Reverse Transcription And Vaxxing--Is This A Threat?

I got a range of responses regarding the Michael Yeadon interview that I republished yesterday. Overall it was well received, but there were some commenters who reflected the response that Yeadon himself describes having received--people who say, I can't believe my rulers would lie to me. That, despite the fact that throughout history our rulers--including rulers of the American people--have repeatedly lied to us about fundamentally important matters.

Right up front I'll state the conclusion to this post: Yes, reverse transcription (RT) looks to be one among several factors that should give everyone pause to question the current rush to vax the whole world.

What in the world am I talking about? This.

LifeSiteNews has an article today that references a very recent study (12/12/20) by a team of Harvard and MIT scientists. I'll present the title of the LifeSite article first, because it will give you a heads up for what this will be about. It will sound "alarmist", but it's based on reputable research:

Could mRNA vaccines permanently alter DNA? Recent science suggests they might

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.

I will also place up front a link to a blog by "Skeptical Raptor" that claims that Doug Corrigan pushing bad science and anti-vax tropes about mRNA vaccines. Three points, because I think it's important--if you're to read the rest of this long post--that we address reliability issues first.

1. Corrigan specifically states that he's not trying to change anyone's mind about vaxxing--and from my reading of two of his articles he does not appear to engage in anything remotely like an anti-vax trope.

2. Skeptical Raptor's case against Corrigan is this: 

Corrigan is discussing one way that RNA could change genes, and that’s through an enzyme called reverse transcriptase, which generates complementary DNA (cDNA) from a viral RNA template. However, reverse transcriptase does not exist in humans except in the presence of retroviruses like HIV. In that case, it’s using its own viral RNA template, not just pulling random mRNA out of the cell. It wants the cell to produce a bunch of new retroviruses by hijacking the DNA.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is not a retrovirus, so this will not be an issue. But even beyond that, the vaccine does not contain reverse transcriptase, so the mRNA chains in the vaccine are not going to do anything to your DNA through this process. 

The problem for Skeptical Raptor is that the Harvard/MIT team concludes, as we will shortly see, that it appears that reverse transcription is actually occurring in humans with regard to Covid and that alteration of the human genome may be occurring. Who should I trust--an anonymous blogger or scientists at Harvard/MIT who have attached their names to their published research?

3. Skeptical Raptor is skeptical re Corrigan's educational credentials. I've already said I'd like to know more about him. By the same token, Skeptical Raptor doesn't supply his own educational credentials.

So, with those preliminaries out of the way ... here's how the LifeSite article frames the issue regarding mRNA based medical treatments:

Under ordinary circumstances, the body makes (“transcribes”) mRNA from the DNA in a cell’s nucleus. The mRNA then travels out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where it provides instructions about which proteins to make.

By comparison, mRNA vaccines send their chemically synthesized mRNA payload (bundled with spike protein-manufacturing instructions) directly into the cytoplasm.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and most mRNA vaccine scientists, the buck then stops there — mRNA vaccines “do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way,” the CDC says. The CDC asserts first, that the mRNA cannot enter the cell’s nucleus (where DNA resides), and second, that the cell — Mission-Impossible-style — “gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.”

A December preprint about SARS-CoV-2, by scientists at Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), produced findings about wild coronavirus that raise questions about how viral RNA operates.

The scientists conducted the analysis because they were “puzzled by the fact that there is a respectable number of people who are testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone.”

Their key findings were as follows: SARS-CoV-2 RNAs “can be reverse transcribed in human cells,” “these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed” (a phenomenon called “retro-integration”) — and there are viable cellular pathways to explain how this happens.

According to Ph.D. biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. Doug Corrigan, these important findings (which run contrary to “current biological dogma”) belong to the category of “Things We Were Absolutely and Unequivocally Certain Couldn’t Happen Which Actually Happened.”

The important thing to notice here is that this study appears to have been conducted prior to the Pfizer/Moderna rollouts--certainly before there would have been sufficient data on the effects of those vaxxes to integrate into their study. Instead, this study has to do with the effects of the "wild" Covid virus on unvaxxed people. This is a very important point.

