Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Covid 19: mRNA vs. modRNA — Does It Matter?
I am making this post without having an answer to offer. But I am hoping that it will stimulate some discussion that will aid all of us in some upcoming important personal decisions — if we get to make them.
Tom Renz, an attorney and not a scientist, has a Substack post in which he tries to articulate that the Covid vaccine (and others?) are not using “messenger” RNA (mRNA) but “modified” RNA (modRNA). This difference seems to be at the heart of the “gene modification” debate.
Because mRNA is a weak particle and breaks down easily with a relatively lower risk of messing with your genetics than other gene therapy products (like modRNA) that is what is always talked about in the jabs. The problem is that it is a lie.
(From the Pfizer label)
Notwithstanding the age limitations for use of the different formulations and presentations described above, individuals who will turn from 11 years to 12 years of age between doses in the primary regimen may receive, for any dose in the primary regimen, either: (1) the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine authorized for use in individuals 5 through 11 years of age (each 0.2 mL dose containing 10 mcg modRNA, supplied in multiple dose vials with orange caps); or (2) COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine authorized for use in individuals 12 years of age and older (each 0.3 mL dose containing 30 mcg modRNA, supplied in multiple dose vials with gray caps and multiple dose vials with purple caps).
I recall that early in the vaccine rollout there were claims and denials that the vaccine would modify your DNA. If Renz is correct, the denials would be marginally true for mRNA, but not at all for modRNA. Renz links to a current Q&A from Pfizer:
What formats of mRNA does Pfizer use?
Nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA): Our first approved mRNA vaccine, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, utilizes modRNA. modRNA stands for nucleoside-modified messenger RNA and in the synthesis of the RNA used in this vaccine platform, some nucleosides, which are important biological molecules that constitute DNA and RNA, are replaced by modified nucleosides to help enhance immune evasion and protein production. modRNA instructs our cells to produce desired proteins. We are also leveraging modRNA in our investigational flu and shingles vaccines.
Self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA): saRNA is a platform that uses a much larger molecule because not only does it encode the antigen of interest, but four additional proteins. These extra proteins allow the cell to make more copies of the mRNA, resulting in more protein being expressed from a smaller dose. Pfizer is exploring, testing, and refining multiple constructs in order to advance saRNA technology, currently for its flu program.
According to Renz:
The biochemical modifications that have been done to RNA have altered it substantially. These alterations were done for the purpose of allowing the use of these various RNA technologies to modify the human genome. In light of the complexity of the human genome we not only have no idea of the consequences I do not believe we can truly state what changes will ultimately be permanent and which will be temporary.
So I invite commentary. There are stories out there that some variant or other of Covid is making a comeback and that government might try to reimpose behavioral controls. There are reasons not to comply regardless of any dangers associated with the vaccine. And the stories about “shedding” by vaccinated persons might make it moot, if true (passive “vaccination”).
But what is true? And is this technology a feature of all Covid-19 vaccines, some vaccines and not others, just Pfizer?
Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.There are 56 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
I looked at his paper briefly, but had to quit. I think the place where he makes his science/logical error is here:
The RNA of the vaccine modifies nucleosides, and since nucleosides are a constituent of our DNA, the xRNA is modifying our genome.
Somebody else who has more time can check to see if that’s what he is really saying, but I’m stopping there and getting back to what I’m supposed to be doing.
I just don’t know, ergo, I took the first two shots and am done. I doubt if I will even bother with testing.
This is pretty technical stuff for my brain. I do know that fooling with DNA/RNA sounds dangerous, and I don’t trust the drug manufacturers or the govt. anymore.
I was an involuntary participant in the 1976 Swine flu shot experiment. No thanks wasn’t an option in the army. Hence I was very reluctant to repeat that experience when the Wuhan flu shot was rolled out. Call it intuition or “spidy sense” if you like, but my cynicism seems to have been correct given all the recent data on the lack of safety and effectiveness of the Covid “vaccine”. Does that make me an outlier in the Ricochet world?
I don’t think so. I think we have a whole mix of people, from those who wouldn’t take the vax, took one, two or three shots. At least that’s my impression. I took two shots and finally got Covid recently. I don’t blame you for your decision.
The tests are freeI already paid for the tests with my taxes, so when I have cold symptoms I get a box of ’em from the pharmacy just for scats and giggles.I’ll take a swing. I think the Substack source is conflating biochemical phenomena and techniques, and the result is misleading or unrealistic. I think I can do a little better at this. Fingers crossed!
