Genetics Intelligent Design

Central principle of biology challenged? Human cells write RNA sequences into DNA

Spread the love

They used to think that mainly viruses did this:

In a discovery that challenges long-held dogma in biology, researchers show that mammalian cells can convert RNA sequences back into DNA, a feat more common in viruses than eukaryotic cells.

Cells contain machinery that duplicates DNA into a new set that goes into a newly formed cell. That same class of machines, called polymerases, also build RNA messages, which are like notes copied from the central DNA repository of recipes, so they can be read more efficiently into proteins. But polymerases were thought to only work in one direction DNA into DNA or RNA. This prevents RNA messages from being rewritten back into the master recipe book of genomic DNA. Now, Thomas Jefferson University researchers provide the first evidence that RNA segments can be written back into DNA, which potentially challenges the central dogma in biology and could have wide implications affecting many fields of biology.

“This work opens the door to many other studies that will help us understand the significance of having a mechanism for converting RNA messages into DNA in our own cells,” says Richard Pomerantz, PhD, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Thomas Jefferson University. “The reality that a human polymerase can do this with high efficiency, raises many questions.” For example, this finding suggests that RNA messages can be used as templates for repairing or re-writing genomic DNA.

Thomas Jefferson University, “New Discovery Shows Human Cells Can Write RNA Sequences Into DNA – Challenges Central Principle in Biology” at SciTech Daily

The paper is open access.

23 Replies to “Central principle of biology challenged? Human cells write RNA sequences into DNA

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    here we go again:

    “… a discovery that challenges long-held dogma in biology…”

    one would expect, that with new research, Darwinists would bring more undeniable evidence (facts) to confirm their theory …

    instead of that, we permanently read something like the following:

    “…current concepts are reviewed…”
    “…uprooting current thinking….”
    “…latest findings contradict the current dogma….”
    “… it challenges a long-held theory…”
    “… it upends a common view…”
    “… it needs a rethink … ”
    “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ”
    “… it shakes up the dogma … ”
    “… earlier than thought…”
    “… younger than thought….”
    “… smarter than thought ….”
    “… more complex that thought ….”

    I hear Seversky, JVL & Co commenting on this “you know, this is how science work,… ”
    is this real science or story telling? Darwinists are proven wrong every other day ….

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    At least from an outsider view, this doesn’t seem especially surprising. We’ve known for a long time that cells spend tremendous effort checking and repairing their own DNA, which necessarily means that they know how to write into DNA.

  3. 3

    For me, the shoe-drop moment, is when you realize that most of the Covid vaccines are RNA. We are writing into our DNA, the human-manufactured virus. We are genetically engineering ourselves. Does the public realize this?

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    Martin_r @1,
    Yes, exactly!

    Robert Sheldon @3
    What could possibly go wrong? (See @1)

    -Q

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    We are genetically engineering ourselves. Does the public realize this?

    No, because we’re not. Unless you have any actual evidence of vaccine sequences being found in human DNA, this is a dangerous and false scare story.

    Yes, some Covid-19 vaccines are RNA vaccines. This means they are mRNA, which enter the cell, but not the nucleus. So how would they integrate into our DNA? Even if it did somehow get into the nucleus, how would it integrate? (more than “with a reverse transcriptase”, please).

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Bob O’H has a point. To get into the nucleus mRNA needs a nuclear access signal. Then it would need reverse transcriptase and then integrase. That’s 3 strikes as the vaccine RNA doesn’t have any of those.

  7. 7

    Will the Darwinists now suggest that the transcription of RNA to DNA is random input, and not rational input?

    But if it is rational input….then uh, why would we need random mutations for input?

    Why would we need any Darwinism at all to explain things?

  8. 8
    KRock says:

    Question for Bob O’H @5

    So anyone who has received one of the mRNA vaccines can rest assured that they’re safe? I’m genuinely curious. There’s a ton of information out there and it’s become exceedingly difficult to filter fact from fiction.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    There is a difference between the vaccine being safe and the vaccine’s mRNA getting inserted into the genome. Obviously some people have have adverse reactions to the vaccine’s. Some have died. You don’t need a vaccine if you have had covid-19. Getting a vaccine after you have had it could/ will cause problems.

