repeating it despite being shown wrong by your own citation. Nah I think I'm fucking great at this.
>and since these frags are small will be transported to the nucleus for integration
the more you say it the funnier it gets. Per your own source that is not how the nucleus gets penetrated by bacterial DNA secretions >>15938741 because, not surprisingly, that is not how anything works.

Anything else or are you satisfied repeating the dumbest thing you could possibly say?

>>15938784
you're so delusional. go take your meds, your schizophrenia is acting up.

>>15938779
>again you coping like the integration can't be a thing
Hardly. You gave a very recent citation, one that appears quite good addressing something quite novel, and which does provide mechanisms that make sense. The problem is nothing in it provides mechanism for your claimed outcome nor claimed process.

So it isn't "integration can't be a thing", it's "your magical cancer causing DNA fragments can't do what your claim requires they do because there's no mechanism for it to happen".

But I'm sure you're going to lie about that too. Otherwise you'd have to admit you were wrong.

>>15938792
Aw, giving up again? But I'm having so much fun! Come on what about the mark of the beast and secret nanotechnology sterilization? There's such a diverse field of bullshit from you people to explore! Why give up now?

>>15938793
just like you retards said there was no dna in vaxes. only to find that there is.

>>15938796
i wasted enough of my time with a corpo drone who can't do the slightest bit of reasoning and extrapolation. you're the kind of dipshit who can only regurgitate what's written in the wiki. not worth anyone's time.

>>15938805
Pretty sure the claim was "mRNA alters chromosomal DNA" per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine#Hesitancy
>just like you retards said there was no dna in vaxes. only to find that there is.
Riddle me this,
If "we" claimed "no DNA" as you're implying in this context, then why does the FDA set thresholds on this sort of thing? So obviously it wasn't that. You know what it was? "we" debunked mythical chromosomal-altering bullcrap and you were wrong about that. Since you can't admit it you have to modify history to recover from humiliating yourself all day here.
>>15938808
>you're the kind of dipshit who can only regurgitate what's written in the wiki.
And explain your own sources to you. And explain generalities and particulars of relevant cellular and molecular biology. And trap you into getting stuck in a loop of embarrassing copy-pasting lmao

But hey who's counting. Well, I am but that's because I can count. By the way what happened to that analysis of precision/recall you can totally show was relevant? >>15938611 you know since you're still here and all. And that never materialized. Conveniently.

Thought I forgot?

>>15938812
>then why does the FDA set thresholds on this sort of thing
good question, why would they? could it be that the risks are unknown? still didn't stop you retards from claiming they don't when they do and it's well over the allowable threshold.
>And explain your own sources to you.
only in you deluded mind, yeah the secretion just jumps over the cell membrane to deliver it to the nucleus.

>>15938824
>good question, why would they? could it be that the risks are unknown?
Why yes, thanks for admitting there is no known mechanism to cause what you're claiming. Except what sars-cov-2 does, of course.
>still didn't stop you retards from claiming they don't when they do and it's well over the allowable threshold.
Just going to pretend you're not engaged in historical revisionism then? Yeah I thought you might.
>only in you deluded mind, yeah the secretion just jumps over the cell membrane to deliver it to the nucleus.
Read your own citation. You're the one who googled it. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2022.996778/full#h5
"Bacterial DNA can interact with nuclear compounds and enter the nucleus of host cells through nuclear pores. In the process of bacterial pathogenicity, the bacterial type IV secretion system (T4SS) mediates the DNA transfer of cell-to-cell binding and the cross-border protein transfer to eukaryotic host cells (Schröder et al., 2011). Bartonella henselae can transfer its cryptic plasmid into the human endothelial cell line EA.hy926 by its T4SS VirB/VirD4. DNA transfer to EA.hy926 cells were demonstrated by the insertion of reporter gene derivatives of Bartonella-specific mobile plasmids generated by the eukaryotic EGFP expression cassette. Egfp gene expression in EA.hy926 cells required cell division, suggesting that nuclear envelope rupture might facilitate passive entry of transferred ssDNA into the nucleus, a prerequisite for EGFP gene synthesis of complementary strands and transcription. During human infection with Bartonella, T4SS-dependent DNA might be naturally transferred into host cells (Schröder et al., 2011)."

There you go. Different examples are given for different methods of entry. Size alone does not work, you also need to breech or produce a signal for transport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pore
As you can plainly read Bartonella is like other episomes already discussed. >>15938642

>>15938840
>Why yes, thanks for admitting there is no known mechanism to cause what you're claiming.
not hard to see how there could be.
>Except what sars-cov-2 does, of course.
even that has a lot of unanswered questions. but there is an easy way to make sure you never contract it and it's not these dubious vaxes.
>Just going to pretend you're not engaged in historical revisionism then? Yeah I thought you might.
lmao newfag or liar.
>you also need to breech or produce a signal for transport.
and that study found nls too.

