ABSOLUTELY EXPLOSIVE! The people demand accountability and investigate reports and law suits are underway!Continue reading “Lawyers and Medical Experts worldwide say they have all the evidence they need to convict WHO, CDC, PHE, Bill Gates and World Leaders of ‘Crimes against Humanity’BY THE DAILY EXPOSE ON MAY 17, 2021”
Liberalism, the Me Decade, and Now
May 17, 2021 Updated: May 17, 2021
Who could have imagined that liberalism would be so fragile, so easily and righteously abandoned?
I don’t mean the collapse of that cornerstone of American liberalism, the First Amendment, though the hounding of religion out of the public square, the rising mistrust of free speech, the decay of the press into a partisan club, and free association repeatedly challenged in the courts are trends certainly sufficient to mark a nation in (probably) inevitable decline.
I mean, instead, the end of liberalism in social life, that free-wheeling attitude of Live-and-Let-Live and Do-Your-Own-Thing and Whatever-Floats-Your-Boat that was the main upshot of the cultural revolution of the 1960s. We think of the ’60s and images of righteous fury come to mind, the Black Panthers and campus takeovers and assassinations, but by the mid-70s the militance had largely dissipated as a social force. The Vietnam War was over and there was no more draft. The leftist elements in the Democratic Party, too, had been chastened by the disaster of the McGovern campaign. Yes, some radical groups lingered—the Patty Hearst kidnapping in 1974 was only one of many violent actions in the decade—but lots of hard cases had gotten older and moved on (several slipping into the academy and eventually earning tenure, or they were on the run or in prison, or were dead!).
In the ’70s the air felt different, less political, and more libertine. The ideologies faded but the cultural mores survived. It was the Me Decade. The refrain in Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s tale of Kent State, “Four dead in Ohio,” gave way to Donna Summer’s “Love to Love You, Baby.” Political entertainment such as “All in the Family” were eclipsed by “Charlie’s Angels.”
In May 1972, 2,000 students rallied at UCLA against the War, but by the time I arrived as a freshman in Fall 1977, there wasn’t a whisper of protest sentiment in the dorms or outside the administration buildings. The most populous event I can recall around that time was a showing of “Deep Throat” one night in the Ackerman Union ballroom, which drew 5,000 kids (it was too crowded, I couldn’t get in). The tables set up along Bruin Walk that had a political point of some kind drew hardly any notice. We were drinking and playing basketball, no rap sessions or organizing. Diversity was everywhere, but not at all political. My brother and I had roommates and buddies who were Chinese, Mexican, Guatemalan, Iranian, Korean, and Filipino, and none of us considered race a fraught issue. We just wanted to have fun together.
We were liberal, we all were liberal—in behavior, that is. Liberalism meant that you left people alone to do what they wanted to do as long as they didn’t come down on anyone else. What happened behind closed doors was nobody’s business. What went through people’s own heads was off-limits until they acted on it and affected others. Don’t be judgmental, and keep your hang-ups to yourself. People are people, leave them alone, no stereotyping, no prejudice (that is, no pre-judging by group characteristics)—those were the general rules. A couple guys we knew were gay, and nobody cared. An African American girl down the hall was desired by all the guys in the dorm because she was smiling and shapely. Her blackness had little to do with it; or rather, it didn’t have any more influence on how we judged her than did her eyes and lips and body and voice. To give her—or anyone’s—identity too much distinct attention would be bad form.
If you asked us why we thought this way, perhaps a few might answer that this was what Civil Rights was all about. Most of us, though, didn’t think about it so rationally. It was just an attitude, ordinary and common, like table manners. This was the right way, the best way to be—who could object? We saw it echoed in one way or another in movies, TV shows, music, and public deportment. When in the 1983 film “Terms of Endearment” we heard John Lithgow tell Debra Winger about his uptight wife who refuses to have sex in any other position but missionary, we were ready to laugh her right off the stage. The next year, we felt the same way about Lithgow himself when he portrayed the repressive preacher out to ban dancing and rock ‘n roll in his small town. Give us “Animal House” instead. There was no debate, no discussion, only a happy uniformity about freedom.
