The Pfizer vaccine integrates into the DNA and is passed on to children? This is how science gets twisted by corrupt institutions

A February study caused quite a stir 2022 by title “Intracellular reverse transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 mRNA in vitro in a human liver cell line” made by Alden, Olofsson Falla, The e altri

the authors wrote: “the preclinical studies of the COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, showed reversible liver effects in animals that received BNT162b2 injection. Moreover, a recent study has shown that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells. In this study we analyzed the effect of BNT162b2 on human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. Huh7 cells were exposed to BNT162b2 and quantitative PCR was performed on the RNA extracted from the cells. We detected high levels of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells and changes in long interspersed nuclear element-1 gene expression (LINE-1), which is an endogenous reverse transcriptase. Immunohistochemistry with antibody binding to RNA-binding protein LINE-1 open reading frame-1 (ORFp1) on BNT162b2-treated Huh7 cells indicated an increased distribution of LINE-1 in the nucleus. PCR on genomic DNA of BNT162b2-exposed Huh7 cells amplified the unique DNA sequence of BNT162b2. Our results indicate rapid uptake of BNT162b2 in the human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in the expression and distribution of LINE-1. We also demonstrated that BNT162b2 mRNA is transcribed intracellularly into DNA in just a few seconds 6 hours after exposure to BNT162b2.”

In other words, the authors argue that under laboratory conditions the preparation in question modifies DNA of the target cells .

Some eminent figures, renowned virologists and geneticists, have commented on these results going so far as to say that the vaccinated will have children with modified DNA.

However already in April 2022 Hamid A. Merchant commented on the study questioning this hypothesis, saying that there is no evidence that the same phenomenon occurs in reality.

In fact, the study by Aldén and others took place in the laboratory and in a test tube, i.e. in vitro.

Merchant pointed out that it is scientifically incorrect to extend the results of an in vitro experiment to the in vivo situation, i.e. in the real world.

Furthermore, Merchant criticized the fact that a much greater quantity of vaccine was used than the normal situation of those who are vaccinated.

For more, continua Merchant, the cells used for the experiment are a line of liver cancer cells, which have a completely different behavior from the normal ones.

But then Merchant writes that “There is evidence to support the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to integrate certain genetic sequences into the DNA of host cells; However, unlike retroviruses, the infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus could not be reproduced from the integrated subgenomic sequences. This evidence is not yet conclusive, but it could explain the sustained detection of noninfectious virus with a positive PCR test in convalescent patients.“.

Merchant again “There is evidence to support the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to integrate certain genetic sequences into the DNA of host cells ; However, unlike retroviruses, the infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus could not be reproduced from the integrated subgenomic sequences. This evidence is not yet conclusive, but it could explain the sustained detection of noninfectious virus with a positive PCR test in convalescent patients. This could also suggest the mechanisms behind the “long-COVID” observed in a significant number of patients with COVID-19.”

So basically, we don't know if the vaccine modifies DNA in vivo, but it is possible that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does.

continua Merchant: “Ancient viruses have been nesting in the human genome for some time, since they integrated into our ancestral genome. I human endogenous retrovirus (REV) can form from 4 to 8% of the total human genome and are thought to be a part of our genetic evolution that offers a fitness gain to species against environmental pathogens. However, the health implications of carrying viral genomic residues are not fully understood; some may even contribute to diseases such as HIV.”.

Basically, viruses can also kill us, but they can also make the species stronger, realizing a gain in fitness against environmental pathogens.

E’ the complicated form of popular expression “what doesn't kill you makes you stronger”

But in saying so Merchant admits that the DNA integration mechanism exists in nature, and he did not rule out that this could also happen in vivo with the Pftizer product.

This is a clear example of scientific irresponsibility that ends up giving the appearance of science to commercial conduct that is actually unscrupulous and irresponsible.

The fact that we don't have proof of that “Intracellular reverse transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 mRNA in vitro in a human liver cell line” it doesn't even work in vivo, it shouldn't take away from the worry that this could happen, and in fact in nature it happens.

So Merchant tries to undermine the gap between the in vitro study and the in vitro results, while it should do the opposite, that is, to seek evidence that what happens in vitro also happens in vivo, because it is probable that it happens since it happens in nature as he himself confirms.

In other words, it cannot be said with certainty that the vaccinated are now genetically modified, but there is at least one proof that can make it think and therefore it cannot be excluded.

So what attitude is it to deny the possible connection?

