It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


mRNA Vaccines May Cause Your Body to Churn out PRIONS that “Eat your Brain”

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 11 2021 @ 09:21 PM
This is a legitimate concern due to mRNA being very unstable. mRNA instability is the largest hurdle to distributing mRNA based vaccines.

Opportunities and Challenges in the Delivery of mRNA-Based Vaccines

While mRNA vaccines are in transit between manufacture and patient, many environment factors could compromise the mRNA and cause premature degradation and mutation.

If this degraded / mutated mRNA is injected into your body, it will be translated as-is and could result in mutant proteins. Junk in -> junk out.

Mutated protein can have single amino acid change (minor, but still in many cases significant change leading to disease) or wide-range amino acid changes by e.g. truncation of C-terminus after introducing premature stop codon.

Since degradation or mutation of mRNA is inherently random, it means there is no way to know what the resulting mutant protein would be. It could be a deadly protein, or it could be a nonsense mutation. It could be bad...

Mutation of genes controlling mRNA metabolism and protein synthesis predisposes to neurodevelopmental disorders

Genetic compensation triggered by mutant mRNA degradation

Missense mutation

Missense mRNA

Molecular mechanisms of disease-causing missense mutations

MRNA Transcription, Translation, and Defects in Developmental Cognitive and Behavioral Disorders

The different types of mutations

mRNA can mutate unexpectedly before it is translated. This can cause mutated (unknown) proteins to form during translation. These proteins can cause diseases and or death in the worst case scenario.

edit on 11-4-2021 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2021 @ 03:11 AM

Missense mutations can render the resulting protein nonfunctional,[2] and such mutations are responsible for human diseases such as Epidermolysis bullosa, sickle-cell disease, and SOD1 mediated ALS.[3]

A missense mutation is a mistake in the DNA which results in the wrong amino acid being incorporated into a protein because of change, that single DNA sequence change, results in a different amino acid codon which the ribosome recognizes. Changes in amino acid can be very important in the function of a protein. But sometimes they make no difference at all, or very little difference. Sometimes missense mutations cause amino acids to be incorporated, which make the protein more effective in doing its job. More frequently, it causes the protein to be less effective in doing its job. But this is really the grist of evolution, when missense mutations happen, and therefore small changes, frequently small changes in proteins, happen, and it happens to be that it improves the function of a protein. That will sometimes give the organism that has it a competitive advantage over its colleagues and be maintained in the population.
Nonsense Mutations also result in diseases.

Some genetic disorders, such as thalassemia and cystic fibrosis[3] result from point-nonsense mutations.

The main method that helps keep this in check is Nonsense-mediated mRNA decay.

Nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) is a quality-control mechanism that selectively degrades mRNAs harboring premature termination (nonsense) codons. If translated, these mRNAs can produce truncated proteins with dominant-negative or deleterious gain-of-function activities.

They do agree that nonsense mutations can lead to either gain-of-function or ... dominant-negative mutations.

Dominant negative mutations (also called antimorphic mutations) have an altered gene product that acts antagonistically to the wild-type allele. These mutations usually result in an altered molecular function (often inactive) and are characterized by a dominant or semi-dominant phenotype. In humans, dominant negative mutations have been implicated in cancer (e.g., mutations in genes p53,[50] ATM,[51] CEBPA[52] and PPARgamma[53]). Marfan syndrome is caused by mutations in the FBN1 gene, located on chromosome 15, which encodes fibrillin-1, a glycoprotein component of the extracellular matrix.[54] Marfan syndrome is also an example of dominant negative mutation and haploinsufficiency.[55][56]

edit on 12-4-2021 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)

In summary, there is a lot of information here that doesn't directly relate to mRNA mutations, but rather mutations in general. However mRNA mutations can create mutant proteins that could be disastrous, and cause death or disease.
edit on 12-4-2021 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2021 @ 05:19 AM
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Never heard of this one, but I guess we will find out huh? LOL I mean I do read alternative news but I don't think this one has much merit to it.

posted on Apr, 12 2021 @ 05:36 AM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I read it over quickly... actually, the more I read the quicker I read. I saw no research or even detailed hypothesis; the paper reads to me like a lot of "maybe," "might," and "possibly." That's not what i expect from an actual paper. ...

Well, it's standard in the field of evolutionary philosophy, misleadingly referred to as evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, paleoanthropology, etc.

The people conducting this study are psychologists, and their essay provides no evidence that they did any empirical studies to determine if the behaviors being studied actually produced more offspring than other behaviors. They simply spin tales about how — possibly, maybe, perhaps — it might be so. Neither did they provide any scientific studies of genes, to see if there actually are genes that produce these behaviors. Thus — except to those who already assume that evolutionary psychology is true — the evidence is profoundly underwhelming.

