Spike damages heart. This is scientifically proven.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Zenchuck

How is the mRNA persisting in the blood supply? That shouldn't be happening... the lipids should be digested by the affected cells, which should destroy the mRNA after replication of the spike proteins. Either the lipid transportation mechanism isn't working or the mRNA is exiting the cellular membrane before being destroyed.

What's going on here? Am I going to need to revise my opinion that the mRNA process worked correctly?

TheRedneck

1. A Swedish study showed the mRNA gets reversed transcribed to DNA: SOURCE
2. The mRNA uses N1-Methylpseudouridine instead of uridine allowing it to potentially persist mucn longer than regular mRNA: SOURCE

1) No, it doesn't. The actual study suggests a mechanism by which covid (not the vax) can inject it's code into a cell, and hypothesises that it might be possible with the vax, through it never demonstrates it. The vax uses mRNA, which cannot reverse transcribe itself into a cell because it's unable to penetrate the nucleolus (link), a future vax might b designed to reverse transcribe itself to provide additional protextoin, but the current generation isn't able to do this.

2) This is true, and it's a good thing. The longer the mRNA persists the more spike protein is produced, and the greater the body's response to it. And by persist, I mean that it lasts a couple of weeks if you have two shots. Tiny amounts sometimes last longer in a few people, but only at a statistical level. without this adidtional longevity the mRNA would degrade too quickly to provoke much of a response, and the efficacy of the vax would be reduced.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: AaarghZombies



It's rarely permanent.

Yes, the infamous ABV condition kills the host and stops the heart damage dead in its tracks.

(ABV = Anything But Vaccine)

It's another lie. The world's most published cardiologist says its always serious. Myocarditis is so serious it requires immediate ER attention. If it's determined to be "mild" it's likely 20 years later you'll still be on a heart transplant list. Heart tissue damage never goes away and always increases the risk factor for cardiac arrest.

Link, please. In fact, name, please.

If you don't name the people that you're talking about I'm just going to presume that they don't exist.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Zenchuck

How is the mRNA persisting in the blood supply? That shouldn't be happening... the lipids should be digested by the affected cells, which should destroy the mRNA after replication of the spike proteins. Either the lipid transportation mechanism isn't working or the mRNA is exiting the cellular membrane before being destroyed.

What's going on here? Am I going to need to revise my opinion that the mRNA process worked correctly?

TheRedneck

1. A Swedish study showed the mRNA gets reversed transcribed to DNA: SOURCE
2. The mRNA uses N1-Methylpseudouridine instead of uridine allowing it to potentially persist mucn longer than regular mRNA: SOURCE

1) No, it doesn't. The actual study suggests a mechanism by which covid (not the vax) can inject it's code into a cell, and hypothesises that it might be possible with the vax, through it never demonstrates it. The vax uses mRNA, which cannot reverse transcribe itself into a cell because it's unable to penetrate the nucleolus (link), a future vax might b designed to reverse transcribe itself to provide additional protextoin, but the current generation isn't able to do this.

2) This is true, and it's a good thing. The longer the mRNA persists the more spike protein is produced, and the greater the body's response to it. And by persist, I mean that it lasts a couple of weeks if you have two shots. Tiny amounts sometimes last longer in a few people, but only at a statistical level. without this adidtional longevity the mRNA would degrade too quickly to provoke much of a response, and the efficacy of the vax would be reduced.

Uh, yeah it does. It's in my source. You ask for a source and when I provide it you deny it.

Gtfo

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: GoShredAK

I speak for the "left"?!!!!

Not really, no.

Yes, really, we all know it, you're just not capable of admitting it. No worries, most people aren't able to until they can get past their own cognitive dissonance.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Perhaps you can post an example where I have posted a left wing view?
Thinking Trump is a tw@t doesn't count, by the way.

Most folk in the UK, right or left or middle think that.

I'm not an evil Dem, either so there you go.

Carry on regardless.

a reply to: vNex92

If it works why do you need five more boosters?

Because immunity naturally falls over time, and then takes time to build back up again if you come into contact with the same infectious agent. It's not instantaneous.

A booster is used to bring that active immunity back up so that if you encounter the infectious agent again you don't have that window for the infection to take hold before your immunity levels come back up again.

If somebody is old or has comorbidity then their body might not be able to raise sufficient immunity quickly enough, and they can get sick.

Same with near enough all vax and all boosters.

Also, amusingly enough, the same with natural immunity.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Zenchuck

How is the mRNA persisting in the blood supply? That shouldn't be happening... the lipids should be digested by the affected cells, which should destroy the mRNA after replication of the spike proteins. Either the lipid transportation mechanism isn't working or the mRNA is exiting the cellular membrane before being destroyed.

What's going on here? Am I going to need to revise my opinion that the mRNA process worked correctly?

TheRedneck

1. A Swedish study showed the mRNA gets reversed transcribed to DNA: SOURCE
2. The mRNA uses N1-Methylpseudouridine instead of uridine allowing it to potentially persist mucn longer than regular mRNA: SOURCE

1) No, it doesn't. The actual study suggests a mechanism by which covid (not the vax) can inject it's code into a cell, and hypothesises that it might be possible with the vax, through it never demonstrates it. The vax uses mRNA, which cannot reverse transcribe itself into a cell because it's unable to penetrate the nucleolus (link), a future vax might b designed to reverse transcribe itself to provide additional protextoin, but the current generation isn't able to do this.

2) This is true, and it's a good thing. The longer the mRNA persists the more spike protein is produced, and the greater the body's response to it. And by persist, I mean that it lasts a couple of weeks if you have two shots. Tiny amounts sometimes last longer in a few people, but only at a statistical level. without this adidtional longevity the mRNA would degrade too quickly to provoke much of a response, and the efficacy of the vax would be reduced.

Uh, yeah it does. It's in my source. You ask for a source and when I provide it you deny it.

Gtfo

You either didn't understand the source or hoped that I wouldn't check it. Well, your own source debunks you. The vax contains an mRNA payload which cannot penetrate the nucleus of a cell. This is the essence of what mRNA is. It passes on a message to a cell to produce something, but nothing more. It's a one use item.