Covid vaccine does rewrite DNA

Author: Wylted

Posts

Total: 83
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Conspiracy theorists were mocked when they suggested COVID vaccines could rewrite your DNA. Now conspiracy theorists are proven right. Scientists determine MRNA does have the ability to rewrite DNA. https://scitechdaily.com/new-discovery-shows-human-cells-can-write-rna-sequences-into-dna-challenges-central-principle-in-biology/amp/


I wonder what the purpose of MRNA vaccines really are? This is why I got the Johnson and Johnson one. 

Please see my other thread about how to cure the vaccine if you messed up and got the Pfizer or modena vaccine.  If you are considering getting the vaccine, go with Johnson and Johnson
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Here is he thread I gave you the cure in. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6222-cure-for-the-vaccine
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Wylted really, really wants you to buy that $65 bag of pine needles.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
I don't get any of the proceeds from pine needle sales. I am an uncompensated neutral 3rd party, which makes me a reliable disseminater of information 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 562
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I'm also skeptical, I won't lie. mRNA isn't something we should be injecting into our bodies so readily. Unfortunately, mRNA vaccine (Pfizer) is the only one available in some nations to the younger age groups (below 30).

I'll recommend conspiracy theorists of younger age groups just sit it out and wait for the AstraZeneca, JJ or something to be available but AZ has fatal blood clots as a potential side effect so ultimately schoolgoers and college students who really do need to get vaccinated due to daily contact with others will end up needing to surrender and get the mRNA, I am curious what the need to alter DNA is though. Why did mRNA vaccines need to be invented?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Wylted
One of the most popular circulating mistruths at the moment is that mRNA vaccines will alter your DNA, with pseudoscientific content flooding social networks such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. The good news is that they simply can’t do this, which will come as a disappointment to some who were hoping that this might be their chance for superpowers, but where did this belief in DNA-changing vaccines come from?
“I think people are concerned that because this is genetic material injected into the body, could it somehow mix in with your own genetic material and change it,” said Sara Riordan, President of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.
But there are crucial differences between DNA which carries all of the information we inherited from our parents and mRNA, which the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines are made of. DNA is double-stranded, very very long and bundled up tightly together inside a part of the cell called the nucleus. mRNA is a single-stranded copy of a small part of DNA, which is routinely made in the nucleus, but then released into the main part of the cell so that the instructions it carries can be ‘read’ and made into a variety of proteins needed by the cell.
“mRNA is naturally made by the body, it encodes instructions for your body's cells to make protein. Any mRNA vaccine has the same purpose, to teach and train your body to make an immune response toward a particular pathogen, so if the pathogen gets into your body, your immune system can attack it,” said Riordan.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@FLRW
The article I shared sources peer reviewed uncontroversial and bleeding edge scientific study results. What exactly do you disagree with. Check out the sites other articles, it seems pretty reliable information. 
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@FLRW

What part are you disputing in that? RNA can rewrite DNA. 
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,086
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Wylted
No , I am saying mRNA cannot rewrite DNA.
  • mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA (genetic material) is kept.
  • The cell breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@FLRW
From the article 


Cells contain machinery that duplicates DNA into a new set that goes into a newly formed cell. That same class of machines, called polymerases, also build RNA messages, which are like notes copied from the central DNA repository of recipes, so they can be read more efficiently into proteins. But polymerases were thought to only work in one direction DNA into DNA or RNA. This prevents RNA messages from being rewritten back into the master recipe book of genomic DNA. Now, Thomas Jefferson University researchers provide the first evidence that RNA segments can be written back into DNA, which potentially challenges the central dogma in biology and could have wide implications affecting many fields of biology.
“This work opens the door to many other studies that will help us understand the significance of having a mechanism for converting RNA messages into DNA in our own cells,” says Richard Pomerantz, PhD, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Thomas Jefferson University. “The reality that a human polymerase can do this with high efficiency, raises many questions.” For example, this finding suggests that RNA messages can be used as templates for repairing or re-writing genomic DNA.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Wylted
Our study unexpectedly reveals that Polθ reverse transcribes RNA and undergoes a significant structural transformation to accommodate a DNA/RNA template. The structural transformation of Polθ’s thumb subdomain is likely needed to maintain productive interactions on DNA/RNA, which adopts a significantly different conformation relative to DNA/DNA in the Polθ complex
So you see- you should read before you say things.

No - Vaccines do not rewrite RNA

No - RNA does not rewrite your DNA

A specific enzyme is capable of reverse transcribing RNA into DNA..... 
Polymerase θ (Polθ) is a unique DNA polymerase-helicase fusion protein in higher eukaryotes whose A-family polymerase domain evolved from Pol I enzymes (Fig. 1A) (12). However, contrary to most Pol I enzymes, Polθ is highly error-prone and promiscuous
Specifically for repairing RNA:
Together, these structural studies reveal that Polθ has an extraordinary degree of structural plasticity that enables it to efficiently transcribe template ribonucleotides and accommodate a full RNA-DNA hybrid within its active site. Although future studies will be required to fully elucidate the physiological relevance of Polθ RT activity, our findings demonstrate that Polθ accommodates template ribonucleotides in an active configuration and promotes RNA-DNA repair, which may contribute to cellular tolerance of genome-embedded ribonucleotides.
These aren't even in most tissue cells:
Polθ is not expressed in most tissues but is highly expressed in many cancer cells, which corresponds to a poor clinical outcome (1314). Furthermore, Polθ confers resistance to genotoxic cancer therapies and promotes the survival of cells deficient in DNA damage response pathways (111316). Thus, Polθ represents a promising cancer drug target.
It is the focus for CANCER RESEARCH

Your inability for simple comprehension is astounding. None of this study say's ANYTHING about foreign RNA's ability to actually take over or actually reproduce inside of your cells. Which you would have to prove in order for your hypothesis to have any credence. Furthermore, you would have to prove that this enzyme could actually reverse transcribe foreign RNA and not just Domestic. Further furthermore, you would have to prove that it is able to reverse transcribe MESSENGER RNA - which is a different thing from just plain 'ole RNA. Please do READ next time.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you see- you should read before you say things.