Source: Darwinism and the Sexual Revolution (Evolution News)

Now for the Data

If this were an early arthropod with articulating limbs, that might be something. How clear is that evidence? Barras is not embarrassed to admit:

Exactly which animal lineage Y. spiciformis belonged to is unclear. The researchers suggest it might be a relative of insects and crustaceans such as shrimp and lobsters, because it seems to have leg-like structures. If further analysis shows that those structures are actually an artefact of the fossilization process, the animal might instead be some sort of primitive segmented worm.

Some caution is clearly advised. Many Ediacaran creatures were segmented. Some also showed bilateral symmetry. Controlled movement, however, would imply muscles, nerves, some kind of “skeleton” (not necessarily bone) able to hold its shape. The legs would have to be coordinated. How clear is the data on movement? It doesn’t sound too convincing in the Virginia Tech piece:

Remarkably, the find also marks what may be the first sign of decision making among animals — the trails suggest an effort to move toward or away from something, perhaps under the direction of a sophisticated central nerve system, Xiao said.

Maybe, suggest, perhaps. It would be necessary to rule out all other sources of movement, say, from waves and currents, which could cause a long worm-like thing to shift along the sea floor and even change direction. In a video, lead author Shuhai Xiao relies on animation to show his vision of a bilaterian animal, with head and tail and left and right sides and top and bottom, crawling with legs through the mud. The actual fossil, though, seems less clear. The BBC quotes Wood, “Though it’s not well-preserved, it has the hint that it has a front and a back… so this animal has already got some sense of unidirectional movement.”

New Scientist takes “the hint” and runs with it. “An extinct creature that looked like a cross between a millipede and an earthworm was one of the first animals that could move under its own power.” Yet later the article says that other Ediacarans moved passively with the water current, while perhaps Kimberella could “slither across the sea floor.” None of those organisms had a central nervous system, a gut, or a head with mouth parts. Did Yilingia? It’s not clear.

Room for Doubt

The actual paper in Nature leaves plenty of room to doubt the hype. Motility is inferred, because there is no clear evidence of actual legs or any other organs; no mention of a head, either. How is a motile creature supposed to move without eating? The authors impose wishful thinking on a paucity of data from one spot in China. If this were such a monumental discovery, clear evidence of complex organs at this stage would have been found by now, and would be widespread all over the earth. Watch how the authors’ first sentence — an admission of ignorance — launches a Darwin party cruise.


Source: Worming Evolution into the Cambrian Explosion (Evolution News)

Sorry if it's a bit off-topic, but the example above would be a bit too confusing if I left out even more of the context. I tried to keep it as short as I could without leaving out too much, so that one can still see what's going on here. In some fields, speculation is widely accepted and editors of magazines like Nature have no issue giving their stamp of approval which is then interpreted as "peer reviewed" by others (especially in news articles about it).
edit on 12-4-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2021 @ 09:27 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

it's standard in the field of evolutionary philosophy

Ah, OK. I prefer to deal with science.

In some fields, speculation is widely accepted and editors of magazines like Nature have no issue giving their stamp of approval which is then interpreted as "peer reviewed" by others (especially in news articles about it).

Those fields are not science. Science does deal with speculation, but that speculation is fodder for experimentation or analysis, not conclusions.

Peer review is not done by publishers. You are confusing publication with peer review. Peer review is exactly what is sounds like: independent review by peers, not publishers. If I were versed in the non-science and were to either duplicate experiments or analysis, I would then be a "peer reviewer" by virtue of the fact I would be a peer and would have reviewed the work. If you were versed in the non-science and were to either duplicate experiments or analysis, you would then be a "peer reviewer" by virtue of the fact you would be a peer and would have reviewed the work.

Nature is staffed by editors and journalists who have some scientific (or in this case non-scientific) background. They are not peers and they do not actively review the work except to ensure it makes prima facia sense (and has journalistic merit).


posted on Apr, 14 2021 @ 05:32 AM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: whereislogic

... You are confusing publication with peer review.

You seemed to have missed my point. My point was about those reading an article in scientific magazines like Nature, and automatically thinking that just because it's in that magazine, it has been peer reviewed or is based on something that was peer reviewed; when often, the main reason why it's in the magazine, is just because an editor gave a stamp of approval. Also, often an article in such magazines is based on a published paper that is said to have been peer reviewed, but again, those who supposedly reviewed it before publication, primarily just gave their stamp of approval (often not even having read the entire paper in detail, let alone reproducing the experiments in exactly the same way if there were any experiments involved at all in the first place, there are also so-perceived 'peer reviewed' papers that don't involve any experimentation at all; and these too find their way to the public by way of supposedly 'scientific' magazines, and causing these people to perceive them as being 'peer reviewed', just because they're in the magazine, or because the paper was published, with or without claims regarding peer review). That is what I was talking about.