Now let's look at the abstract for the preprint:

SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome

Abstract

Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding and recurrence of PCR-positive tests have been widely reported in patients after recovery, yet these patients most commonly are non-infectious. Here we investigated the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome and that transcription of the integrated sequences might account for PCR-positive tests. In support of this hypothesis, we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral [sequences] 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--and especially with regard to "human endogenous LINE-1" elements--is exactly what Corrigan describes in his 11/27/20 blog post as a possibility, but which Skeptical Raptor claims is "pseudoscience."

If all this seems very technical ... it is. And Corrigan is explicit that there remains much about all these issues that is not thoroughly understood--which is an essential reason why vaccines are normally put through a five year trial period. However, be of good cheer. Corrigan explains how the mRNA vaccines work--as opposed to "normal" vaccines--and how this integrates with the reverse transcription process in a fascinating and pretty readable blog post:

Will an RNA Vaccine Permanently Alter My DNA? (11/27/20)

I'm going to jump in midstream, but I urge you to read the entire blog post. There's a lot more information, additional scenarios discussed, further implications described. 

Having first described vaccines generally as well as the new--and untested on humans--mRNA vaccines, Corrigan continues:

Most other vaccines work by administering the Spike protein directly into your body, or by introducing an attenuated or inactivated virus that contains the Spike protein. In these types of traditional vaccines, the Spike protein was previously made in a vaccine production facility. In an RNA vaccine, there is no Spike protein in the vaccine. Instead, the vaccine provides your cells with instructions on how to build the Spike protein. Essentially, your cells have become the vaccine production factory. After some time, this delivered RNA will be destroyed by our cells, and the cells will stop producing the Spike protein. Our body should be left unchanged, except for the presence of antibodies and immune cells which now recognize the Spike protein of the virus.

In theory, this is how the vaccine should work. Sounds great on paper, doesn’t it?

Note, the Harvard/MIT team were prompted to conduct their study before the vaccines were widely available precisely because responses of recovered individuals to "wild" Covid PCR tests were not going as expected. If there is anything "novel" about Covid, this is it. 

It is well known that RNA can be “reverse transcribed” into DNA. Residing in our cells are enzymes called “reverse transcriptases”. These enzymes convert RNA into DNA. Multiple sources for this class of enzymes exist within our cells. These reverse transcriptases are normally made by other viruses termed “retroviruses”. HIV is a retrovirus and so is Hepatitis B, but there are many other retroviruses that fall in this category. In addition to these external viruses, there are viruses that are hard-wired into our genomic DNA called endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). ...

These endogenous reverse transcriptase enzymes can essentially take single-stranded RNA and convert it into double-stranded DNA. This DNA can then be integrated into the DNA in the nucleus through an enzyme termed DNA integrase.

...

I think most molecular biologists would look at my thesis and discount it as improbable, and I wouldn’t argue with them too strongly. After all, if these reverse pathways from RNA to DNA were actively possible, wouldn’t a normal infection by the virus cause the same problem? ...

Again, that possibility is exactly what the Harvard/MIT team believe they discovered! 

I would answer that this possibility exists, too. However, I believe the probability of viral RNA undergoing this process is much smaller for several reasons. First, ... Also, viral RNA is inherently unstable due to sequence specific peculiarities unique to viral RNA, and is quickly recognized by cellular enzymes for destruction.

What he's saying is that, what the Harvard/MIT believes it discovered, should be improbable, although theoretically possible. The reason is because of the inherent instability of the "wild" Covid RNA. That's a good thing for us. The problem arises when vaxxes directly insert modified RNA into our bodies--because those modifications (Corrigan argues) significantly increase the possibility and even the probability that reverse transcription and integration into our genome will occur.

Therefore, the amount of time available for reverse transcriptase to work on “bare” viral RNA is very low. In contrast to this, the RNA provided to cells via a vaccine has been altered in the lab to increase its stability such that it persists in the cell for a much longer time. ... Therefore, the probability that a molecular pathway could be found that results in this RNA being converted over into DNA is much higher, in my opinion.

...

