As anyone who paid attention in school can tell you (unless they were lied to), science is never settled… that’s because we are always challenging the limits of our own understanding, and asking new questions.
We see this same process unfolding in a newly published study coming out of Thomas Jefferson University, in which long-accepted beliefs about RNA have just been overturned.
If DNA can be thought of as the blueprint of cellular machinery, the role of RNA is to copy that blueprint and put that information into action within the cell.
In a discovery that challenges long-held dogma in biology, researchers show that mammalian cells can convert RNA sequences back into DNA, a feat more common in viruses than eukaryotic cells. [Emphasis in the original]
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.– [New Discovery Shows Human Cells Can Write RNA Sequences Into DNA – Challenges Central Principle in Biology]Scitechdaily
Any time a new scientific discovery is made, it might make curious minds wonder — what else don’t we know?
We THOUGHT we knew that RNA didn’t rewrite DNA. But we were wrong about that. What else are we dogmatically sure of that might later be overturned?
For example, we are told (dogmatically) that mRNA does not enter the cell nucleus, and cannot rewrite DNA. Exactly how certain are we of that fact, considering a study just overturned another fact which was, according to the story’s headline, a ‘central principle in biology? Can it act directly to change DNA? How about indirectly? How confident are we of that answer?
We are told by Johns Hopkins that we should have nothing to worry about since mRNA doesn’t enter a cell nucleus and cannot interact with our DNA. If that claim holds up as true, that is good news.
MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccine enters your cells and changes your DNA.
FACT: The COVID-19 vaccines are designed to help your body’s immune system fight the coronavirus. The messenger RNA from two of the first types of COVID-19 vaccines does enter cells, but not the nucleus of the cells where DNA resides. The mRNA does its job to cause the cell to make protein to stimulate the immune system, and then it quickly breaks down — without affecting your DNA. — HopkinsMedicine
This is the critical moment where the massive breaches of public trust by Fauci and others deliberately lying to the public, and the erosion of confidence in our public institutions as we see how politicized even our scientific community has been in the past year — down to little details like the vaccine being announced mere days AFTER the election, where the media had painted Trump as a do-nothing failure in his pandemic response.
We have also watched as nations in other parts of the world have embraced inexpensive treatments and therapeutics that the media, big tech, and the scientific community had actively demonized — treatments like Ivermectin, or a certain three-letter anti-malarial drug whose negative press was driven by a Lancet study that was so biased that it was revoked by the Lancet itself. But by then, the damage was done.
How many lives — here and around the world — would have been saved if we had used the drug that Trump had secured and stockpiled millions of doses of, just in case it did work?
We were told that the vaccine we are given acts like old-school vaccines and remains in the injection site. It does not, we were told, get carried throughout the body by the bloodstream.
That claim has been disproven by the fact that vaccine recipients have had accumulations of the spike protein detected in different organs throughout the body, including the ovaries.
Dr. Byram Bridle, is an Associate Professor of Viral Immunology at the University of Guelph is concerned about the long-term effects of the coronavirus vaccines on children.
…What followed was Dr. Bridle saying that “we have made a big mistake” and we have been “inadvertently inoculating [people] with a toxin.” He also says that he’s very concerned about the long-term effects of the vaccines on children and nursing infants and that the vaccine could have the unintended consequence of rendering some young girls infertile. —Read More (Clashdaily)
I’m just a guy looking at issues from here in the cheap seats. But I pay attention and I ask questions. We can’t help but notice it was a top guy from Moderna that said THIS back in 2017:
If you think of genetics as the ‘software of life’, and DNA is the operating system, what happens when you swap out a few lines of code?
It’s a topic sparked by a TedTalk given in 2017 by Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc..
…The mRNA vaccines are ‘rewriting the genetic code’ and they are calling it ‘information technology’.
Back in 2017, he said this tech had profound implications with everything from the flu to cancer. That was BEFORE we had heard of a ‘novel coronavirus’. — Read more (ClashDaily)
That was written in March. That was before we learned that RNA could rewrite DNA. We still have unanswered questions.
What else don’t we know yet?
What might we wish we had known ten years from now?
And which scientists can we trust to give us a straight answer that isn’t influenced by politics, popular consensus, billion-dollar profit motives tied to exclusive patents, or telling us ‘white lies’ for ‘our own good’?
This is the REAL reason Fauci was so dangerous. He lied so freely and so confidently that many of us would no longer take him at his word if he told us the sky was blue, without looking up to see if it was cloudy. He didn’t just deep-six his own credibility, or his department but acting as it were as the human embodiment of ‘the science’ he has muddied the reputation of medicine itself.