First, it is indeed possible to change, permanently, a cell’s DNA, using RNA…and some other things! The CRISPR technique involves, or in its earliest conceptions involved, certain bacterial enzymes coupled to synthetic RNA, so-called guide RNA. These might be introduced into human cells. The guide RNA mated with only certain stretches of DNA, and those enzymes would edit that DNA. Which is what was desired. Note, at this point in this discussion, I am not talking at all about Covid.
“Introduction” as I used it in the preceding paragraph may have involved, at least in the early days of CRISPR, actually sticking these mixtures of enzymes and RNA into cells somehow. Then there was the idea of putting the genetic code itself for these CRISPR components into a virus. Preferably a virus which is itself nonpathogenic and doesn’t stick itself into the host DNA! With certain viruses – lentiviruses, adenoviruses – this has worked, though it’s not always practical. Note again, though, I am still not talking at all about Covid.
Yet another idea for CRISPR therapy was to use, not viruses that contain the relevant genetic material, but the mRNA itself. The genetic material, DNA, was going to be turned into that anyway, by the host cell itself. But host cells tend to eliminate alien mRNA.
So, what now? Use not mRNA but modRNA – which, as far as I can tell, is nearly the same, except certain nucleotides have been changed. Chemically, in the laboratory – to make the stuff more resistant to host-cell defenses, yet not so profoundly alter it that the stuff can’t be used by ribosomes to make proteins. Nor so profoundly that it hangs around forever; like mRNA, it eventually fades away. At this point, I am still not talking about Covid.
But at this point, the Substack source thinks he is – or thinks it doesn’t matter. But it does matter. If the modRNA codes for coronavirus spike protein only, then probably all you get is that protein, it bestirs an immune response, the alien genetic code – which never got into your genetic code – is itself slowly but surely disposed of, and all should be well. But if the modRNA codes for CRISPR components as well, that’s an entirely different suite of proteins. Is anybody saying the Covid vaccines are doing that? I don’t think so.
There is proof that the *mod*rna or *m*rna gets into the nucleus of the cells in your body.
Rodin, if you use Twitter, follow jikkileaks. This individual is one of the best sources of what is really going on that I have encountered, if we are talking about the effects of the vaccine on the cellular level.
Anyway as I have some of the proof of my first statement on my other computer, I will see if I can find it.
If I can I will put it into the discussion. (With the poor organization of my HD, it could be Wednesday at best before I find it.)
Rodin, I just did a search for jikkileaks on twitter, and the account is either shadow banned or no longer exists, as of last year.
The one study I’ve seen that claimed to show incorporation of the mRNA codes into the nuclear DNA was done on a line of cancerous human liver cells, which by definition are going to have screwy cellular reproduction mechanisms. If there’s a significant amount of similar cells in your body, you’ve got lots worse problems than vaccine side-effects.
There are viruses that can transfer their codes to nuclear DNA, those are called retroviruses. The COV-2 virus is not of that type. Presumably the mechanism that makes that happen could be added to the vaccine m/odRNA encoding, as with the CRISPR idea mentioned up thread, but if so, it would show up when/if anyone ran a sequence on the vaccine contents.
I don’t see a need to hypothesize exotic mechanisms and/or chicanery in formulating the vaccine to explain what’s been seen to date. Pushing out the vaccine(s) without large trials on the magnitude and severity of side effects from having the body synthesize the naked COV-2 spike protein(s), and in some cases with apparent inadequate quality control of the genetic material getting into the vaccine, would seem to be sufficient explainers.
(I took the initial two doses, but will not take any booster until and unless there is a true randomized trial of significant size showing net benefit for my age cohort.)
Amen.
Which could mean it’s already too late for you.
Me, too.
One of my otherwise-healthy cousins died of cancer a few weeks ago, a very rapid-onset, very aggressive cancer that they say isn’t related to smoking or other lifestyle issues. I don’t really know if she got “jabbed” or not, or any boosters, but since she worked for the state of Oregon I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a job requirement. And I wouldn’t be surprised if mRNA somehow triggered the cancer.
I got my 2nd booster a week ago, two years since my first booster. However, for most people, the greatest long-term benefit against severe covid came from those first two doses, or perhaps from an infection with the disease itself. I don’t know if good data exist on how long the memory cells persist, but I’m pretty sure we already know that it’s age dependent. I was going to study the latest data on that before getting that 2nd booster, but never got around to it. And it doesn’t matter, if my main objective was a refresher on antibodies.
