Bombshell Study — Pfizer Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells and Is Converted to DNA…

  • Thread starter Thread starter harddriver
  • Start date Start date
Beyond Black said:
Wrong wrong wrong….Straight from the researchers mouths from LUND UNIVERSITY.
https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/qa-covid-19-vaccine-study-gains-attentionMore clarity….
https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...ovid-19-mrna-vaccines-change-dna-epoch-times/
Click to expand...
Sure thing Beyond Science :hys:

Did you even read the link you provided?

"We saw that there was DNA converted from the vaccine's mRNA in the host cells we studied."

Dance around it all you want. It's pretty clear what it means.

When you gettting the 4th shot?
 
Excerpts directly from the published study link provided above:

4. Discussion​

In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 h after BNT162b2 exposure. A possible mechanism for reverse transcription is through endogenous reverse transcriptase LINE-1, and the nucleus protein distribution of LINE-1 is elevated by BNT162b2.

In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.

The Pfizer EMA assessment report also showed that BNT162b2 distributes in the spleen (<1.1%), adrenal glands (<0.1%), as well as low and measurable radioactivity in the ovaries and testes (<0.1%) [26]. Furthermore, no data on placental transfer of BNT162b2 is available from Pfizer EMA assessment report. Our results showed that BNT162b2 mRNA readily enters Huh7 cells at a concentration (0.5 µg/mL) corresponding to 0.5% of the local injection site concentration, induce changes in LINE-1 gene and protein expression, and within 6 h, reverse transcription of BNT162b2 can be detected. It is therefore important to investigate further the effect of BNT162b2 on other cell types and tissues both in vitro and in vivo.

5. Conclusions​

Our study is the first in vitro study on the effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 on human liver cell line. We present evidence on fast entry of BNT162b2 into the cells and subsequent intracellular reverse transcription of BNT162b2 mRNA into DNA.
 
Krull said:
Sure thing Beyond Science :hys:

Did you even read the link you provided?

"We saw that there was DNA converted from the vaccine's mRNA in the host cells we studied."

Dance around it all you want. It's pretty clear what it means.

When you gettting the 4th shot?
Click to expand...
Did you even read it? Their results have been totally misinterpreted, no doubt by people like you who cherry pick one specific sentence to suit their agenda. They then went on to say…
“ These findings were observed in petri dishes under experimental conditions, but we do not yet know if the converted DNA is integrated into the cells' DNA in the genome - and if so, if it has any consequences.”
The study was performed on human liver cells from one cell line – cell cultures used for research purposes. It is a good tool when studying molecular and cellular processes, they are easy to research, and since the cell lines are easily accessible, studies often start with various cell lines.
One should consider that cell lines differ from cells in living organisms, and therefore it is important that similar investigations are also studied in humans.
It is important to bear in mind that the liver cells in this study are more genetically unstable than our own liver cells.
One of the limitations of our study is that we don’t know if what we observed in this cell line could also happen in cells of other tissue types, and this needs to be addressed in follow-up studies.
There is no reason for anyone to change their decision to take the vaccine based on this study.”

Nice try, Trull, enjoy your crow…
 
Last edited:
Beyond Black said:
Did you even read it? Their results have been totally misinterpreted, no doubt by people like you who cherry pick one specific sentence to suit their agenda. They then went on to say…
These findings were observed in petri dishes under experimental conditions, but we do not yet know if the converted DNA is integrated into the cells' DNA in the genome - and if so, if it has any consequences.”
The study was performed on human liver cells from one cell line – cell cultures used for research purposes. It is a good tool when studying molecular and cellular processes, they are easy to research, and since the cell lines are easily accessible, studies often start with various cell lines.
One should consider that cell lines differ from cells in living organisms, and therefore it is important that similar investigations are also studied in humans.
It is important to bear in mind that the liver cells in this study are more genetically unstable than our own liver cells.
One of the limitations of our study is that we don’t know if what we observed in this cell line could also happen in cells of other tissue types, and this needs to be addressed in follow-up studies.
There is no reason for anyone to change their decision to take the vaccine based on this study…..

Nice try, Trull, enjoy your crow…
Click to expand...
You do realize this is an experimental vaccine right? Developed in less than a year and you are coming up on your 4th shot.

Obama and Kamala's husband tested positive and they are "triple jabbed". wonder why that is...
 
Didn't they say that the "vaccine" stays localized in the deltoid muscle injection site? Why is it going to the liver ?
 
harddriver said:
Excerpts directly from the published study link provided above:

4. Discussion​

In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 h after BNT162b2 exposure. A possible mechanism for reverse transcription is through endogenous reverse transcriptase LINE-1, and the nucleus protein distribution of LINE-1 is elevated by BNT162b2.

In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.