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    Robert Sheldon/3

    For me, the shoe-drop moment, is when you realize that most of the Covid vaccines are RNA. We are writing into our DNA, the human-manufactured virus. We are genetically engineering ourselves. Does the public realize this?

    New Approach to Vaccines

    mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies.

    […]

    Facts about COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines

    They cannot give someone COVID-19.

    mRNA vaccines do not use the live virus that causes COVID-19.

    They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way.

    mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA (genetic material) is kept.

    The cell breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.

    In my view, it is highly irresponsible to spread false information that could lead to resistance to being vaccinated and result in higher numbers of infections, hospitalizations and even deaths than is necessary.

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    The vaccines are inserting material that will create proteins that are identical or mimic very closely one part of the spiked protein of the virus.

    One section of spiked protein is what attaches to the ACE2 receptor and enables the other part of the spiked protein to contact the cell membrane and enable the viron to enter the cell where it is reproduced in mass. The attachment to the ACE2 receptor then enables clotting factors to enter the bloodstream.

    By just having part of the spiked protein produced by the vaccine it cannot reproduce but can attach to the ACE2 receptor.

    It’s not clear if this is what is causing the thrombosis in the vaccinated.

    If one has had C19 there is no need for a vaccine since immunity has developed. About 100 million in US have had the virus snd the anti bodies to C19.

    If anyone has any different understanding, I would be happy to hear it.

    In my view, it is highly irresponsible to spread false information that could lead to resistance to being vaccinated and result in higher numbers of infections, hospitalizations and even deaths than is necessary

    You must have supported Trump when he was recommending HCQ.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    If they really wanted to stop this thing they would push the medically recommended OTC prophylaxis. It is effective against all variants.

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    i took first dose of Pfizer mRNA vaccine 2 weeks ago (i am not very happy about that, but it is easier for vaccinated people to travel across the Europe). Except diarrhea, i don’t see any other side affects. Even no pain in my arm.

    Darwinists say

    (mRNAs from the vaccine) They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way.
    mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA (genetic material) is kept.

    In this particular case, i really want to believe that Darwinists got this right.

    However, i am still kind of nervous, because, when you look at the latest Darwinian biology research (any research) it always starts with something like this:

    a discovery that challenges long-held dogma in biology

    So, perhaps one day, we will hear about another “discovery that challenges long-held dogma in biology”, this time, that mRNA (from the vaccine), CAN enter the cell nucleus…

  14. 14
    martin_r says:

    in addition, in regards to:

    mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA (genetic material) is kept.

    i have a question, perhaps Seversky & Co can answer:

    i am only an engineer, so perhaps a silly questions, but would it be eventually possible or imaginable, that the mRNA from the vaccine will enter the cell nucleus directly via needle ? e.g. the tip of the needle pokes the cell membrane and then the cell nucleus and then the nurse injects the mRNA directly into cell nucleus ? I realize that the chance is not high, when you consider the dimensions of the cell and the tip of the needle… but anyway …

  15. 15
    martin_r says:

    They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way.

    mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA (genetic material) is kept.

    Seversky, look here:

    PNAS (May 25):

    “Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues”

    https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118

    Seversky, so now what?

  16. 16
    Bob O'H says:

    Martin_r @ 14 – I don’t know what size needle is used, but the smallest hypodermic needle has an inner diameter of about 80 microns, and wall thickness of 50 microns. The average nucleus is about 6 microns wide. So I think that would be a clear “no”.

  17. 17
    martin_r says:

    Bob O’H @16

    alright, with the needle, it was just an idea…
    Forget about the needle, look at what i posted yesterday @15
    So, another question in respect to the PNAS article. When RNA from the coronavirus can integrate into human genome, how can you be sure, that the mRNA from the vaccine can not ? (Like i said, i already took first dose of Pfizer mRNA vaccine, so i am a bit nervous when reading the PNAS paper)

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    Martin_r – first, it’s not clear that Sars-Cov 2 sequences can be integrated into the genome: there are some critical comments on PubPeer, and one paper saying they found no sign of it in patients. So I think the jury is still out.

