Some Interesting Data on the mRNA & DNA from a Research

The media and fact checkers claim that the mRNA wont and arent able modifty your DNA ok well according to a study how does some explain the following significant statement from a actual Research done in 2015 on the mRNA with the following statement.

RNA synthesis (transcription) is a transfer of the information from the DNA where it is stored into RNA which can be transported and interpreted.

Meaning the DNA can be stored into RNA which can be transported and interpreted....

Principles of Cell Biology (BIOL2060)

This is a very long research piece not just on RNA but DNA.

The genetic code is a system of purines and pyrimidines used to send messages from the genome to the ribosomes to direct protein synthesis. A message written as a sequence of nucleotides in an mRNA molecule has no obvious meaning, until a set of equivalency rules for the genetic code is used to convert the sequence into the amino acid sequence of a recognizable polypeptide. One strand of the DNA duplex (the template strand) is transcribed into a segment of mRNA shown, according to the same base-pairing rules used in DNA replication, except the base U is used in RNA in place of T. The complementary DNA strand, with a sequence essentially identical to that of the mRNA, is called the coding strand. With a nonoverlapping code, the reading frame advances three nucleotides at a time, and a mRNA segment is therefore read as three successive triplets, coding for amino acids.

Looking forward for what others on here think. Its very interesting that this research had being done in 2015 or so i believe.

a reply to: HawkEyi

NY TIMES Ancient Viruses are buried in your DNA
It is a fact that the human genome has viral RNA in it. It has been there from ancient times.
How can a virus leave RNA in our DNA... when the vaccine supporters say that it is impossible for RNA to be uploaded into our DNA?

a reply to: butcherguy

Quite well said. Which is why i had being done with the media you will not see the media talk about something like this. Just like with Syria.

The Syrian Rebels are the good guys and they are the moderate CNN.

The MB in Libya will not rise. MSM

I noticed the Covid vaxxers pushers who are claiming to be in the filed haven't yet posted on this thread.
Interesting.

Dont expect actual unbiased science. If they are able to lie about climate they can lie about this.
One or two vids from realclimatescience.com and you can see the obvious fraud in five minutes. Now this virus BS is even harder to question because very few people have the tech to do that. It's also much better tool. They can even abuse force in the end

The following, from Brittanica, is LONG and I do not want to piecemeal it as everyone learns/understands differently. I am not a scientist, perhaps a SciFientist, though in my next life, I want to be a Research Scientist!!

alternative Title: RNA-directed DNA polymerase
Reverse transcriptase, also called RNA-directed DNA polymerase, an enzyme encoded from the genetic material of retroviruses that catalyzes the transcription of retrovirus RNA (ribonucleic acid) into DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). This catalyzed transcription is the reverse process of normal cellular transcription of DNA into RNA, hence the names reverse transcriptase and retrovirus. Reverse transcriptase is central to the infectious nature of retroviruses, several of which cause disease in humans, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and human T-cell lymphotrophic virus I (HTLV-I), which causes leukemia. Reverse transcriptase is also a fundamental component of a laboratory technology known as reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a powerful tool used in research and in the diagnosis of diseases such as cancer.

Following retrovirus infection, reverse transcriptase converts viral RNA into proviral DNA, which is then incorporated into the DNA of the host cell in the nucleus.
Following retrovirus infection, reverse transcriptase converts viral RNA into proviral DNA, which is then incorporated into the DNA of the host cell in the nucleus.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.



Reverse transcriptase
QUICK FACTS
KEY PEOPLE
David Baltimore
Howard Martin Temin
RELATED TOPICS
Retrovirus
Retrotransposon
DNA polymerase
Retroviruses consist of an RNA genome contained within a protein shell that is enclosed in a lipid envelope. The retrovirus genome is typically made up of three genes: the group-specific antigen gene (gag), the polymerase gene (pol), and the envelope gene (env). The pol gene encodes the three enzymes—protease, reverse transcriptase, and integrase—that catalyze the steps of retroviral infection. Once a retrovirus is inside a host cell (a process mediated by protease), it takes over the host’s genetic transcription machinery to construct a DNA provirus. This process, the conversion of retroviral RNA to proviral DNA, is catalyzed by reverse transcriptase and is necessary for proviral DNA insertion into host DNA—a step initiated by the integrase enzyme.

