For the layperson, can you expand upon what was conflated?
When I read the article, it seemed to me that the author was speculating on a path that the mRNA "could take" to integrate with the DNA, not that it "did take" such a path.
He then used the MIT-Harvard research into in vitro COVID-19 virus integration into DNA to suggest that such a path was actually possible in humans directly, and likely probable, but that it was a "hole" in the paper that needed further study.
He then speculated that if such path were to be found to be true, that he believed that natural viral encoding into DNA was preferable to engineered mRNA encoding into DNA.
Did I get that summary of the article correct or did you read something else that I missed?
-PJ
“ 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.”
The study didn’t even look to see if RNA from vaccines were being integrated.
It looked at samples from people who have had Covid.
SARS viruses are RNA viruses. They are not retroviruses, like Aids virus, which are also RNA viruses that do integrate their RNA sequences in to the DNA of the host. RNA viruses that are not retroviruses are not expected to integrate their sequences in to the host genome.
This study looked to see if Sars2 viral RNA sequences had been integrated in to the cells of people who’ve had Covid and found that, yes, bits and pieces of the viral RNA sequences are found in the infected person’s cell’s genomic DNA.
The most integrated was a gene in Sars2 called the N gene.
A similar study could be done for vaccinated people who did not have Covid to see if vaccine RNA sequences were integrated in to the vaccinated person’s genome, but a sample repository doesn’t exist. But, the vaccine developers should have done this under FDA regulatory review as part of the approval process. I don’t know if they did or didn’t, though.