    Second, even if Sars-Cov 2 sequences can be integrated, there is no reason to think that one specific sequence can be integrated. Either there is another sequence (not related to the S protein) that enables reverse transcription and integration, or the process is agnostic to the sequence, in which case this is so rare we haven’t seen signs of it (and we would, because there would be a lot of random integration of all sorts of functional mRNA sequences in the genome).

  19. 19
    jerry says:

    Observations from listening to so called experts.

    First, they know very little about viruses. For example, I’ve seen no good explanation how the common cold works to cause the various symptoms and related to that how the C19 virus is different. Apparently what causes the common cold is the result of different types of viruses of which corona viruses make up a significant minority. In other words many cold viruses have spiked proteins.

    This would seem a natural form of discussion but is nowhere. Maybe I am wrong and someone has a link to such a discussion.

    From what I understand the detrimental element of the virus is two fold, the spiked protein on the outside which is two proteins separated by a small amino acid sequence and the innards. The inside sequence has no specific negative effect other than it reproduces quickly and in large amounts.

    When the immune system attacks the spiked protein, that is what it can see, it leaves zillions of junk from the innards around and the immune system then attacks these particles. .

    It is the latter junk that causes a lot of the problems.

    One part of the spiked protein is also a problem. It attaches to ACE2 cells snd negates it’s functions. This leads to clotting and cardiovascular problems.

    Aside: it’s hard to see how the mRNA vaccine could get into the nucleus of the cell since the same sequence is also part of the virus itself and does not get into the nucleus.

    Welcome any contradictions and clarifications.

  20. 20
    martin_r says:

    Bob O’H

    Second, even if Sars-Cov 2 sequences can be integrated, there is no reason to think that one specific sequence can be integrated.

    sounds reasonable, i hope so …

    i also read, that the spike protein itself is “cytotoxic” in other words, it harms the cell. Could you also comment on that ?

    https://www.jbiomeds.com/abstract/the-cytotoxic-effects-of-spike-proteins-and-hydroxychloroquine-34392.html

  21. 21
    Bob O'H says:

    Martin_r – I’m afraid I can’t, as it’s too far outside my area of expertise.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks,

    Polistra is right, the human cells have DNA editing, there are viruses that edit and recent publications, as noted in the OP highlight that there seems to be a built-in way to write back from RNA to DNA. Of course, even more oodles of FSCO/I, pointing to the known source, design.

    In that context, absent very careful checks, it is outright folly to create novel “vaccines” that work by tricking the body’s cells — suspiciously similar to viruses — to create spike proteins targetting ACE2 receptors. That invites serious unintended consequences including potentially write-back. We already have reason to see the spike protein as damaging. Ask around, were animal analogue experiments done on these vaxes, with what published results. What about earlier animal experiments and what were their results?

    Furthe to this, there is record of unintentional onward intensification of disease through perverse action of antibodies, comparable to Dengue haemorrhagic.

    Instead, we should have noted the precautionary principle and the least intervention approach. For example, a comparison of the push of such experimental vaxes vs the clear evidence that ivermectin based cocktails are effective treatments . . . and even hydroxychloroquine based ones, too . . . is a clear case of selectively hyperskeptical double standards.

    Similarly, given the well established principle that natural immunity is highly effective, why a push to vaccinate those who should have such.

    Also, for the young, there is some reason to believe known adverse reactions are far more likely than death from the vax, which in turn credibly is drastically reduced through treatments.

    We need to profile risks and recognise that there are reasonable treatments; treatments drastically shift risk-balance estimates, given that for instance Ivermectin credibly can take people out of fairly far advanced CV19, not to mention wider protocols.

    All of which is before we run into the spin/censorship/marginalisation game that has drastically undermined informed consent and right of withdrawal per the Nuremberg Code, 1947. See, please https://uncommondescent.com/medicine/dr-been-and-dr-marik-on-covid-19-after-15-months/ and say https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZmbCapbXa0R7/

    KF

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I just tested embed technology, we are not locked up to YT vids only. The second just linked is now up here https://uncommondescent.com/medicine/a-panel-on-cv19-with-a-co-inventor-of-mrna-technology/ A food for thought panel. KF

Leave a Reply