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.
This is also strange.
The Quentin registry study shows a big jump in vaccination rate by age group but the Bernard study doesn't show the same.
This is more like what a synthetic data set might show based on assumed characteristics of the underlying data.
There are possible explanations for all of these anomalies, but this is the problem with secret registry data:
It's not credible when it conveniently matches a narrative and nobody is allowed to see it.
I'm going to explain why this chart is so important and why @jsm2334 is being disingenuous by ignoring it - whilst making points that undermine the "real world vaccine data" industry.
It's a Kaplan-Meier curve and it obliterates Jeffrey's argument.
Just to go over it... the lines show what proportion of subjects (children) ended up without chronic disease up to 10 years after being studied.
It's called a survival analysis because it's used for cancer survival.
If the red line was a cancer drug it would be a blockbuster
It shows that by the end of the 10 year follow-up, of those that they could still follow up (who stayed in the study) 57% (100-43%) of vaccinated kids had chronic disease (e.g. asthma) and 17% (100-83%) of unvaccinated kids did.
Janet Diaz was the person that led the #MAGICApp guideline committees that stopped your grandma getting antibiotics for her post-viral pneumonia, leading to her death.
But she did this with the help of @pervandvik who deleted his account
Diaz here tells you that COVID kills you by an overreacting immune response, but that was never true.
She was an intensivist recruited by the WHO in 2018.
None of this was true, but it sold a LOT of drugs and killed a LOT of people
Which US govt organisation blew a hole in the ozone layer in 1958 by sending atomic bombs to the troposphere over the Antarctic in operation Argus - then blaming the resulting destruction of ozone on CFC's?
It wasn't just Pfizer that hid the fact that the mRNA-LNP complex went to the ovaries (where it could not possibly provide its declared function in the lung).
The AMH drop (ovarian reserve) after vaccination was later shown by the Manniche paper after being denied by the Kate Clancy and Viki Males of the world.
But this time the Arnold foundation's @RetractionWatch have not only revealed with their "exclusive" that they were directly involved in trying to get this important paper retracted...