No - Vaccines do not rewrite RNA

No - RNA does not rewrite your DNA

A specific enzyme is capable of reverse transcribing RNA into DNA..... 

That's just a semantical difference and basically what I said. 

Your inability for simple comprehension is astounding. None of this study say's ANYTHING about foreign RNA's ability to actually take over or actually reproduce inside of your cells. Which you would have to prove in order for your hypothesis to have any credence. Furthermore, you would have to prove that this enzyme could actually reverse transcribe foreign RNA and not just Domestic. Further furthermore, you would have to prove that it is able to reverse transcribe MESSENGER RNA - which is a different thing from just plain 'ole RNA. Please do READ next 

The study actually proves the hypothesis, which is stated in the title of the article.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Wylted
No - no it is not - if you had any idea what you're talking about you would KNOW that they don't at all mean the same thing.

Here is the actual name of the study:
"Polθ reverse transcribes RNA and promotes RNA-templated DNA repair"
The study says nothing about foreign mRNA or even mRNA at all - it doesn't say anything about rewriting DNA, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. 
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
So what? Growth itself adds on to DNA. In fact, snapping your finger would probably change your DNA too. In the end, does it even matter?
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
What matters is people said it was impossible when conspiracy Theorists suggested it
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Wylted
Both "the people" and "the conspiracists" must be dummies then.

The "conspiracists" stated a literal truism and the people denied it.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
That May offend weakeredge

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Wylted
Because speaking from a biological perspective, you are completely wrong, and your interpretation was also nonsensical - no snapping your fingers does not "change your DNA", in fact, snapping your fingers doesn't even change your DNA. These claims are absurd and pseudoscientific, borne of a failed understanding of genetics.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Wylted
Offend? Was Einstein offended by Newton?

We are talking about scientific interpretations, and all he is doing is correcting what I have said wrong about a thing.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Haven't seen this source on the forum yet.


Wonder what ideas it may spark here.
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Wylted
Please read the text. It’s actually a pretty neat finding.

It says that mRNA can be rewritten back into DNA, similarly to how a retroviruses reverse transcribes its genome. It does not alter the human genome to do this, though they theorize that the purpose for it is to find mutations in the genome using these small DNA fragments as a template.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@whiteflame
Yeah I read it. I thought it was interesting because it seemed to be exactly what some conspiracy theorists say. 


I think the difference between "MRNA being rewritten into the dna" and theorists saying it rewrites DNA, is merely jargon. They say the latter but meant the former. 

Also would love to debate you on germ theory at some point. It seems some scientist was going around injecting himself with HIV for years to  prove germ theory was bad, so it may be interesting to explore.
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Wylted
I think the difference between "MRNA being rewritten into the dna" and theorists saying it rewrites DNA, is merely jargon. They say the latter but meant the former. 
That is not a difference in jargon. If I say that mRNA is being reverse transcribed, I mean that it’s having a copy made that is DNA. If I say that it rewrites DNA, I’m saying that it modifies a DNA sequence. That is a pretty important distinction, especially as the former has no lasting effects.

Also would love to debate you on germ theory at some point. It seems some scientist was going around injecting himself with HIV for years to  prove germ theory was bad, so it may be interesting to explore.
Be happy to, though this guy sounds like a crackpot. There is a subset of the population that is immune to HIV, just FYI.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@whiteflame
I mean I have to read several textbooks on information to sonit so maybe not.

What makes somebody a crackpot? 


What would make a high IQ individual who is an expert on the subject matter and seemingly normal everywhere else in life say that germ theory is wrong?

Can we be confident it is correct if some genius who is a specialist in that field and who knows the subject better than us, says it is incorrect.  

It would be a shame if the outlier opi in is correct. That means science is moving slower than it needs to be, and the older I get the worse that is, because it keeps me from benefiting on various cures for aging that come with advancement. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 562
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@whiteflame
@FLRW
Something I have noticed that the News articles 'shutting down' the mRNA conspiracy theories do wrong is they confuse 'does' with 'can'.

Can mRNA trigger extremely calculated, subtle changes to DNA when made by the most advanced genetic scientists on our planet? Yes, for sure. 

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.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 562
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I am not an anti-vaxxer, primarily because I know how important vaccines are. I do not, however, support shutting down conspiracy theories by assuming that the scientists who would be in on the lie aren't lying, that's just ridiculous.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Rm says

In the end how would we really know? Those that knew could easily be silenced, don't deny it.
That is what scares me. If there is some large conspiracy they could pull it off and nobody would be the wiser. Bvn it is best to stay on guard from that
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Wylted
I’d say actively working to try to infect yourself with a deadly virus falls in line with “crackpot” behavior. If he’s right, he gets to be smug and little else. If he’s wrong, he gets a deadly virus. Not saying actual scientists can’t show that degree of insanity - the actual case where someone discovered that Helicobacter pylori could cause stomach ulcers involved him swallowing a pure culture of the stuff. He got ulcers.

As for his qualifications, that remains to be seen. I don’t know this person, but I know a lot of scientists and, in particular, a lot of microbiologists. All of them agree that the germ theory of disease is accurate. Not impossible that they’re wrong, but if we’re going to appeal to authority, one researcher hardly seems like the stronger choice.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@whiteflame
I am referring to Antoine Bechamp. 
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Bechamp did not inject himself with HIV. I think it was somebody later who ran with his ideal. I'll have to dig into it