The Pfizer EMA assessment report also showed that BNT162b2 distributes in the spleen (<1.1%), adrenal glands (<0.1%), as well as low and measurable radioactivity in the ovaries and testes (<0.1%) [26]. Furthermore, no data on placental transfer of BNT162b2 is available from Pfizer EMA assessment report. Our results showed that BNT162b2 mRNA readily enters Huh7 cells at a concentration (0.5 µg/mL) corresponding to 0.5% of the local injection site concentration, induce changes in LINE-1 gene and protein expression, and within 6 h, reverse transcription of BNT162b2 can be detected. It is therefore important to investigate further the effect of BNT162b2 on other cell types and tissues both in vitro and in vivo.

5. Conclusions​

Our study is the first in vitro study on the effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 on human liver cell line. We present evidence on fast entry of BNT162b2 into the cells and subsequent intracellular reverse transcription of BNT162b2 mRNA into DNA.
Click to expand...
That study was performed IN VITRO on cancerous liver cells. Not healthy cells in a living human…

“The experimental system used in the Lund University study is artificial. For example, it used liver cancer cells growing in the laboratory, which aren’t representative of healthy cells or a human being, to study whether the vaccine mRNA was reverse-transcribed. The study’s results therefore cannot be extrapolated to people.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...ovid-19-mrna-vaccines-change-dna-epoch-times/
 
Beyond Black said:
That study was performed IN VITRO on cancerous liver cells. Not healthy cells in a living human…

“The experimental system used in the Lund University study is artificial. For example, it used liver cancer cells growing in the laboratory, which aren’t representative of healthy cells or a human being, to study whether the vaccine mRNA was reverse-transcribed. The study’s results therefore cannot be extrapolated to people.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...ovid-19-mrna-vaccines-change-dna-epoch-times/
Click to expand...
So you don't think IN VITRO is a relevant study? Guess what? You are the study, buddy. It's an experimental vaccine and are the Petri dish.

...Ya because only healthy people got the vaccine, no one with cancer could have possibly got the vaccine.

Dude you are lost. When's the 4th shot?
 
Last edited:
harddriver said:
Click to expand...

Sorry man, I don’t know who that guy is, couldn’t understand his name or website, and don’t know his credentials.
Your first post you posted the research from Lund University. Then I posted an interview of the very scientists who conducted the research from LUND, who thoroughly explained why the experiment was inconclusive and misinterpreted, and suddenly Lund isn’t good enough? Ok, I see how this works now…
 
Last edited:
Beyond Black said:
It’s not experimental. This specific vaccine is new, but mRNA vaccines have been in development for decades.
If you bothered to read ANYTHING I posted, it thoroughly explains why the in vitro experiments are inconclusive and misinterpreted.
You are the one who is lost. I know 4 people who’ve died from COVID, all unvaccinated. But you do you, man. :thumbsup:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...ovid vaccine shed:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:pTN:FY21
Click to expand...
Yes it is an experimental vaccine. that had emergency authorization.

No point arguing. Keep getting the boosters :thumbsup:
 
Trusts a vaccine that was made IN VITRO but thinks the Lund experiments IN VITRO are "inconclusive and misrepresented" because the scientists had to backtrack after their experiments got too much negative attention.

But but I'm cherry picking when I point out what the scientist says in his own words.

"We saw that there was DNA converted from the vaccine's mRNA in the host cells we studied."

Yup. Sounds inconclusive and misrepresenting to me. 2 + 2 = 5
 
Last edited:
Findthetone1 said:
Here's the two key phrases in that study that just drives home the fact that that shit should have never been allowed for use, you clown.
Enjoy your test shots.
Click to expand...
Yeah, which ultimately ended with “There is no reason for anyone to change their decision to take the vaccine based on this study.”
Enjoy living in fear and paranoia, dipshit.
 
Beyond Black said:
Sorry man, I don’t know who that guy is, couldn’t understand his name or website, and don’t know his credentials.
Your first post you posted the research from Lund University. Then I posted an interview of the very scientists who conducted the research from LUND, who thoroughly explained why the experiment was inconclusive and misinterpreted, and suddenly Lund isn’t good enough? Ok, I see how this works now…
Click to expand...
I have read the entire study and nothing within the study is ambiguous, they stopped short of stating the reverse transcribed DNA is fully integrated into the human genome. If you watched the video from Dr. Been he shows multiple peer reviewed studies of viruses have the capability to integrate into the human genomic DNA. The researchers conclusions still stand, there are enough safety signals at this point that these injections should be halted upon further review.... any further dissemination of these injections are immoral human experimentation that violate the Nuremberg Code and other International Human rights treaties and laws.

4. Discussion​

In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 h after BNT162b2 exposure. A possible mechanism for reverse transcription is through endogenous reverse transcriptase LINE-1, and the nucleus protein distribution of LINE-1 is elevated by BNT162b2.

