https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/glossary/reverse-transcription
So what if someone was just injected with HIV DNA? Still allow HIV to enter the CD4 cell nucleus and comine with the cell's genetic material - cell DNA? If not, why not?
The article does not make a direct claim of permanent DNA changes caused by the "Jab". It makes a direct claim that there is a gross amount of DNA that should not be in the compound. Why is it there and what is it doing?
The obvious point of inference left unsaid is that DNA inserted into a cell by the same mechanism that inserts RNA into the cell will make permanent changes to the cell. or there is some mechanism by which the RNA is creating the DNA.
Which was a basic point made by "ransomnote" and many others a long time ago - that previously unknown pathways would be discovered which allow reverse transcription of the spike-generator RNA of the Pfizer treatment into the cell nucleus and permanently alter the function of the cell - and all of its' descendants.
RNA is supposed to be a consumable, with a lifespan of hours to days. That spike protein generation was supposed to turn itself off after a period of time.
If the reverse transcription, or DNA contamination ideas are true, then people who took the defective (?) "hot" forms of the mRNA treatment are absolutely screwed for the rest of their lives. Their infested tissues will continue to generate toxic spike proteins as long as they live.
Does that vindicate "ransomnote" and all the others. I don't know.
I cannot find any satisfaction or vindication in another "I told you so" condition. I am more a fan of "Rope, lamppost, some assembly required" for the perpetrators. For dammed sure, we aren't going to see any justice from our "legal system".
"Everyone who participated in, everyone who benefited from it..." (Man on Fire).
https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/glossary/reverse-transcription
So what if someone was just injected with HIV DNA? Still allow HIV to enter the CD4 cell nucleus and comine with the cell's genetic material - cell DNA? If not, why not?
Probably easier for RNA to get integrated in to a chromosome than DNA.
But DNA could as well.
Do any of these analyses say what the DNA is? The entire plasmid used to transcribe the spike RNA?