>>15938840
>Size alone does not work
yet they wrote:
>Bacterial genetic material, however, is relatively small, and it is relatively easy to enter and leave the nucleus.
they never said size alone doesn't cut it.

>>15938875
>they never said size alone doesn't cut it.
Everyone is free to go review nuclear pores and how they work. "They didn't say something everyone who knows anything already knows" is your defense now?

Heck works for me keep demonstrating how clueless antivaxxers are. Stick with that story since you refuse to learn better.

>>15938878
https://journals.biologists.com/jcs/article/112/12/2033/25730/A-nuclear-localization-signal-can-enhance-both-the
>DNA can passively enter intact nuclei in a size-dependent manner
>The DNAs of different sizes labeled with Texas Red fluorophores were also assayed for their ability to enter the nuclei of digitonin-treated cells at 4°C and without ‘energy’ (Fig. 3). The 70 bp DNA accumulated evenly throughout nuclei (Fig. 3A), while 110 bp and 200 bp DNAs displayed both hazy and small, punctate staining (Fig. 3B,C). The 310 bp, 510 bp and 1 kb DNAs had a very small level of nuclear haze and little of the punctate staining (Fig. 3D-F) that was prominent at 37°C and with ‘energy’ (Fig. 1D-F). Nuclear rimming was more prominent in nuclei exposed to DNA greater than 310 bp (Fig. 3). These results indicate that there is a transition in the accumulation efficiency of 200 and 310 bp double-stranded DNA at 4°C.

>>15938883
I feel sorry for you by this point. You've once again cited something as a "gotcha" that has no relevance to you whatever except your superficial understanding of certain terms.
>digitonin-treated cells
You might want to google what that means.
>The covalently-attached NLS was functional in the digitonin-treated cell system but was unable to enhance DNA nuclear entry in living cells after microinjection.
Here's a free hint.
Oh, and did you wonder what streptavidin was?
>streptavidin-NLS/NL
Might want to look that one up too. With the nonfunctional variant only 1% of HeLa cells expressed any GFP and there's considerable room for error at that low expression with such a high volume injection from simple degradation. The paper does point out degredation though mainly against being able to explain the only example of strong GFP expression (which is a fair point at 10% but definitely not at 1% weak expression) given the methods in 1999.

While we're at it beyond the fact the paper's conclusion notes fairly low success of diffusion and lower expression, though decent given 1999 that was something to be happy about, did you stop to think about the quantities injected?
>220 ng/μl -1.75 μg/μl DNA
lol
Do you happen to know the cellular mass of HeLa cells? I'm guessing no. I do not see reference of specifics and this paper is fairly old, so going with an average I pulled up 2.29ng/cell and some more recent estimates still around that at 2.3 ng.

So, since I know you're completely clueless, I figured I'd give you a ratio to realize just how fucking absurd your level of reaching is here. The live cell 200 ng injection was ~87 times as much mass as the mass of the cell. Ignoring error degradation etc, that achieved 1% GFP expression in live HeLa without streptavidin. So with junk. Requiring nearly 87 times the mass of the cell with direct injection.

And you think this paper is relevant to anything or somehow supports your point? pic rel

>>15938883
Oh of course silly me in all the fun I almost forgot. In addition to >>15939031 if you're curious this follows a diffusion law. The paper of course took 4 hours and various times awaiting diffusion with utterly gargantuan quantities. Since you're going to invent more bullshit instead of admitting you're an idiot,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick%27s_laws_of_diffusion

Had you bothered reading wikipedia like I keep suggesting to keep more to your level, and with easier more context given explanation, you might've been able to put 2+2 together and realize just how much passive transport of any meaningful chunk of DNA will rely on. This is of course noted here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_transport
Passive transport primarily applies to far smaller solute molecules, ions, water, things like that. In order to shove something as large as even 100 bp of DNA through you will find quite substantial quantities are injected into the cells with very low uptake and very low expression.

So what does that mean in simple terms? Your belief in this happening at scale in your body fundamentally defies physics because you didn't understand what passive transport for such a huge thing as even 100 bp is at this scale. There's also an additional problem because even where modern attempts at passive transport like this happen we can better see what's going on, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10636854/
All DNA fragments end up immobilized due to getting stuck on shit because they're too large.

So physics says "lol no", and observation says "lol no". You might as well have said the Earth is flat.