cancer-causing retroviruses
cancer-causing retroviruses
Retroviral insertion can convert a proto-oncogene, integral to the control of cell division, into an oncogene, the agent responsible for transforming a healthy cell into a cancer cell. An acutely transforming retrovirus (shown at top), which produces tumours within weeks of infection, incorporates genetic material from a host cell into its own genome upon infection, forming a viral oncogene. When the viral oncogene infects another cell, an enzyme called reverse transcriptase copies the single-stranded genetic material into double-stranded DNA, which is then integrated into the cellular genome. A slowly transforming retrovirus (shown at bottom), which requires months to elicit tumour growth, does not disrupt cellular function through the insertion of a viral oncogene. Rather, it carries a promoter gene that is integrated into the cellular genome of the host cell next to or within a proto-oncogene, allowing conversion of the proto-oncogene to an oncogene.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Early retrovirus observations

For many years there existed a paradigm in molecular biology known as the “central dogma.” This asserted that DNA is first transcribed into RNA, RNA is translated into amino acids, and amino acids assemble into long chains, called polypeptides, that make up proteins—the functional units of cellular life. However, while this central dogma is true, as with many paradigms of biology, important exceptions can be found.

The first important observation opposing the central dogma came in the early 20th century. Two Danish researchers, Vilhelm Ellerman and Oluf Bang, were able to transmit leukemia to six chickens in succession by infecting the first animal with a filterable agent (now known as a virus) and then infecting each subsequent animal with the blood of the preceding bird. At the time, only palpable malignant tumours were understood to be cancers. Therefore, this observation was not linked to a viral-induced malignancy because leukemia was not then known to be a cancer. (At the time, leukemia was thought to be the result of some manner of bacterial infection.)

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content.
Subscribe Now
In 1911 American pathologist Peyton Rous, working at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University), reported that healthy chickens developed malignant sarcomas (cancers of connective tissues) when infected with tumour cells from other chickens. Rous investigated the tumour cells further, and from them, he isolated a virus, which was later named Rous sarcoma virus (RSV). However, the concept of infectious cancer drew little support, and, unable to isolate viruses from other cancers, Rous abandoned the work in 1915 and did not return to it until 1934. Decades later the significance of his discoveries was realized, and in 1966—more than 55 years after his first experiment, at the age of 87—Rous was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of tumour-inducing viruses.

DNA provirus hypothesis

In the mid-20th century there were many advances in molecular biology, including the description of DNA in 1953 by American geneticist and biophysicist James D. Watson and British biophysicists Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins. By the 1960s it was understood that sarcomas are caused by a mutation that results in uncontrolled cell division. It was also evident that RSV was inherited during the division of cancerous cells. This inheritance occurred in a manner agreeing with the Mendelian laws of genetic inheritance—laws that heretofore had been understood to apply only to DNA molecules (see the articles genetics and heredity).

Scientists hypothesized that, in order for such viral inheritance to occur, a virus would need to transcribe its RNA genome into DNA and then insert this DNA into the host cell genome. Once incorporated into the host genome, the virus would be transcribed as though it were another gene and could produce more RNA virus from its DNA. This hypothesis, called the “DNA provirus hypothesis,” was developed in the late 1950s by American virologist Howard Martin Temin, when he was a postdoctoral fellow in the laboratory of Italian virologist Renato Dulbecco at the California Institute of Technology. Temin’s hypothesis was formally proposed in 1964. The provirus hypothesis came about when experiments demonstrated that an antibiotic called actinomycin D, which is capable of inhibiting DNA and RNA synthesis, inhibited the reproduction of RSV. However, the concept of an RNA molecule’s turning itself into DNA drew very few supporters.

www.britannica.com...

a reply to: HawkEyi

That is exactly what my daughter told me about this technology, she major in cell biology, the thing is that no even pharma knows how the the particles in the injection will react in the human body in the long term as it replicates in the cells. Either that or Big phama knows exactly what they are doing and lying about it, we all know they are lying.

And the reason she said to me not to take this shot for the time being, I will wait for the "testing volunteers" test results are clear maybe in a few years.

a reply to: marg6043

If i were the vaccinated one i wouldn't go on a vacation in a cave or anywhere to kind of destitution.
If it has full of bats.

