I haven't yet read the article, but I noticed the source is a PhD biochemist quoting scientists at Harvard and MIT.
Note, libh8er, that contrary to your assertion earlier (your counterexample from a site that suggested antijabbers had a spurious fear of DNA combining with RNA, a definite strawman), both the commenter and the work he's quoting are people who know the difference...
Could mRNA Vaccines Permanently Alter DNA? Recent Science Suggests They Might.
First sentence from link:
Research on SARS-CoV-2 RNA by scientists at Harvard and MIT has implications for how mRNA vaccines could permanently alter genomic DNA, according to Doug Corrigan, Ph.D., a biochemist-molecular biologist who says more research is needed.... Reverse transcription
“a biochemist-molecular biologist who says more research is needed..”
Clearly a “request” for funding. FTM.
Quite interesting article to me as the controversy between scientists demonstrates once again how unsettled science actually is about this new virus and new vaccines (and pretty much everything else...:-)
First link is to Doug Corrigan’s blog analysis of whether reverse transcription can occur with this virus something that is strongly disputed by other scientists.
https://sciencewithdrdoug.com/2020/11/27/will-an-rna-vaccine-permanently-alter-my-dna/
Next link is to new study that suggests that it may occur.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1
“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.”
This last link is an update by Corrigan who now feels more strongly that this is possible and even probable under certain conditions.
Obviously a lot more study will be necessary to determine the significance (if any) of this.
Thanks for the ping.
Anyone who’s been around the block knows that science is never settled. Scientists make their pronouncements based on their current understanding of things and that changes by the day. It’s never settled, especially considering how little we actually know about the physical world we inhabit.
UK Modeling of resurgence of the coof. Of interest —
32. The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have
received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave
respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age
groups, such that immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated
individuals. This is discussed further in paragraphs 55 and 56.
Who becomes seriously ill in a resurgence?
55. Figure 11 illustrates the age and vaccination status of those hospitalised (left) and dying
(right) over time in Warwick’s central scenario for the whole Roadmap (equivalent to figure
4). The top plots are absolute numbers and the bottom plots are as a proportion of those
admitted or dying.
56. This shows that most deaths and admissions in a post-Roadmap resurgence are in
people who have received two vaccine doses, even without vaccine protection
waning or a variant emerging that escapes vaccines. This is because vaccine uptake
has been so high in the oldest age groups (modelled here at 95% in the over 50-year olds).
There are therefore 5% of over 50-year olds who have not been vaccinated, and 95% x
10% = 9.5% of over 50-year olds who are vaccinated but, nevertheless, not protected
against death. This is not the result of vaccines being ineffective, merely uptake
being so high.