They even say this themselves - but it's buried at the end.
"It's important to emphasize that the process of transfecting... differs from vaccine RNA delivery and... the sequence we used differs from the vaccine sequence (Nucleocapside versus Spike)"
So why did Jaenisch frame this preprint like this?
I don't know, but I think the wording is just a reflection of the fact that no paper will be published that suggests any danger of the mRNA therapies.
Damn - how did I miss this?
What Rudy is telling the world in this paper is that transfection with multiple copies of Spike RNA (via infectious clone, but it doesn't matter) (1) induces LINE-1 (2) induces reverse transcription
The quantity of spike mRNA in the COVID mRNA gene therapy vaccines more resembles the infectious clone transfection used in the study, than N-gene transfection.
Rudy is telling you that this mRNA spike transfection is bad. He's been telling you for 2 years.
For comparison, most low grade infections are associated with a blood vRNA level of less than 6000 copies/ml
And remember also that (1) vaccination doesn't protect against infection - so the amount of vRNA is additive (2) there is a lot of vRNA after vaccination - a helluva lot.
So read this paper again, and read between the lines.
TLDR: the vaccine mRNA is reverse transcribed into DNA in your cells - not least because of the quantity flooding your cells. The virus can not, to any significant extent.
You were lied to about the Merck measles vaccine develop in the 60s. When injected into babies it caused fevers, rashes, diarrhoea and febrile convulsions.
Why?
I'm going to show you.
@SecKennedy @RetsefL @MaryanneDemasi @DrJulieSladden @RWMaloneMD
Merck claimed that the "measles vaccine" was an "attenuated version of measles" giving the impression that it was a virus that was made safe.
That was a lie.
It was just measles, passaged in cells in a lab.
We injected our babies with actual measles.
How do I know?
Recently released Australian Road Deaths data confirm that the @epiphare study claiming that COVID vaccination reduced road deaths by 32% was, as suspected, a complete fake.
Here are the actual road deaths data plotted from the Australian BITRE data repository using a trendline for 2000-2019 (excluding 2020 as it was a quiet year)
The pink area shows the inflection and increase in road deaths over the predicted number.
Note that road deaths have a downward trend despite an increase in population (due to safety measures and slowing of traffic).
So the question becomes...
"what is the probability that - if the @epiphare study was real (showing a 32% reduction in road deaths after vaccination) - the Australian road deaths (where nearly 100% of the adult population was vaccinated) would increase by 36%"?
Debbie's tweet was about her case against @HHSGov when her son developed Type 1 Diabetes after a routine vaccine, when he had a negative glucose test prior.
So it was clearly vaccine linked, but her case was denied.
Not only was the case denied (despite clear evidence of a new diagnosis immediately after vaccination) but the case was used by the "judge" to essentially ban ANY further cases that alleged a link between new diabetes and a routine vaccine.
Here is the clip from the (decent) interview with Pelle Neroth Taylor of @RealTNTRadio.
In it Boyle is asked whether the mRNA vaccines are themselves biological weapons and he explains that because "in your system, it generates the COVID-19 cells" they would be.
But of course that's incorrect, because mRNA vaccines don't recreate the COVID virus (the biological weapon - assuming as we now know that it was synthetic not natural).
So his explanation was incorrect because he misunderstood that the mRNA only provides the spike protein and he would have been destroyed on this point in court.
Of course he never got to court. And never gave an affidavit for the Dutch court - confirmed here (8/3/25):
I'll say it again. The vaccine industry [KNOWINGLY] hijacked cell pathways that cause cancer in order to induce antibody responses so that they can claim that their product "worked" by demonstrating those antibodies - even if they offered zero protection.
To explain, when you induce an immune response you have an immune debt to pay. You can't just keep creating an immune response - or, as in the case of cancer, you will die.
A vaccine creates an artificial immune response...
Which might be fine if it was done every now and again. But what they didn't tell you was that the human body will not respond to an injected antigen alone. It will ignore it (thankfully) and the generic immune system will mop it up, no antibodies required.