What happens if this occurs? There are two possible outcomes that are not mutually exclusive. First, modification of somatic cells, and in particular, stem cells, could result in a segment of the population with an increasing percentage of their tissues being converted over to genetically modified cells. These genetically modified [somatic] cells will possess the genetic sequence to produce Spike Protein. Because Spike protein is a foreign protein to the human body, the immune systems of these individuals will attack the cells in their body which express this protein. These people will almost inevitably develop autoimmune conditions which are irreversible, since this foreign protein antigen is now permanently hardwired into the instructions contained in their DNA.  

The second possibility is based on a pathway being found that transfers this genetic modification to germline cells (egg and sperm). This is certainly a more remote possibility, but if it occurred, this insertional genetic mutation would find itself in all future generations stemming from this individual or individuals. Because this is a germline modification and not a somatic modification, this new genetic element will be present in every single cell of these individuals. This means that potentially every tissue in their body could express Spike protein. Because this protein is present from birth, the immune system will recognize this new protein as “self” rather than non-self (foreign). If these individuals are infected with coronavirus, their immune system would fail to recognize the Spike protein of the virus as foreign, and these individuals will have substantially reduced capacity to fend off the coronavirus. ...

This next paragraph describes, I believe, why recognized experts such as Yeadon and Bhakti (and others) are so disturbed by the precipitate rollout of mRNA vaccines. Note that ADE (see below) is a problem for all coronavirus vaccines (as well as for other virus vaccines).  I believe this is why Bhakti states that coronaviruses are "poor candidates for vaccines." This is known, but what is also known is that the ADE issue doesn't normally arise until several years have passed. Now do you see the importance of 5+ years of clinical trials for vaccines? It's to rule out the ADE problem, which cannot be ruled out a priori--only through years long experience.

Now, none of the scenarios outlined above touch on the downstream risk of developing antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), which is a major problem with any vaccine developed for coronaviruses. ADE is a risk for any type of vaccine, including RNA vaccines. The current RNA vaccines being rushed forward have only been tested for a few months, and ADE would not rear its ugly head for several years, although it could occur sooner. Therefore, the current clinical trial data is not anywhere close to being sufficient to rule out the health risk of ADE. If ADE does occur in an individual, then their response to the virus could be fatal ...

Now, if you want to learn more about ADE, Corrigan has a blog post that goes into this. The importance of this topic is that ADE is a problem that could take years to manifest itself--and by then it would be too late. Again, Corrigan is quite readable, although the topic is inherently complex:

Is a Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking Time Bomb? (8/1/20)

Excerpts:

For a vaccine to work, our immune system needs to be stimulated to produce a neutralizing antibody, as opposed to a non-neutralizing antibody. ...

A non-neutralizing antibody is one that can bind to the virus, but for some reason, the antibody fails to neutralize the infectivity of the virus. ...

In some viruses, if a person harbors a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus, a subsequent infection by the virus can cause that person to elicit a more severe reaction to the virus due to the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody.  This is not true for all viruses, only particular ones.  This is called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), and is a common problem with Dengue Virus, Ebola Virus, HIV, RSV, and the family of coronaviruses. In fact, this problem of ADE is a major reason why many previous vaccine trials for other coronaviruses failed. Major safety concerns were observed in animal models. ...

...

What does ADE entail? The exact mechanism of ADE in SARS is not known, but the leading theory is described as follows: In certain viruses, the binding of a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus can direct the virus to enter and infect your immune cells. ... In other words, the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody now directs the virus to infect cells of your immune system, and these viruses are then able to replicate in these cells and wreak havoc on your immune response. ... Essentially, the non-neutralizing antibody enables the virus to hitch a ride to infect immune cells. ...

This can cause a hyperinflammatory response, a cytokine storm, and a general dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus to cause more damage to our lungs and other organs of our body. In addition, new cell types throughout our body are now susceptible to viral infection due to the additional viral entry pathway ...

What this means is that you can be given a vaccine, which causes your immune system to produce an antibody to the vaccine, and then when your body is actually challenged with the real pathogen, the infection is much worse than if you had not been vaccinated.

