Science & Technology News

[CatNewBee]

A good read about RNA, DNA evolution and enzymes for transcribing the genomes...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6338/

[newhaul]

Here's a different point of view on management in the covit jab from harvard and MIT
https://www.newstarget.com/2021-04-1...human-dna.html

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here's a different point of view on management in the covit jab from harvard and MIT
https://www.newstarget.com/2021-04-1...human-dna.html

The study*, alluded to in newhaul’s linked NewsTarget.com article, which was sourced from the ChildrensHealthDefense.org [IMO, both disinformation swamps]

* “SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome” ~ by Liguo Zhang et al
Abstract ➥ https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...12.12.422516v1
Full Text ➥ https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1....422516v1.full

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here's a different point of view on management in the covit jab from harvard and MIT
https://www.newstarget.com/2021-04-1...human-dna.html

You can safely ignore ANY article that uses the term "Wuhan Flu" for COVID-19.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You can safely ignore ANY article that uses the term "Wuhan Flu" for COVID-19.

Go figure you don't like the people that published the article .
So atack it .
How about the actual studies . Refute the conclusions from the studies from harvard or MIT .

Just because you don't like who wrote the article doesn't mean the studies referenced are not good and valid .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

... How about the actual studies . Refute the conclusions from the studies from harvard or MIT ...

Did you actually read & understand the actual study [to which I linked], referenced in your article?

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You can safely ignore ANY article that uses the term "Wuhan Flu" for COVID-19.

That is an easy way to sort "proper ganda" [emoji108][emoji6], just focus on the proper framing.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Did you actually read & understand the actual study [to which I linked], referenced in your article?

Yes and I do understand much more than people give credit for . Do you fully understand what the management injections actually are doing in the cells?

[Ded reckoner]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You can safely ignore ANY article that uses the term "Wuhan Flu" for COVID-19.

Technical publications use both technical notation and equivalent descriptions from where a variant of COVID-19 emerges. The original SARS-CoV-2 variant is known as the Wuhan coronavirus. The variant detected in southeast England is known as the UK coronavirus or equivalently B.1.1.7. The variant detected in South Africa is B.1.351. There are variants from Brazil, California, and other places. Personally, I find the location names of the variants easier to keep straight than the technical notations.

[Ded reckoner]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The study*, alluded to in newhaul’s linked NewsTarget.com article, which was sourced from the ChildrensHealthDefense.org [IMO, both disinformation swamps]

* “SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome” ~ by Liguo Zhang et al
Abstract ➥ https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...12.12.422516v1
Full Text ➥ https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1....422516v1.full

Would you please expound on the point you are making? The first link you provided (very helpfully, thank you) is not peer reviewed yet, but it seems to indicate the point made in the referenced political article. What other creatures are in your disinformation swamp? Do they include the mainstream media? I know nothing about them, but is ChildrensHealthDefense.org more esteemed by you now?

Ever since mRNA vaccines were expected to be released under emergency authorizations, concern has been expressed by numerous sources of the ability of the mRNA to be uptaken into the DNA by the same mechanism in which HIV infection occurs (i.e. using reverse transcriptase). The technical article presents evidence they have demonstrated not only feasibility but actuality. This is a significant finding. Of greater interest, it's unclear what the importance is. For example, it's unclear whether the mRNA from one of the vaccine products has ever been uptaken into a single person's DNA or what the consequences are. The technical authors have some speculation on what those consequences could be.

The mechanistic explanations for the mRNA products have been that the cell is instructed to produce spike protein and then the mRNA disintegrates within the cell and is disposed of as waste. The two biotechnology companies have not held out that their products are able to alter someone's DNA. In any case, it seems reasonable to be concerned about the possibility of DNA alteration after vaccination.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Go figure you don't like the people that published the article .
So atack it .
How about the actual studies . Refute the conclusions from the studies from harvard or MIT .

I have zero issues with the referenced studies. I only have a problem with that article's authors' spin on the study results. (which Gord has kindly referenced. No, Gord, they don't understand it. Why should they? That article tells them what to think.)

And yes, the use of "Wuhan Flu" in an article has, time and again, proven to be a reliable windex for showing from where the authors (and the publication) are coming from. It's a tell, in poker parlance.

(So yeah, damn straight I don't like the ignorant, self-serving, agenda-pushing anti-science rags like those)

[edit - just had to share another headline from that illustrious publication:

Big tech pouring billions into harvesting blood of the young so elites can live and rule forever



run away, Newhaul, that site's sh1te will knock 10s of points off of anyone's IQ]

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I have zero issues with the referenced studies. I only have a problem with that article's authors' spin on the study results. (which Gord has kindly referenced. No, Gord, they don't understand it. Why should they? That article tells them what to think.)

And yes, the use of "Wuhan Flu" in an article has, time and again, proven to be a reliable windex for showing from where the authors (and the publication) are coming from. It's a tell, in poker parlance.

(So yeah, damn straight I don't like the ignorant, self-serving, agenda-pushing anti-science rags like those)

[edit - just had to share another headline from that illustrious publication:

Big tech pouring billions into harvesting blood of the young so elites can live and rule forever



run away, Newhaul, that site's sh1te will knock 10s of points off of anyone's IQ]

Never said it was a good publication overall just a good article .
Closed minded individuals there is even a grain of truth in the national enquirer the trick is how to differentiate. The wheat from the chaff.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Closed minded individuals there is even a grain of truth in the national enquirer the trick is how to differentiate. The wheat from the chaff.

If you search in piles of crap, you mainly find... crap. Aim higher.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you search in piles of crap, you mainly find... crap. Aim higher.

I look everywhere and find nuggets . Perhaps you should do the same

[GordMay]

The FBI is remotely hacking hundreds of computers to protect them from Hafnium
In what’s believed to be an unprecedented move, the FBI is trying to protect hundreds of computers, infected by the ‘Hafnium’ hack, by hacking them itself, using the original hackers’ own tools.
A court in Houston has authorized [1] an FBI operation to “copy and remove” backdoors from hundreds of Microsoft Exchange email servers in the United States, months after hackers used four previously undiscovered vulnerabilities to attack thousands of networks.
The Justice Department announced the operation on Tuesday [2], which it described as “successful.”
The FBI says that thousands of systems were patched by their owners, before it began its remote Hafnium backdoor removal operation, and that it only “removed one early hacking group’s remaining web shells which could have been used to maintain and escalate persistent, unauthorized access to U.S. networks.”

[1] Court Order ➥ https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...der-re-hafnium

[2] DOJ Announcement ➥ https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr...tion-microsoft