And let me add another point, a very important one: If someone did object, he wouldn’t suffer the wrath of the crowd. Dissenters were given their space, and usually ignored. I recall one middle-aged fellow on Bruin Walk now and then who liked to pronounce upon our sins and call us to penitence—we called such men “Bible thumpers.” Our response? To enjoy his banter, to joke with him, or simply pass by without breaking stride or concentration on our way to the library. There were Moonies around as well, Scientologists, too, and lots of other odd groups, but they were merely lesser ingredients of the human mix in 1980. You might think they were far out, but you would never get the urge to punish them.
I thought this was settled. Live and let live … Everyone’s got an opinion … It’s a free country … Those were the rules, and I assumed they would go on forever. Again, we didn’t have to fight for them or argue for them. They were generally accepted, enough to be held unconsciously. The last thing I expected to come in the future would be a society in which a white 15-year-old girl’s use of the n-word (mimicking a rap song, not as an insult) would get amplified by the eavesdropper years later into a campaign to ruin the girl’s prospects. It would have been unimaginable, also, that in order to be a teacher in a majority-black school you would have to be “anti-racist,” which meant giving up the ideal of “colorblindness.” Segregated dormitories? No way.
The Woke Revolution has put the whole outlook to rest. It’s not enough to tolerate trans-individuals; one must affirm them. You can’t go through life eschewing racist impulses; no, you must vigorously oppose them in yourself and in others. You are to sit still while certain authorized persons mark your drawbacks better than can your own conscience. And now that everything is political, now that racism and sexism and homophobia can be unconscious as well as conscious, you have no right to privacy any longer. What you do on your own time may affect your employment. A small campaign contribution can destroy your career, though it be wholly unrelated. Skins are getting thinner, individual freedoms are slipping, the liberal dispensation is over.
I thought my liberalism was stronger than that. Or rather, I didn’t think about it at all; I didn’t think I had to. It was too firm and established and correct to be toppled by illiberal characters. All the more incredible, then, that this achievement of tolerance should fall to such an unappealing crowd as those leading the Woke movement. Indeed, looking at them as individuals, one can hardly believe that the liberal edifice should crumble so quickly. The irate college students, pampered and excitable, who complained about microaggressions; the sputtering DC insiders who demanded that people who worked in the Trump administration be blackballed; the founders of Black Lives Matter—these are not impressive people, and they’re not likable people, either. The college presidents and corporate CEOs who bend to the Wokesters’ demands look no more discerning and principled than PR flunkies trying to fend off bad publicity. Why are such ignoble egos in charge?
Was liberalism so groundless and flimsy that it could succumb to these guys? That’s not how it felt in 1979. (Remember, I mean liberal social attitudes about privacy and pluralism, not liberal politics of Big Government and welfare; Reagan was just around the corner, yes, but on social issues keep in mind that Gov. Reagan approved no-fault divorce in 1969, though he later regretted it.) The rigors and challenges of an open, pluralistic society could be rough, yes, but that was a source of pride for us, not offense. If a peer of ours had risen in the audience once a speaker finished and moaned, “I find your comments offensive,” as if that very fact discredited the speaker’s speech, we would have been embarrassed for the offended one, and a little annoyed, too, at the infantile posture. How in the world did this sort of childishness manage to acquire so much authority? Where did these people learn that it’s okay to ramp up your emotional radar to pick up “aggressions” that are so small they get the prefix micro-?
It’s a situation that can’t work. The Woke brigades worship diversity but a genuinely diverse society rests on a populace made up of individuals of a squarely un-Woke character. A liberal outlook doesn’t look kindly on surveillance. It doesn’t target people because they voted for Donald Trump. It doesn’t censor and boycott and petition and protest with such promiscuous glee.
But it does now. Liberalism isn’t liberalism any longer, and liberals aren’t liberal. They’re fellow travelers of the left, not leftists themselves, perhaps, but sympathetic and obedient to the radicals. The ’70s were in many ways an awful time—gas shortages, inflation, interest rates, wide ties—but they didn’t have much political correctness, nor did they encourage the whiny temperament (as is clear from the heroes Hollywood put forward: Travis Bickle, Patton, Harry Callahan, Popeye Doyle, Paul Kersey, Vito Corleone). They were libertine, to be sure (disco, porn films, coed dorms), which had long-term costs (illegitimacy, AIDS), but they lacked the noxious ideological climate that fostered the Duke Lacrosse fiasco and the Rolling Stone hoax.