Again, this is not seen in all viruses, or even in all strains of a given virus, and there is a great deal that scientists don’t understand about the complete set of factors that dictate when and if ADE may occur. It’s quite likely that genetic factors as well as the health status of the individual may play a role on modulating this response. That being said, there are many studies (in the reference section below) that demonstrate that ADE is a persistent problem with coronaviruses in general, and in particular, with SARS-related viruses. ...

...

For a vaccine to work, vaccine developers will need to find a way to circumvent the ADE problem. This will require a very novel solution, and it may not be achievable, or at the very least, predictable. In addition, the vaccine must not induce ADE in subsequent strains of SARS-CoV-2 that emerge over time, or to other endemic coronaviruses that circulate every year and cause the common cold.

A major trigger for ADE is viral mutation. ...

... In the first year or two, it may appear that there is no real safety issue, and over time, a greater percentage of the world population will be vaccinated due to this perceived “safety”. ... When these previously vaccinated people are infected with this different strain of SARS-CoV-2, they could experience a much more severe reaction to the virus.

Ironically, in this scenario, this vaccine made the virus more pathogenic rather than less pathogenic. This is not something that vaccine producers would be able predict or test for with any level of real confidence at the outset, and it would only become evident at a later time.

...

Does this vaccine industry know about this problem? The answer is yes, they do.

Quoting a Nature Biotechnology news article published on June 5th, 2020:

““It’s important to talk about it [ADE],” says Gregory Glenn, president of R&D at Novavax, which launched its COVID-19 vaccine trial in May. But “we can’t be overly cautious. People are dying. So we need to be aggressive here.””

And from the same article:

“ADE “is a genuine concern,” says virologist Kevin Gilligan, a senior consultant with Biologics Consulting, who advises thorough safety studies. “Because if the gun is jumped, and a vaccine is widely distributed that is disease enhancing, that would be worse than actually not doing any vaccination at all.””

...

Will conducting animal studies solve the issue and remove the risk?

Not at all.

Anne De Groot, CEO of EpiVax argues that testing for vaccine safety in primates does not guarantee safety in humans, mainly because primates express different major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, which alters epitope presentation and the immune response. Animals and humans are similar, but they are also very different. ...

What about unvaccinated people who are naturally infected with the virus and develop antibodies? Could these people experience ADE to a future strain of SARS-CoV-2?

...

In a real infection, our immune system is exposed to every nook and cranny of the entire virus, and as such, our immune system develops a panacea of antibodies that recognize different portions of the virus and, therefore, coat more of the virus and neutralize it. In addition, our immune system develops T-Cell responses to hundreds of different peptide epitopes across the virus; whereas in the vaccine the plethora of these T-Cell responses are absent. Researchers are already aware that the T-Cell response plays a cooperative role in either the development of, or absence of, the ADE response.

...

Based on these differences and the skewed immunological response which is inherent with vaccines, I believe that the risk of ADE is an order of magnitude greater in a vaccine-primed immune system rather than a virus-primed immune system. ...

...

Right now, the fatality rate of the virus is estimated to be approximately 0.26%, and this number seems to be dropping as the virus is naturally attenuating itself through the population. It would be a great shame to vaccinate the entire population against a virus with this low of a fatality rate, especially considering the considerable risk presented by ADE. I believe this risk of developing ADE in a vaccinated individual will be much greater than 0.26%, and, therefore, the vaccine stands to make the problem worse, not better. It would be the biggest blunder of the century to see the fatality rate of this virus increase in the years to come because of our sloppy, haphazard, rushed efforts to develop a vaccine with such a low threshold of safety testing and the prospect of ADE lurking in the shadows. I would hope (and this is a big hope), that this vaccine WILL NOT BE MANDATORY.

In conclusion I'll make just one point. The fact that the Harvard/MIT team believed that it saw a very low probability event actually taking place--reverse transcription and integration of Covid RNA into the human genome based off the "wild" Covid virus--should really scare us regarding the mRNA vaccines. It the low probability event is actually taking place in a "respectable" number of recovered Covid patients, the likelihood that this will happen with the higher probability mRNA vaccines goes up significantly.

ADDENDUM: One more, slightly understated, point. This should raise concerns about who is driving this program and what their motivations are.