Another thing I do know is that the way the Biden administration/media have been handling the vaccines is absolutely nuts, and the people who say the vaccines are killing us are absolutely nuts. Karens to the left of us, Karens to the right of us. I do my best to thread my way between the two opposing camps of Karens.
The turbo cancers that are cropping up among all age groups are extremely alarming.
However the PTB intend for there to be no control group of “non spike protein” mammals.
Remember how there were big announcements that even zoo animals would be given the mRNA COV vaxxes?
On top of that, those of us who were lucky enough to not be mandated by an employer to go get the jab – or else – are discovering that the spike proteins will be implanted in our foods.
On the one hand, health authorities tell us that the fact that pork and chicken now comes from animals that have received mRNA injections, the stuff in those injections cannot survive the gastric juices in our digestive system. So be not afraid of eating those meats.
But simultaneous to the announcement about the vaxxed-up meat products was the announcement that we no longer had to fear a needle, because the vax manufacturers now have an oral product as a way to receive the vaccine material.
So if the mRNA stuff comes to you via a chicken sandwich, your gastric juices will destroy it.
But if the mRNA stuff comes to you in the form of an oral vaccine, the stuff is not affected by your gastric juices. As this oral vax is as effective as the vax that gets jabbed into you by a needle.
Right!
So some of us might be asking: “Which is it?”
In any case, since some researchers have examined the turbo cancer tumors of the deceased and have been finding the spike proteins inside those tumors. as far as I know today, they cannot tell us if that spike protein got there from the food or from the vax.
Okay here is one thing my Brave search uncovered:
https://joomi.substack.com/p/does-spike-protein-get-into-the-nucleus
I like this article because it gives a summary of how the COV mRNA vax is supposed to work, as explained by the vaccine manufacturers.
It is a good piece to read because it also lays out a table featuring the end results from various investigations about whether or not the spike protein gets into the cell or not.
Some investigations show that they do!
The table references eight investigations. Two state the spike protein does get into the cell. Two are uncertain, and four state it doesn’t happen.
People can decide for themselves.
I wasn’t aware that food animals had previously been dropping dead from covid. So why jab THEM?
Hard to think of any reason other than to get it into everyone via subterfuge.
Well in any event check out the link I put into my reply #17.
I like being fully informed. I don’t particularly trust the pesticide industry, the vaccine manufacturing industry, nor do I trust the FDA and CDC. (Those two agencies do not get my trust because they have been held hostage for decades by the very industries for which they are supposed to provide needed oversight.)
It is sad that these powerful forces have done such a good job of convincing people that we should not do any “research.” (Jimmy Dore has been getting a lot of laughs by mentioning that prior to COVID, no one said “research.” The term that was used prior to COVID was “reading.”)
It is doubly sad that those of us who do read up on things are told we are falling into patterns of chicanery.
So I like reading about a pharmaceutical product, especially one that is now known to have conducted fraudulent clinical trials. It was deemed “safe and effective” when it was know prior to release that it was not safe. And they probably knew prior to release that it was ineffective to boot.
If you don’t like reading, it’s your body and your decision.
Carol, what part about:
confused you that I don’t actually do any independent reading, er, research? I know enough genomics, cellular biology and statistics to at least comprehend the summaries of the primary work. How about you, are you reading, er, researching beyond the conspiracy feeds?
Are they still free?
Only if you didn’t pay any federal taxes.
“The people who say the vaccines are killing us are absolutely nuts.”
The CEO of the largest publicly traded mortuary company in America in a post review of their quarterly report as an answer to the question of why their business had grown roughly 15 % over the last two seasons he said while the death had varied consistently only 1 or 2 % per year for many, many years since the introduction of the Vax the death rate has grown roughly 15% and that rise in growth rate according to him did not correlate to COVID.
If you read Epoch Times you will know similar reports have come from other mortuary companies around the Western world .
Furthermore also from Epoch Times morticians embalming cadavers are reporting that between 50 to. 70 percent of the cadavers they are seeing in the last 2 years since the introduction of the Vax have this strange blood clot problem which makes them difficult to embalm.
Of course then there are these real “nutters” in the Epoch Times and elsewhere that are reporting a huge unexplained rise in heart problems amongst the young since the introduction of the Vax as well as a huge rise in cardiac arrest in young sports figures.
They must be clearly “nuts “ for reporting such things .