E’ an unjustifiable favorable attitude towards irresponsible scientific and commercial practices as can be understood from the following example.

Suppose we discover a design or manufacturing defect in a certain car whereby under certain conditions the brakes fail and the driver loses control of them completely, and assume that this actually happened in at least one case.. E’ clear that it could not be said that all cars of that model have that defect, but we would expect the cars to be retired, and if possible repaired and put back into circulation, otherwise scrapped. This is due to the simple fact that we cannot admit that we simply circulate with unsafe cars al 100% as far as known.

This also happened, there really was a car, too expensive, which was found to be subject to tipping and was withdrawn from the manufacturer and modified free of charge.

Instead Merchant and the great vaccine sorcerers have no respect for the potential threat of death, or in this specific case, of modification of the DNA of the people that would even be propagated to the descendants.

The Oviedo Convention explicitly prohibits the modification of human DNA. Therefore, by law, it is absolutely unacceptable that there is a risk of modifying human DNA, and this risk is ascertained in vitro.

Therefore, if anything, the distribution of these products must be completely stopped, like cars with brakes that occasionally fail.

L’European Union was born as an economic organization, and then progressively assumed a political role by taking it from states and peoples.

One of the foundations of the market is the principle of accountability, moreover recognized and consecrated by the Court of the EU.

Because instead this responsibility of the producer is not imputed to the pharmaceutical companies?

In the European Parliament several MPs have highlighted that the current president of the Commission, la Von der Layen, he trafficked with pharmaceutical companies, made deals through unverifiable channels, coming to buy disproportionate quantities of vaccines.

The European Union has approx 446 million people, less than half a billion. Von der Leyen in a single contract in May 2021 he bought 1,8 billion doses to be added to all other purchases. A European parliamentarian spoke of aggregates 10 billion doses.

It means that every European, from birth to grave, must be inoculated by 3 A 20 vaccines by 2023. It's not a joke.

How come none of those in government has noticed that 1,8 billion doses purchased in the 2021 they implied at least 3 doses per head ?

How do you buy them? 3 The 4 doses per citizen, or even 10? It means that it is certain that the first two doses do not work ?

With what criterion were they purchased given that no one has ever demonstrated that they prevented the transmission of the virus?

Moreover, the carcinogenic effects of the vaccine that have actually been found have not even been studied.

Here is that Merchant (which translated means “Merchants”) continues in the work of mystification that took place in the vaccination campaign, designed to deny scientific evidence with the aim of defrauding the European taxpayer at the same time not attributing any commercial responsibility to producers, not even what is expected of car manufacturers, foods, mobile, clothing etc.

E’ evident that if one were free scientists, in the face of the many adverse events that are being recorded, from sudden deaths, to sudden cancers, from HIV-like immunodeficiency syndrome to circulatory disorders etc etc, one would not deny any connection with the vaccine product, as Burioni do, Basset and others, but instead we would check whether these effects exist . E’ this is what the ten-year experimentation of vaccines has always served, and there is no doubt that we cannot be grateful to Trump for eliminating controls. Regan had also believed she was doing well in easing controls on airline flights, but then the planes began to crash much more frequently and we had to back off.

Merchant should not have questioned the study by Aldén and others, but instead he should have looked for evidence that the in vitro mechanism does not also occur in vivo.

but yet, it is so simple to understand that those products are deadly and not a little, just take the epidemiological and demographic statistics and it will be clearly seen that the unvaccinated are currently in general much much better off than the vaccinated. And I do not need to prove the veracity of this statement, those who have a direct interest in knowing these things have already demonstrated this, the Insurances, which speak of a catastrophic event dozens of times greater than a natural disaster.

In conclusion, Merchant is right in saying that in vitro studies cannot be extended to the in vivo reality of patients, but it should also say that the study gives body and substance to a terrifying concern, that is, that the substance could have given an uncontrollable start to the reprogramming of the human genetic code, but fortunately for the only humanity that received it.

Here, perhaps this explains why the EU has bought billions of doses so as to be able to make one for every human being on the planet: they want to get there.

All of this should make Merchant scream to immediately stop administering the product in question.

Why doesn't it? How many deaths will there be for his complicit silence?

This scientifically false justificationism demonstrates that there is a complacent attitude towards these extremely dangerous products.

But it also shows that the peoples of Europe have given the management of their affairs to people who corrupt the proper functioning of institutions and who waste European money in incredible quantities. And prove that in the end, as usual, the unelected bankers gain, who with the opportunity have printed trillions out of thin air.