We’re now in the midst of that climate. Liberalism gave up, played “matador defense,” as Chick Hearn used to put it when the Lakers let an opponent drive to the basket uncontested. What looked like a solid social ethos, permanent and effective, the American Way, turned out to be but an episode in American history, over and done, replaced by a miserable attitude that will only produce misery.
Mark Bauerlein is an emeritus professor of English at Emory University. His work has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, the TLS, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.
New guidance from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration is causing contractors to change their COVID-19 vaccine requirements, and many of them criticize the guidance as diametrically opposed to the Biden administration’s stated desire to increase vaccinations.
On April 20, OSHA released the new guidance in the frequently asked questions section of its website for COVID-19 safety compliance.
The question asks whether an employer should record adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination if the employer requires the vaccine. OSHA states that if a vaccine is required, then any adverse reaction is considered work-related and therefore it must be recorded. Under OSHA rules, most employers with more than 10 employees are required to keep a record of serious work-related injuries and illnesses. Recorded injuries and illnesses become part of a contractors safety record.
This is the actual text of the new question and answer on the OSHA website:
“If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?null
“If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.”
In response, several large contractors said they have changed or will change their vaccination policy to only recommend—not require—a vaccine.
“We, sadly, had to back off our (employee vaccination) mandate because OSHA did something I don’t understand at all,” said Bob Clark, founder and executive chairman of Clayco in a recent ENR Critical Path podcast. “I side with OSHA frequently, we’re in its VIP program, but on this they’re just wrong. It’s a terrible decision they’ve made and I think it’ll be overturned.”
Clark said Clayco, which participated in crafting the initial Centers for Disease Control guidance on construction site safety during the pandemic, would be communicating with OSHA through members of congress to seek changes to the guidance. A spokeswoman for OSHA did not immediately return messages asking for clarification of the new guidance. Construction industry groups universally panned the guidance and said it would hurt their efforts to encourage employees to get vaccinated.
“What they put forward could potentially discourage employers from supporting their workers getting the vaccine,” said Kevin Cannon, senior director of safety and health services at the Associated General Contractors of America. “AGC is not in support of any mandate, however we participated, April 19th through 23rd, in vaccine awareness week. We had a lot of members who were in chapters that supported the event. We even had some who hosted vaccine clinics on an active job site or in their offices.”
Cannon said some member contractors may have changed their approach to those events had they known, at the time, they could potentially “be on the hook for recording these potential adverse reactions.”
AGC is also concerned the rule puts contractors working on projects such as hospital expansions, where vaccination could potentially be an owner condition of being present on the site, in a difficult position.
Cannon said AGC has reached out to OSHA as part of the Construction Industry Safety Coalition, a group of 30 industry groups from all major types of construction, to give OSHA more context as to the burden the guidance places on contractors. AGC plans to submit a letter to the agency with chapter input to the agency.
‘Caused Significant Confusion’
Donna Reichle, senior director of public affairs at the Associated Builders and Contractors said, “We agree OSHA has caused significant confusion with this guidance. Industry groups will be seeking clarification from the agency.”
OSHA has been working for weeks on an all-industries COVID-19 emergency safety standard, which is now being reviewed by the Biden administration’s Office of Management and Budget. Release of the final rule is believed to be coming soon. It is possible the new safety standard could preempt or replace the April 20 guidance to employers. It’s unclear, at this point, if separate rules will be made for industries such as construction, where liability and risk are defined differently than in industries where work takes place in a company facility.
The number of overall COVID-19 hospitalizations and fatalities also greatly affects the recommendations CDC, OSHA and the various states have released. Cannon said the current guidance, if left unchanged, has the potential to undo months of industry work to encourage vaccination of construction workers.