A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

Maybe a bit of context will help.

Fraud in Science: A Look Behind the Scenes (Awake!—1984)


In the wake of the widely publicized recent series of frauds in prestigious research institutes, the Association of American Medical Colleges issued a report setting out guidelines on how to deal with fraud in research. The report, in essence, maintained that “the overwhelming probability that fraudulent data will be detected soon after their presentation” is a safeguard against unethical practices.

This assessment, however, did not sit well with many others, both inside and outside the scientific community. For example, a New York Times editorial, calling the report “a shallow diagnosis of science fraud,” pointed out that “none of the frauds was originally brought to light through the standard mechanisms by which scientists check each other’s work.”

In fact, a member of the report committee, Dr. Arnold S. Relman, who is also an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, likewise disagreed with the report’s conclusion. “What kind of protection against fraud does peer review offer?” he asked. “Little or none.” To back up his argument, Relman continued: “Fraudulent work was published in peer-reviewed journals, some with very exacting standards. In the case of the two papers we published, no suggestion of dishonesty was raised by any of the referees or editors.”

As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today’s highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone else has done. Even if a scientist’s work is based on an experiment done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the same form.

The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes called salami science. Some researchers deliberately ‘slice up’ their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the number of publishable works. This “affords an opportunity for dishonesty,” says a Harvard committee, “because such reports are less likely to be verified by others.” Researchers well know that unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of all published papers are “unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even unread.”


Yet they are still perceived by the public as being 'peer reviewed' (because they were published). And you can leave out the “maybe” from the bolded part. It has only gotten worse especially in the field of marketing evolutionary philosophies under the marketinglabel '(peer reviewed) science'.

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism. He “took data from paper he peer-​reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-​review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.” (and all of this stuff is perceived as 'peer reviewed science' by the public)

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.” (well apparently not cause they are still giving their biased stamps of approval on papers promoting absolutely crap evolutionary philosophies and giving people the impression that it's proper 'peer review', even though the bolded part from the earlier article applies, and sneakily not making this clear to the potential readers of a paper or article, being in cahoots with the writers of these marketing papers )

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.” (empty promises almost, cause nothing has been done about it and nothing will be done about it in the field of evolutionary philosophy, where everyone has a 'get out of jail free card' it seems; of course, no actual promises were made there, just a statement that it needs to be done; but who really cares when it comes to evolutionary philosophies which they love so much?)
edit on 14-4-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2021 @ 09:29 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

My point was about those reading an article in scientific magazines like Nature, and automatically thinking that just because it's in that magazine, it has been peer reviewed or is based on something that was peer reviewed; when often, the main reason why it's in the magazine, is just because an editor gave a stamp of approval.

That is exactly the point I was making. Apparently I misread the intent of your post.

I will admit, I tire quite rapidly these days of the "peer reviewed" fallacy that is tossed around as some sort of "proof" of non-scientific opinions from those who merely claim to be "scientists." I'm not sure where the concept of publication became accepted as "peer review," but it is not and never was. Publication is more political, unfortunately, consisting mainly of convincing an editor to give that stamp of approval, and thus being an editor has become a quite lucrative career.

We agree.


posted on Apr, 14 2021 @ 08:29 PM

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

April 8th, 2021: mRNA vaccines may cause your body to churn out PRIONS that “eat your brain” like Mad Cow Disease

The mRNA vaccine works by hijacking your body’s cells and causing them to churn out proteins modeled after the spike proteins in the SARS-cov-2 coronavirus. Since that structure includes prion-like regions, random errors in mRNA sequences — which may be truncated by the human immune system before they reach the ribosomes in the cells — could cause mRNA vaccine recipients to churn out prions in their own bodies. The risk of this was assessed by Dr. J. Bart Classen, who authored a paper in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases: “Covid-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease.”

www.naturalnews. com

The article starts off with a zombie theme, but we're basically talking mad cow disease here, incurable and deadly. Just thought this needed it's own thread, as I mentioned this in the Canadian mystery disease thread. It has source links to the original material.
Alex Jones did a show on this not too long ago. I forget what the paper was, but apex 25-28 or some # like that. This was definitely one of the side effects spoken about. I’m going to sit this vax out and take my chances with the virus and my immune systems natural ability to mount a defense.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in