Again, this isn’t what you think (or rather wish) it is.
First, I assume you’re talking about Rudolf Jaenisch and Richard Young’s work. They released a pre-print paper back in December 2020 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1.full.pdf) which had some interesting speculation, but which was riddled with holes that the authors themselves admitted were there.
In short, what they did was infect cells in a petri dish with COVID-19 and added components of HIV and other things to provide an opportunity for a complex process called reverse-transcription to occur. They then located some small fragments of viral RNA that had integrated and compared those with sample COVID-19 patient tissues looking to see if they could find those sequences.
That pre-print paper was never published for peer review, however a new version was just put out recently (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118) wherein they made a lot of changes to try and address the initial paper’s shortcomings. The problem is that while their work is interesting, it’s mere correlation without any observed mechanism for action outside of the laboratory. There are already response papers out on this (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.434119v1.full.pdf). And those correlations are based on exceedingly small fragments of genetic sequences which - mathematically - could easily occur by chance given the sample sizes involved.
Further, the authors themselves acknowledge they have no direct evidence at this point. There’s a lot more discussion on the topic here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/further-evidence-offered-claim-genes-pandemic-coronavirus-can-integrate-human-dna
In short, you’re presenting preliminary work with no direct evidence to support it as though it were indisputable fact. The authors of the paper themselves would say your claims are vastly overstated. And they’ve got an uphill battle as it is considering the problems present in their methodology thus far. But even they aren’t going to agree with you here.
You sure don't have much in the way of reading comprehension, do you?
The second sentence of the paper says:
Here we investigated the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome and that transcription of the integrated sequences might account for PCR-positive tests.
They have a putative mechanism. Your earlier posts said such a thing was IMPOSSIBLE.
I don't think Harvard and MIT would waste their time on something already known to be impossible.
You then go on to say:
And those correlations are based on exceedingly small fragments of genetic sequences which - mathematically - could easily occur by chance given the sample sizes involved.
Yeah, the paper "deboonking" the results wasn't particularly clear about the average length of the sequences involved.
More telling were the two sentences:
Between 16% and 28% of analysed mtRNA-nRNA junctions exhibited an overlap of 3 or more nucleotides between mitochondrial and nuclear sequences (Figure 3A).
That doesn't sound like a lot, which is moderately reassuring: the key here is how many codons need to change in order to introduce a furin cleavage in the spike protein of other SARS viruses, where they didn't have one. I think one of the earlier papers mentioned an insert of 12 codons...
That being noted, however, the authors then go on to point out
"Similarly, we identified chimeric reads between SARS-CoV-2 and RNA transcribed from the adenoviral vector used to overexpress ACE2, in target cells(Blanco-Melo et al., 2020), which would have necessitated integration of SARS-CoV-2 DNA copies in episomal adenoviral DNA. The finding that up to 24% of chimeric reads were formed between SARS-CoV-2 RNA and RNA transcribed from mitochondrial DNA or episomal adenoviral DNA suggested similarly artifactual generation of the remaining reads."
What THAT is saying, is that if there's an adenovirus around, *it* can incorporate RNA from the COVID-19 virus into its genome.
This has implications both for the QC on the preparation of adenovirus-based injections (as has already happened, even though the genetic segments responsible for reproduction were supposed to have been removed in order to prevent it); and it raises the possibility, that co-infection with an adenovirus might end up with RNA sequences from the jabs, being propagated into other viruses, thence to make their way into the wide world. You know, like the people attempting to dismiss bioengineering, claim how the spike protein came to be uniquely adapted to humans in the first place.
(You can't have it both ways, troll-boi. Either it was engineered, or significant transfer of RNA between viruses, capable of clinically meaningful morphological changes to the binding site of the spike protein, have happened in the wild; so experimental evidence, both in manufacturing of injections, and in papers designed to debooonk integration viral RNA into the human genome, shows that viral RNA does get incorporated into other viruses.)
As far as your other link, , its title is
Further evidence supports controversial claim that SARS-CoV-2 genes can integrate with human DNA, which renders it curious that you'd include it in a DEBOOOONKING of the earlier work.
and mentions along the way that one of the scientists critical of the preprint, now says “The integration data in cell culture is much more convincing than what was presented in the preprint, but it’s still not totally clean,” says Feschotte, who now calls Jaenisch’s and Young’s hypothesis “plausible.” (SARS-CoV-2, he notes, can also persist in a person for months without integrating its genes.)
So plausible is a long way from "IMPOSSIBLE" which is what you claimed.
Note that I myself didn't say "OMG the vaccine is changing human DNA" but that "with the whole virus, RNA sequences got incorporated, how do we know it CAN'T happen with the jabs?"
I am moderately comforted, but in another sense, more alarmed, as it showed adenoviruses CAN uptake RNA from the virus, and CAN incorporate genetic information into the human genome; either one has its own set of potential risks.