“It’s almost like they haven’t talked to the rest of the Biden administration about the goal of getting as many people vaccinated as possible,” said Brian Turmail, AGC vice president of public affairs.Continue reading “COVID-19 and ConstructionOSHA Imposes New Guidance For Employer-Required COVID-19 Vaccines”
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrive for the 59th Presidential Inauguration at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 20, 2021. (Carolyn Kaster / AP)
Clintons Hit with Bad News as Judge Issues Order on Criminal Investigation of Their Foundation
Isa CoxMay 15, 2021 at 2:29pm
A U.S. tax court judge has ordered the Internal Revenue Service to disclose if it criminally investigated the Clinton Foundation.
This ruling was part of an ongoing case involving whistleblowers who have long alleged wrongdoing on the part of the charity that bears the name of former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Judge David Gustafson pointed to a “gap” in IRS records and said that the agency’s claim to have never criminally investigated the Clintons’ charity “was not supported by the administrative record and thus constituted an abuse of discretion.”Advertisement – story continues belownull
Although most of the details of the case involving the Clinton Foundation and two whistleblowers, Lawrence W. Doyle and John F. Moynihan, have remained sealed, Gustafson authorized the release of his April 22 ruling, which remanded the case back to the IRS Whistleblower Office, to investigative reporter John Solomon’s outlet Just the News.
“The WO must further investigate to determine whether CI [criminal investigative division] proceeded with an investigation based on petitioners’ information and collected proceeds,” the ruling stated. “It seems clear we should remand the case to the WO so that it can explore this gap.”
Just the News noted that the judge also declined Doyle and Moynihan’s request to accept a deposition from an Arkansas state official or to compel discovery in the case. Gustafson determined that to do so would have been “outside the scope of proper discovery” and cast cold water on any hopes of a revelatory trial.
“Petitioners evidently look forward to a trial in which they hope to prove wrongdoing and tax evasion by the target entities and to prove dereliction of duty by the IRS,” he stated. “There will be no such trial in this case.”Advertisement – story continues belownull
All the same, the ruling serves to perpetuate long-standing allegations that the Clintons were using their foundation to launder money for political favors from foreign entities.
In December 2018, Doyle and Moynihan, who are respected forensic financial investigators according to Just the News, testified before Congress that they had filed an IRS whistleblower complaint against the organization.Is the IRS hiding something?Yes No
The two alleged that the Clinton Foundationhad engaged in illegal foreign lobbying when it accepted donations from overseas while trying to influence U.S. policy.
The charity “began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and throughout its existence,” Moynihan stated before a House panel.
“As such, the foundation should’ve registered under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act). Ultimately, the Foundation and its auditors conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as a (foreign) agent, therefore the foundation is not entitled to its 501c3 tax-exempt privileges as outlined in IRS 170 (c)2,” he said.Advertisement – story continues belowabout:blank
The Clinton Foundation, in response, declared itself to be “one of the most heavily scrutinized charitable organizations in the world” which had nonetheless “demonstrably improved the lives of millions of people across America and around the world, while earning top ratings from charity watchdog groups in the process.”
Of course, it doesn’t help matters much that between Hillary’s missing emails, the Uranium One scandal and the fact that the charity’s donations plummeted after she left the State Department, it’s easy to form a picture of some corruption, at best.Related:Hillary Clinton Complains That ‘Certain Media Really Became Mouthpieces’ for Trump
Some allegations and rumors have warped into outlandish claims and theories that are far from proven — and in some cases, have even been disproven — but when it comes to the Clintons, it’s true that scandals seem to follow them wherever they go
Before the deleted emails and Clinton Foundation allegations, there were allegations of drug running in Mena, Arkansas, while Bill was governor, accusations that he enlisted state troopers to help him with his illicit extracurricular activities, the Whitewater scandal, and of course, accusations of rape. – story continues below
5.15.21: The ENEMY is losing LEADERS, LEGAL battles, DEMONIC TV shows and MORE! Hold the LINE! Pray!Continue reading “5.15.21: The ENEMY is losing LEADERS, LEGAL battles, DEMONIC TV shows and MORE! Hold the LINE! Pray!”
In my previous blog, “Will an RNA Vaccine Permanently Alter My DNA?”, I laid out several molecular pathways that would potentially enable the RNA in an mRNA vaccine to be copied and permanently integrated into our DNA. I was absolutely not surprised to find that the majority of people claimed that this prospect was impossible; in fact, I was expecting this response – partly because most people don’t possess a deep enough understanding of molecular biology, and partly because of other implicit biases.