One day we will all be BATMEN and BATWOMEN ... benefits we won´t need cars and Greta would be happy

originally posted by: HawkEyi
The media and fact checkers claim that the mRNA wont and arent able modifty your DNA ok well according to a study how does some explain the following significant statement from a actual Research done in 2015 on the mRNA with the following statement.

RNA synthesis (transcription) is a transfer of the information from the DNA where it is stored into RNA which can be transported and interpreted.

Meaning the DNA can be stored into RNA which can be transported and interpreted....

Principles of Cell Biology (BIOL2060)

This is a very long research piece not just on RNA but DNA.

The genetic code is a system of purines and pyrimidines used to send messages from the genome to the ribosomes to direct protein synthesis. A message written as a sequence of nucleotides in an mRNA molecule has no obvious meaning, until a set of equivalency rules for the genetic code is used to convert the sequence into the amino acid sequence of a recognizable polypeptide. One strand of the DNA duplex (the template strand) is transcribed into a segment of mRNA shown, according to the same base-pairing rules used in DNA replication, except the base U is used in RNA in place of T. The complementary DNA strand, with a sequence essentially identical to that of the mRNA, is called the coding strand. With a nonoverlapping code, the reading frame advances three nucleotides at a time, and a mRNA segment is therefore read as three successive triplets, coding for amino acids.

Looking forward for what others on here think. Its very interesting that this research had being done in 2015 or so i believe.

Well, that was a waste of time.

You do realize that this does not apply to the mRNA in the vax because its a totally different thing?

You've just found something with the word mRNA in it and not understood that it's describing an unrelated process.

You might as well just post an article about motorcycle accidents and claim that it proves that big rig trucks are prone to accidents because the both have wheels.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: HawkEyi

That is exactly what my daughter told me about this technology, she major in cell biology, the thing is that no even pharma knows how the the particles in the injection will react in the human body in the long term as it replicates in the cells. Either that or Big phama knows exactly what they are doing and lying about it, we all know they are lying.

And the reason she said to me not to take this shot for the time being, I will wait for the "testing volunteers" test results are clear maybe in a few years.

Given how left wing college is these days I wouldn't trust what she's been taught. It could just be some SJW professor filling her head with socialist rubbish hating on big business.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Actually she graduated with high honors so she is not dump and stupid you know,

a reply to: AaarghZombies

They are talking about the mRNA it is similar. Otherwise the research article wouldn't have the "mRNA"

a reply to: HawkEyi

Don't take an mRNA vaccine. There are others.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Actually I will like to see a vax for covid that is tested the old fashion way, but you know money first always win, Plus you can not kill a virus and neither kill the common cold, Then is the fact that to wait 5 or more years for vax safety means by then people's body will be have natural antibodies against the variants of the covid cold virus.

FDA now is cautious about giving permission for a 3 and 4 shot, I guess due to the many complains of side effects.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I will wait..

a reply to: HawkEyi

So mRNA isn't the problem then. Moving the goalposts. What will you wait for exactly?

a reply to: marg6043

I posted this in another thread, still waiting for the reply. Maybe you will answer.

These are the options, tell me which one you prefer.

Go through trials to prove a vaccine for a virus that has killed hundreds of thousands is safe and effective, then make it available to people before it is fully evaluated for approval, but will likely prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Go through trials to prove a vaccine for a virus that has killed hundreds of thousands is safe and effective, then wait for full evaluation and approval before anyone has access, likely resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands while waiting for a full standard approval.

Bury your head in the sand and say Covid isn't real.

So what I would like is for you to tell me what option you prefer (if you find another option you prefer please lay that one out), and explain to me using numbers and data why the option you prefer would have resulted in fewer deaths than the one that has been chosen.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Wait until more hundred of thousands die from the darn useless shot, including children that otherwise covid does not affect like it does adults.

Now with that say, guess what, I just found out by my mother that a childhood friend from my Island is in the hospital in a respirator with covid, but alas, she got the two shots.

Soo did her husband and children now adults, they all got sick, her husband and son recuperated after the fever, but my childhood friend is been in a respirator for a week already.

Now I guess this what is call a "rare case" and the only reason I found out about, is because my mother told me.

I wonder how many rare cases are out there, with the vaxed, after all the senile president and his FDA lap dog is telling us that the unvaxed are now the ones dying and in hospitals.

a reply to: marg6043

I noticed you did not answer what you think should have been done. I wonder why that is?