>>15938883
Merry Christmas Schizo.
See ya later after you lie a fuckton more over the next couple days while you scramble to pretend you're still remotely correct about anything.

>>15939031
>>15939080
holy shit btfo'd for all eternity

>>15938521
Hard to imagine different people are resoonding to your goofy assertion. You are a lab rat and you're rationalizing away regulatory compliance because of it. I literally don't have to read your walls of cope and seethe to shit on you. You accepted experimental gene therapy, on that basis alone, I safely assert your arguments as primitive, low IQ, and overtly pandering to pharma faggots.
Imagine standing up for them, do they even pay you? Lmao even.

>>15939031
>You might want to google what that means.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261132/#:~:text=Digitonin%20is%20a%20nonionic%20detergent,functional%20for%20transport%20(7).
>Digitonin is a nonionic detergent that binds cholesterol selectively, and at low concentrations permeabilizes the plasma membrane while leaving the nuclear envelope and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) intact and functional for transport (7).

>>15939080
you claimed there was never passive diffusion and now we find there is. now you are claiming you know what the lower bound for concentration of dna is and saying look we need to have so much as the paper. ok you have fick's law, now what is it? hint: you need to treat the small and large chromosomal dna differently eventhough they are polymers of similar composition but chromosomes have histones etc too. you think you know, but you don't know jack and are coping with being such a drone for the corporatocratic establishment that is falling apart in 4k for the whole world to see.

>>15937142
it means the vax is making proteins its not supposed to.

they claim they are harmless and they claim its due to your body “misreading” the vaccine mrna but proof is needed on both

>>15939740
>you claimed there was never passive diffusion and now we find there is
Yeah just inject so much directly into a cell it literally shoves the square peg through the round holes. A thing that would never be possible in ordinary conditions. A thing explained to you. A thing cited to you. A thing where even if that does occur the DNA is so big it gets stuck and immobilized with extremely low odds of anything else happening even in highly contrived direct injection. And you think that shows me being dishonest. Lmao.

Give up antivaxxie you fell on your face nobody's going to buy your bullshit. Merry fucking Christmas dipshit,

>>15940615
a square peg smaller than the round hole that floats about and tries to reach and equilibrium of concentration on both sides. your failure of basic chem is noted.

>>15941240
>tries to reach and equilibrium of concentration on both sides
Forces preventing that are why such a substantial concentration gradient needs to be created for even a small percentage of such debris to end up passively diffused.

There's really nothing left for you on this retarded idea. Passive transport is not determined by mere size alone, and forcing the issue past the nucleus's defenses requires impossible to achieve concentration gradients. Random DNA does not function as bacteria or viral infections do, with targeted methods to overcome those defenses. Nor does passive diffusion get you there as normal injection can't create that kind of concentration.

So what now? Just keep pretending it's only linear size despite repeated correction to the contrary with multiple links clearly demonstrating it requires an impossible differential or are you going to make up a new set of lies?

>>15941246
>le force is not enough
prove it

>>15941248
>shifting burden of proof
What's the matter? Can't do the math? Your own 1999 citation required ~87 times the mass of the cell to be directly injected to create enough of a gradient to, without special modifications to the cell or especially effective modifications to the DNA, achieve a <1% diffusion rate.

YOU, sir, have to show that (a) regular injection will create widespread concentration gradients within cells, (b) that this gradient causes substantial ingress to the nucleus, and (c) this ingress results in transcription rather than immobilization as my other citation showed.

YOU have the burden of proof. I have shown you every step of the way, and explained your own sources to you, why this is not feasible. Your job is to show that it is feasible or fuck off.

>>15941251
>can't calc shit to prove the safety of the corpo junk he is shilling
you concession is noted, the burden of proof is on you drones. it's your product.

>>15941262
>can't do the math
I thought not. So you really are reduced to just going "nuh uh". Pathetic.

>>15941263
>projection
as expected from a brainless corpo drone.

>>15940397
>they claim they are harmless
the pro vax community has made many false claims in the past, why should anyone trust them now?

>>15937193

>>15937197
Too late for that you silly human. Thanks to Bill Gates all meat in the EU and USA will come from animals vaccinated with mRNA and therefore filled with prions.

Jesus christ, I visit this board a few times every year and you losers still talk about this bullshit

Nobody needs to poison you cucks by vaccines, turns out you willingly throw away your lfie anyway

>>15937608
>>15937743
>>15938210
>>15938413
>>15938471
>>15938491
>>15938502
Just give up, you are too fucking retarded to even understand what is going on.

>>15940397
The team who found out about the vaxxie igg4 class switch said it was harmless too (with absolutely no evidence) pretty funny all around really