After all, we’ve been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because “RNA doesn’t work that way.” Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, “RNA does work that way”. In my original article, I spelled out this exact molecular pathway.
Specifically, a new study by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA. (study linked below). This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome. They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.
And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized. It’s difficult for me to put a number on the probability due to data limitations present in the paper, but based on the frequency they were able to measure this phenomenon in both petri dishes and COVID patients, the probability is much greater than I initially anticipated. Due to this current research, I now place this risk as a more probable event than my original estimation.
To be fair, this study didn’t show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps.
That being said, this data can be used to make a conjecture as to whether the RNA present in an RNA vaccine could potentially alter human DNA. This is because an mRNA vaccine consists of snippets of the viral RNA from the genome of SARS-CoV-2; in particular, the current mRNA vaccines harbor stabilized mRNA which encodes the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which is the protein that enables the virus to bind to cell-surface receptors and infect our cells.
This was thought near impossible. Based on this ground-breaking study, I would hope that the highly presumptuous claim that such a scenario is impossible will find its way to the trash bin labeled: “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened”; although, I have a suspicious feeling that the importance of this study will be minimized in quick order with reports from experts who attempt to poke holes in their work. It’s important to add that this paper is a pre-print that is not peer-reviewed yet; but I went through all of the data, methods, and results, and I see very little wrong with the paper, and some gaps that need closing- but, at least from the standpoint of being able to answer the question: can RNA from the coronavirus use existing cellular pathways to integrate permanently into our DNA? From that perspective, their paper is rock-solid. Also, please take note that these are respected scientists from MIT and Harvard.
Quoting from their paper:
“In support of this hypothesis, we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral fused to cellular sequences in published data sets of SARS-CoV-2 infected cultured cells and primary cells of patients, consistent with the transcription of viral sequences integrated into the genome. To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. Human endogenous LINE-1 expression was induced upon SARS-CoV-2 infection or by cytokine exposure in cultured cells, suggesting a molecular mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 retro-integration in patients. This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication.”
Why did these researchers bother to investigate whether viral RNA could become hardwired into our genomic DNA? It turns out their motive had nothing to do with mRNA vaccines. The researchers were puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone. It was also shown that these people were not reinfected. The authors sought to answer how a PCR test is able to detect segments of viral RNA when the virus is presumably absent from a person’s body. They hypothesized that somehow segments of the viral RNA were being copied into DNA and then integrated permanently into the DNA of somatic cells. This would allow these cells to continuously churn out pieces of viral RNA that would be detected in a PCR test, even though no active infection existed. Through their experiments, they did not find full-length viral RNA integrated into genomic DNA; rather, they found smaller segments of the viral DNA, mostly representing the nucleocapsid (N) protein of the virus, although other viral segments were found integrated into human DNA at a lower frequency.
In this paper, they demonstrate that:
1) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA can become integrated into human genomic DNA.
2) This newly acquired viral sequence is not silent, meaning that these genetically modified regions of genomic DNA are transcriptionally active (DNA is being converted back into RNA).
3) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA retro-integrated into human genomic DNA in cell culture. This retro-integration into genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients is also implied indirectly from the detection of chimeric RNA transcripts in cells derived from COVID-19 patients. Although their RNAseq data suggests that genomic alteration is taking place in COVID-19 patients, to prove this point conclusively, PCR, DNA sequencing, or Southern Blot should be carried out on purified genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients to prove this point conclusively. This is a gap that needs to be closed in the research. The in vitro data in human cell lines, however, is air tight.
4) This viral retro-integration of RNA into DNA can be induced by endogenous LINE-1 retrotransposons, which produce an active reverse transcriptase (RT) that converts RNA into DNA. (All humans have multiple copies of LINE-1 retrotransposons residing in their genome.). The frequency of retro-integration of viral RNA into DNA is positively correlated with LINE-1 expression levels in the cell.
5) These LINE-1 retrotransposons can be activated by viral infection with SARS-CoV-2, or cytokine exposure to cells, and this increases the probability of retro-integration.