And sadly a good friend of mine who runs a health care clinic that works on those allegedly injured by the VAX says if you look at their bloodwork under a microscope their bloodwork is consistently distinctly abnormal and really messed up. I mean come on!
And then a 30 year old girl friend of my daughter inexplicably had a heart attack after taking several doses of the VAX even though she appeared to be otherwise healthy. My daughter also says 5 of her close friends have been told by their doctors that they can never have children because of the VAX. These Doctors !
I just don’t know about my daughter repeating such nonsense.
Don’t all these people know the great “Reticulator” says anyone who says such things is absolutely “nuts”!
That would not work. Uptake of RNA from the stomach is all but non-existent. You might as well put it in toilet paper or
I would guess the farm animal vaccination was overcautious prevention with a side order of grifting the taxpayer for vaccine funding.
I am highly skeptical of this theory, as we would see researchers using this type of RNA method rather than normal methods of transfection or transformation. I need to look over it in detail to make a firm conclusion.
This is incorrect – the phrasing is that the vaccine is composed of modified nucleosides (RNA building blocks). This is likely going to reduce the degradation of the RNA, but it will not modify the nucleosides in your genome.
There is a small potential that the modified nucleosides could be incorporated into another RNA after the vaccine mRNA gets broken down, but that effect would be the same as giving the building block on its own.
Also, RNA nucleosides (in the vaccine) are based on ribose, DNA nucleosides (in the genome) are based on deoxyribose, making more difficult for them to be incorporated into DNA
This is accurate as far as it goes – it is a very rational understanding of mutation. Inducing random mutations is a bad thing – we only do this deliberately to treat cancer. Chemotherapy (at least several types) and radiation therapy use this to target rapidly dividing cancer cells, which are more vulnerable If the modified mRNA is randomly inserting, your should see more effects in rapidly dividing cells. Think of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy – hair loss, anemia, vulnerability to infection. That’s not the side effect profile we see from the vaccine.
Then he goes on a long discussion of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. This is an important topic, and is not the kind of thing you want to do on humans without very careful consideration. However, as @johnh points out, you can’t just use any modified RNA. You need a very specific type of type of modified RNA – it is not a random process. You also need to include the enzymes to perform CRISPR gene editing, as they are only found naturally in bacteria.
In summary, some specially-designed modRNA can modify the genome, but most modRNA does not. There is no evidence that the modRNA in the vaccine is capable of modifying the genome
Now, something I read on the vaccine that really interested me was a report of more side effects from the vaccine when it is mistakenly administered into a blood vessel instead of under the skin. I do not have the source, but that would appear to explain how there was so much variation in side effects, and how they were missed initially.
Not all of them know that.
Glad I could help!
To summarize my previous comment: there seems to be confusion (just my own? Somebody else’s?) about CRISPR technology and mRNA vaccine technology. I think they’re two separate things.
Why did I even mention CRISPR? Because the Substack source drew heavily from – or simply quoted verbatim the first paragraph of – a paper titled “Robust genome editing via modRNA-based Cas9 or base editor in human pluripotent stem cells,” and that paper is all about CRISPR. Until I saw that, I had no idea there was a connection between this and vaccines. I still doubt there is.
But I am willing to throw this open to a wider readership. See if I’ve made a fool of myself! I will now cast the decisive, thirteenth upvote. Like I said before: fingers crossed!
It’s crazy people are still getting boosters. That don’t actually protect you from COVID. Nor prevent you from spreading it. For a virus that’s mutated to the point that it’s little worse than a common cold.
Has to be the most successful propaganda campaign in the history of the world.
I first saw the paper about that phenomenon when somebody here on Ricochet linked it a couple of years ago. I pictured a couple of fourth graders who got a Gilbert microscope for Christmas (like I did when I was that age) and speculating about the mysterious substance they saw under the microscope.
These days you don’t wonder about those things. You find out what they are. There are a lot of analytical techniques that are available, often at reasonable cost. (Not that this is anywhere near the first thing they should do, but these days you can get a genome sequenced for as low as $100 in some cases, judging by the internet ads.) Someone who runs a health care clinic should have a head start in finding out where he/she can get what analyses done.
The people who in the past two years have not been curious enough to get their mysterious blood clots analyzed are trying to tell you something. They’re trying to tell you they’ve been funning you.
Thank you. This suggests two things can be equally true: (1) modRNA may not be a risk, but (2) something else in the vaccine and/or the way it is administered could be a risk.