In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.


Please note that in the BNT162b2 toxicity report submitted by Pfizer, NO genotoxicity NOR carcinogenicity studies have been provided to these researchers. Now why has that not been done or provided? Doesn't the public have the right to know? I suspect that information will eventually come out under the court order release of these documents that the FDA and Pfizer were trying to block the release of for 75 years. Here is the first release of some of that data:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...oc-5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf#page=30
Whether or not the reverse transcribed mRNA is fully integrated into the genomic structure is just unknown at this point but past research shows it is possible. Don't you think maybe for once maybe they should err on the side of caution and ethical behavior as laid out by multiple international law, treaties and the Nuremberg Code of which all countries have ratified.

If the research paper absolutely has no standing whatsoever and has been misrepresented in any way then they must publicly retract the paper and state the reason for doing so. So far they have not.
 
SQUAREHEAD said:
Click to expand...

Cute video snippet. I see you’ve done extensive research and my argument is no match for yours. Well played, I concede..
…
B11FCFAA-3058-4705-8376-B2EEB2E26072.jpeg
 
Beyond Black said:
Enjoy living with common sense and critical thinking.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.

beyond black: "I need new brakes for my car"
mechanic: "You absolutely have to use these new brake pads. It's the latest technology."
beyond black: "Are they safe? Do they work?"
mechanic: "we don't know yet if they are safe. The head of the brake pad safety syndicate stated they worked 90% of the time. But then dropped it to 65%, then to 33% and now is stating that they really don't work at all on cars 5-11 years old so...."
beyond black: "well, since the TV says they are effective and safe, I'll take em!!"
 
harddriver said:
I have read the entire study and nothing within the study is ambiguous, they stopped short of stating the reverse transcribed DNA is fully integrated into the human genome. If you watched the video from Dr. Been he shows multiple peer reviewed studies of viruses have the capability to integrate into the human genomic DNA. The researchers conclusions still stand, there are enough safety signals at this point that these injections should be halted upon further review.... any further dissemination of these injections are immoral human experimentation that violate the Nuremberg Code and other International Human rights treaties and laws.

4. Discussion​

In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 h after BNT162b2 exposure. A possible mechanism for reverse transcription is through endogenous reverse transcriptase LINE-1, and the nucleus protein distribution of LINE-1 is elevated by BNT162b2.

In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.


Please note that in the BNT162b2 toxicity report submitted by Pfizer, NO genotoxicity NOR carcinogenicity studies have been provided to these researchers. Now why has that not been done or provided? Doesn't the public have the right to know? I suspect that information will eventually come out under the court order release of these documents that the FDA and Pfizer were trying to block the release of for 75 years. Here is the first release of some of that data:

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...oc-5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf#page=30
Whether or not the reverse transcribed mRNA is fully integrated into the genomic structure is just unknown at this point but past research shows it is possible. Don't you think maybe for once maybe they should err on the side of caution and ethical behavior as laid out by multiple international law, treaties and the Nuremberg Code of which all countries have ratified.

If the research paper absolutely has no standing whatsoever and has been misrepresented in any way then they must publicly retract the paper and state the reason for doing so. So far they have not.
Click to expand...
That report showed data ending 2/28/21, at the very beginning of public vaccination for COVID, and after only 42,000 medically confirmed cases. It was also stated in the report that you posted, that clinical information is incomplete and inconclusive. I appreciate and understand your thoughtful argument concerning the mRNA integrating the genomic structure, and I’m all for full disclosure, but they have not concluded that it does outside of cancerous cells in vitro.
Dr. Been practiced medicine for only a couple of years, and he’s now primarily a software engineer and YouTube so called medical expert. I need better credentials than that to take someone’s medical expertise seriously...

The limitations of post-marketing adverse drug event reporting should be considered when interpreting these data:
• Reports are submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown. Some of the factors that may influence whether an event is reported include: length of time since marketing, market share of the drug, publicity about a drug or an AE, seriousness of the reaction, regulatory actions, awareness by health professionals and consumers of adverse drug event reporting, and litigation.
• Because many external factors influence whether or not an AE is reported, the spontaneous reporting system yields reporting proportions not incidence rates. As a result, it is generally not appropriate to make between-drug comparisons using these proportions; the spontaneous reporting system should be used for signal detection rather than hypothesis testing.
• In some reports, clinical information (such as medical history, validation of diagnosis, time from drug use to onset of illness, dose, and use of concomitant drugs) is missing or incomplete, and follow-up information may not be available.
• An accumulation of adverse event reports (AERs) does not necessarily indicate that a particular AE was caused by the drug; rather, the event may be due to an underlying disease or some other factor(s) such as past medical history or concomitant medication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top