Other than making the injected mRNA less noticeable to the innate immune system, the pseudouracil behaves exactly like uracil. The RNA modification enzymes in your body treat it exactly like uracil. This means that the ribosomes read it, the transfer RNAs recognize it, and the RNAses that destroy RNA destroy mRNA containing pseudouracil exactly the same way that they destroy mRNA containing uracil.
For people who are interested in learning more about self-replicating RNA (srRNA), I have linked a review:
Next generation self-replicating RNA vectors for vaccines and immunotherapies.
The srRNA does not last forever in the body; no RNA does. The benefit of it being self-replicating is that it replaces itself almost as fast as it is destroyed in the cell, meaning that it can direct the production of a desired protein product for an extended period of time compared to regular mRNAs (including vaccine mRNA).
The Epoch Times seems to be on a mission to scare the pants off of conservatives by using words and concepts that they do not understand. I wonder what the ideology of the owners of that publication really is, because I don't think they like conservatives at all.
One big reason the Covid vaccines failed was the antigen changed.
Not that I’m a virologist but saw an article be one scientist who predicted this.
The article stated coronaviruses mutate quickly.
Then I looked up the childhood vaccine schedule and not one vaccine to a coronavirus was there.
mRNA vaccines might work someday, but then again we were promised gene therapy in 1990 and it’s still not here.
Dear exDemMo
What is your mission?
Where did you go to school?
What degrees and credentials do you hold?
Self-proclaimed infectious disease specialist is not a legitimate legit designation.
Hi Dingbat.
It's funny how you repackage and reword the contents of the original article so as to appear that you are refuting it.
The original article says:
The term “self-amplifying” is self-explanatory: saRNA replicates itself repeatedly, which is not natural, as natural mRNA is always (without exception) transcribed from DNA (this is called the “central dogma of molecular biology”). Compared to modRNA, a small amount of saRNA results in an increased amount of produced antigen; one shot of saRNA-based injection may be enough to generate sufficient antibodies against a virus.
Both saRNA and modRNA represent the blueprint for a viral protein, which, after entering our cells, will be produced by our cell machinery (i.e., ribosomes).
Scientists created the genetically modified modRNA sequence by replacing natural uridines with synthetic methyl-pseudouridines to generate a maximum amount of viral antigen. This modification is the basis of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 shots.
Unlike modRNA, saRNA does not contain methyl-pseudouridines, but uridines. Why? Since saRNA self-replicates and synthetic methyl-pseudouridines are not available in our cells, saRNA must rely on natural uridines that exist in our cells. Our cells will produce foreign proteins using their own cell machinery and their own natural resources—the main reason these cells finally become exhausted.
However, this causes a significant problem: mRNA is highly unstable and, therefore, has only a short lifespan—too short for our immune system to produce sufficient antibodies. The solution to this problem is the second difference between modRNA and saRNA.
Unlike modRNA, saRNA contains an additional sequence for the replicase, as destroyed (by RNases) saRNA must be replaced by new saRNA.
As natural mRNA will never self-replicate, saRNA definitely represents a genetically modified RNA (modRNA).
Put simply, saRNA is just another type of modRNA.
Have you called Dr. Malone yet to see if he has resumed the crusade in favor of the clot-shots because SCIENCE!™ ?
That's what you creeps said about the first synthetic mRNA experiment.
Your credibility is less than zero.