https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798
From what I can understand, it seems mRNA vaccines can cause a non-inflammatory response to actual infection that prolongs the disease. I’m supportive of vaccination, but that doesn’t mean side effects can’t happen especially with new technology.
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/a-swedish-study-did-not-say...
> PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
They showed it actually happening in extracted human liver cells in a lab, not in a live human. That would be the next step. But in the meantime the "genomic DNA" part does sound like it made a permanent change to those cells.
“The results have in many cases been misinterpreted,” they said.
“This study does not investigate whether the Pfizer vaccine alters our genome,” de Marinis confirmed.
Prof Rasmussen also stated: “There is no reason for anyone to change their decision to take the vaccine based on this study.”
The study was conducted in a laboratory on cells in a petri dish, which is not the same as a study on human subjects because “cell lines differ from cells in living organisms,” Rasmussen wrote.
Dr Parry also said the Huh7 cell line is very different from healthy human cells.
“Huh-7 is an immortal, tumorigenic cell line,” he said. “This is barely an appropriate system to make any claims of in healthy persons.”
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/a-swedish-study-did-not-say...
> They showed it actually happening in extracted human liver cells in a lab, not in a live human. That would be the next step.
Stop assuming things I'm not saying.
They showed it actually happening in extracted human liver cells…it made a permanent change to those cells.
> The fact check does not address the sentence I quoted, where they tested the "genomic DNA" and found a match to the mRNA vaccine.
Be comfortable in your control over your own body and don't engage with those who would destroy you because you don't submit to their collective will.
I would like to think the average attitude here is closer to one of intellectual curiosity than blind labeling.
The trouble is that "anti-vax" sentiment is impossible to distinguish from "vaccine hesitancy" when the only reasons put forward seem to be vague mistrust in the tech / government.
Rarely do these conversations lead to real discussions about actual quantified risks, which makes it easy to dismiss hesitancy as garden variety anti-vax sentiment - the kind that is based on verifiable lies and has been around for decades.
I'd argue that instead of predicting inevitable binary thinking and dismissals, it'd be more useful to focus on the actual substantial claims to back up the position. Anything less moves the conversation nowhere.