Instead of going through all of their results in detail (you can do that if you like by reading their paper linked below), I will answer the big question on everyone’s mind – If the virus is able to accomplish this, then why should I care if the vaccine does the same thing?
Well, first let’s just address the big elephant in the room first. First, you should care because, “THEY TOLD YOU THAT THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE AND TO JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE THE VACCINE.” These pathways that I hypothesized (and these researchers verified with their experiments) are not unknown to people who understand molecular biology at a deeper level. This is not hidden knowledge which is only available to the initiated. I can assure you that the people who are developing the vaccines are people who understand molecular biology at a very sophisticated level. So, why didn’t they discover this, or even ask this question, or even do some experiments to rule it out? Instead, they just used superficially simplistic biology 101 as a smoke screen to tell you that RNA doesn’t convert into DNA. This is utterly disingenuous, and this lack of candor is what motivated me to write my original article. They could have figured this out easily.
Second, there’s a big difference between the scenario where people randomly, and unwittingly, have their genetics monkeyed with because they were exposed to the coronavirus, and the scenario where we willfully vaccinate billions of people while telling them this isn’t happening. Wouldn’t you agree? What is the logic in saying, “Well, this bad thing may or may not happen to you, so we’re going to remove the mystery and ensure that it happens to everyone.”? In my best estimate, this is an ethical decision that you ought to make, not them.
Third, the RNA in the vaccine is a different animal than the RNA produced by the virus. The RNA in the vaccine is artificially engineered. First, it is engineered to stay around in your cells for a much longer time than usual (RNA is naturally unstable and degrades quickly in the cell). Second, it is engineered such that it is efficient at being translated into protein (they accomplish this by codon optimization). Increasing the stability of the RNA increases the probability that it will become integrated into your DNA; and, increasing the translation efficiency increases the amount of protein translated from the RNA if it does happen to become incorporated into your DNA in a transcriptionally active region of your genome. Theoretically, this means that whatever negative effects are associated with the natural process of viral RNA/DNA integration, these negative effects could be more frequent and more pronounced with the vaccine when compared to the natural virus.
As a side note, these researchers found that the genetic information for the nucleocapsid “N” protein was, by far, the largest culprit for being permanently integrated into human DNA (because this RNA is more abundant when the virus replicates in our cells). The vaccine, on the other hand, contains RNA that encodes the Spike (S) protein. Therefore, if the mRNA from the vaccine (or subsegments thereof) were to make its way into a transcriptionally-active region of our genome through a retro-integration process, it will cause our cells to produce an over-abundance of Spike protein, rather than N protein. Our immune system does make antibodies to both N and S proteins, but it is the Spike protein which is the prime target for our immune system because it exists on the outside of the virus. If our cells become permanent (rather than temporary) Spike Protein producing factories due to permanent alteration of our genomic DNA, this could lead to serious autoimmune problems. I would imagine that autoimmunity profiles arising from such a scenario would be differentiated based on order of events (i.e., whether or not someone is vaccinated before or after exposure to coronavirus).
Again, this is a theoretical exercise I am presenting for consideration. I am not making the claim that an mRNA vaccine will permanently alter your genomic DNA, and I didn’t make this claim in my first article, although it appears that troll sites made the fallacious claim that I did. I simply asked the question, and provided hypothetical, plausible molecular pathways by which such an event could occur. I believe this current research validates that this is at least plausible, and most likely probable. It most certainly deserves closer inspection and testing to rule this possibility out, and I would hope that a rigorous and comprehensive test program would be instituted with the same enthusiasm that propelled the vaccine haphazardly through the normal safety checkpoints.
Obviously, even given this information, people are still free to get vaccinated, and will do so according to the overall balance of risks and rewards that they perceive in their mind. The purpose of my article is to make sure you can make that assessment fairly by possessing all potential risks and rewards, rather than an incomplete set. For something as important as this, you should not be operating in the dark.
I would encourage you to share this article to let others know of the potential risks and rewards.
Zhang, Liguo, Alexsia Richards, Andrew Khalil, Emile Wogram, Haiting Ma, Richard A. Young, and Rudolf Jaenisch. “SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome.” bioRxiv (2020).