Pieter Borger Profile picture
Dec 17, 2020 11 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Snopes' "fact checkers" are wrong about mRNA vaccins:


Snopes, who claims to do fact checking, writes:

"No, mRNA COVID vaccines do not alter your DNA".

Snopes did not even begin to check the science facts.
The science facts are that RNA vaccins can potentially change your DNA. To understand how, we have to go a bit into genomics. Our genome contains about 50-60 thousand genes (~20 thousand protein-coding genes, the rest RNA genes). Together they make up about 25% of the genome.
In addition to that, our genome contains about 50% socalled transposable and transposed elements (TEs), including ERVs and LINEs. The latter function, among other things, as (epi)genetic switches to control when genetic programs are switched on and off.
Interestingly, ERVs and LINEs both posses genes for the enzymes "reverse transcriptase (RT)" and "integrase" (INT). The RT enzyme converts RNA into cDNA, whereas the INT enzyme can put cDNA back into the genome. They prefer doing this with viral-like RNA molecules.
Further, RNA vaccins use viruses as their genetic backbones. RNA vaccins contain viral RNAs. With thousands of copies of RT and INT genes in our genomes there is ample opportunity to put any viral RNA back into our DNA. So, RNA vaccins are potentially "genotoxic".
"Genotoxic" means that the "RNA-->cDNA-->genome integration" mechanism can lead to disturbed genetic control. In the long run, that may lead to genetic abberations and disease. It should be noted that RNA vaccins were not tested to exclude above described genotoxicy.
Taken together, SNOPES IS WRONG. It has not even been tested!

And I, a genome researcher, am not going to take a shot (or two) of the novel RNA Vaccins.

Isn't it tale telling that "Swissmedic" the drugs approval organ in Switzerland did not approve these vaccins?
Self-amplifying RNA vaccins may further increase the odds of DNA integration, because it is chemically stabilized and highly expressed in the cells.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Pieter Borger

Pieter Borger Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BorgerPieter

Mar 22
Please, read and spread this paper.


1/n "Decades of sophisticated and detailed legislation created to safeguard Humanity from exposure to Genetically Modified Organisms, was ignored or legislated away in an instant when SARS-CoV-2 arrived."

researchgate.net/publication/36… Image
2/n "This was done with intention, and not for the good of Humanity. The LNP-modRNA ‘vaccines’ always fulfilled the legal definitions for being categorised as Genetically Modified Organisms. Pfizer, Moderna, and regulators all knew this."
3/n "The claims by Pfizer and Moderna repeated by regulators and complicit politicians that modRNAs do not enter the cell nucleus, and reverse transcribe into the Human Genome, were lies, made knowingly."
Read 4 tweets
Mar 21
Net het artikel over junk DNA van @KlinkBart gelezen.

Zoals ik verwachtten is dit darwinistisch-atheistisch revisionisme.

Het enige dat klopt is dat de term junk DNA 50 jaar geleden door darwinisten werden ingevoerd en gepropageerd, zoals ik schreef.
Ze hadden heel veel junk DNA nodig, want anders is hun evolutie niet mogelijk. Het was namelijk al sinds de 1950er jaren bekend dat de mutatie-input veel te hoog is voor een volledig functioneel genoom. Het junk DNA was de plek waar hun schadelijke mutaties mochten ophopen.
Dan is er de enorm negatieve grondhouding mbt ENCODE researchers, die 80% van het genoom functie toeschreven. Die wetenschappers moesten worden gedemoniseerd en afgemaakt, want 80% is vernietigend voor de Darwinisten-atheisten filosofie. Het functie-begrip moest geherdefinieerd.
Read 9 tweets
Feb 3
@KlinkBart gelooft:
"De grootteverschillen van de genomen zijn bij dieren 7.000-voudig en tussen gewervelden 350-voudig. Deze genoomgrootte correleert niet met de complexiteit van het dier of het aantal coderende genen, zoals wellicht intuïtief verwacht wordt."

Dit is een ...
...volledig weerlegd idee, baserend op volstrekte achterhaalde darwinistische-evologosche fantasie mbt genoombiologie.

Let wel, er is geen enkele relatie tussen vorm en genetica. Evolutie is compleet weerlegd:
Ze hoeven niet met complexiteit te correleren, want het zijn variatie-inducerende genetische elementen (VIGEs), die het bouwplan van organismen bepalen door directe & indirecte effecten op de gen expressie. Soorten hebben impliciete genetische netwerken (bouwplannen), ...
Read 6 tweets
Feb 2
Dubbelsystemen...walvissen met zowel tanden als balijnen.

Denk eens na...er is al een fourageersysteem. Hoe kan het tweede zich door toevallige mutaties ontwikkelen? Dat gaat niet.

Het toont dat alle genetische informatie al aanwezig was.

Het zijn hopeful monsters, die door neodarwinisten werden verworpen, want ze geloofden dat de natuur geen sprongen maakt.

Maar...Hopeful monsters bestonden ooit echt!

Evolutie verliep niet door opstapeling van kleine selecteerbare genetische fouten, maar door derepressie...
...van genetische programma´s die al aanwezig waren in het genoom van hun voorouders.

Hoe dat gaat?


Read 5 tweets
Jan 31
In Pfizer´s press release last friday to debunk they work on gain of function (GOF) shows they recombine and engeneer viruses in cooperation with virologists!

The next new and aggressive virus will not come from nature, it will come from a laboratory.

FRom their own press release:
"Working with collaborators, we have conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern."

This is recombining viruses.
From their own press release:
"We then make this data available through peer reviewed scientific journals and use it as one of the steps to determine whether a vaccine update is required."

No, they didn´t. Pharmaffia never publishes such data. They only publish to promote drugs.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 3
Two years ago, we published a list of critiques on the PCR- Test published in @Eurosurveillanc by an international team of virologists, including @c_drosten and @MarionKoopmans.

We did so, because we observed it generated heaps of false results.
So, November 2020 we submitted a request to @Eurosurveillanc to retract the Cormann-Drosten paper (below), which was published without appropriate peer review. And we hoped for publication of our critique. After 2 months @Eurosurveillanc declined.

Despite its shortcomings and despite not being peer-reviewed, the Cormann-Drosten PCR test became the standard of SARS-CoV-2 detection, almost world-wide.

For an historical overview see our pre-print paper here:
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!