I get such a kick out of your assumption that you are the definitive voice. Your conclusions are not supported by the points you make but you think to dazzle with your footwork.
Other actual scientists are well aware that the relationships you cavalierly dismiss are unclear and mechanisms are unknown. Science constantly surprised with elucidation of unsuspected interrelationships but you will never be surprised because you “know”.
My PhD was in biochemistry and molecular biology.
Biochemistry is the study of the structure and function of proteins.
Molecular biology is the study of the structure and function of nucleic acids.
This means that I have studied (and researched in the lab) these topics to a level of detail that most people cannot even imagine.
Contrary to your belief, the mechanisms of mRNA activity in the cell are *very* well understood. When I say that there is no mechanism for an mRNA to cause cancer, that's because there is, in fact, no biological mechanism. mRNA lives and dies in the cytoplasm of the cell and never enters the nucleus or the mitochondria. Cancer develops because of aberrations in gene control which happen to the DNA which is located in the nucleus and in the mitochondria. Since mRNA does not interact with DNA, it cannot be carcinogenic.
Likewise, the normal function of the adaptive immune system to analyze antigens and produce antigen-specific T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies is also not a carcinogenic process. Since this particular immune function starts to develop in newborn babies and keeps developing until their late teens, it's unlikely babies would survive very long at all if something about it were carcinogenic.
But..
but..
you don’t understand peasant.
This is ExtraDemMom!
She used to work in Dr. Malone’s lab (for a few weeks).
And she took CALCULUS!