Comment by the_third_wave | Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_third_wave | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Explain, please, why? Preferably with some evidence like that study I linked to and the one which started this thread. Explain why:

- it is abject nonsense to state that cell lines will be created which carry DNA originating from mRNA reverse transcription as is shown in the Swedish study

- it is abject nonsense to state that this DNA is expressed as is implied in the study to which this thread is linked

- it is abject nonsense that cells which express DNA to produce spike proteins will be around even when SARS2 has disappeared or mutated so that its version of the spike protein no longer is analogous to the one produced by cells which carry DNA from reverse transcribed mRNA

- it is abject nonsense for such cells to be found outside of the shoulder muscle mass into which the vaccines were meant to be delivered but from where it has been proven they escape into the bloodstream

- it is abject nonsense for such cells to cause inflammatory reactions when it is known the spike protein does just that

If you sit on knowledge we do not have I suggest you share it.

> it is abject nonsense to state that this DNA is expressed as is implied in the study to which this thread is linked

Umm... well, yes? The study does not prove (or even suggest) any such thing.

> If you sit on knowledge we do not have I suggest you share it.

There's a reason that Swedish study is unknown outside of antivaxxer circles and it's largely to do with it being scientifically incompetent and published in a journal with zero standards. Best of luck to you in whatever it is you think you're doing though!

That term 'antivaxxer' does not mean what you imply it to mean. Those who are cautious about using largely untested preparations while being open to using well-known vaccines - against Polio, Measles, Diphtheria, Whooping Cough, Tetanus and others - are not 'antivaxxers', they are 'rational individuals'. There is a wide gap between this group and 'traditional antivaxxers' who worry about 5G-transponders in vaccines (etc) so using a term which most people assume to identify the latter to accuse the former is not just erroneous but also disingenuous, just the type of word game which has become so prevalent in the last decade.

I don't eat goat meat, but love brisket. Doesn't that make me an antimeat vegan?

Yes, yes, all just a word game. You're just asking intelligent rational questions, unlike those antivaxxers of lore with their bad faith.

Meanwhile the top thread on Reddit discussing that specific article is in the subreddit "NurembergTwo" and titled:

"Shocking study finds covid vaccines REWRITE your DNA… criminal CDC proven to have repeatedly LIED about this very issue to deceive and harm the public"

If you're basing your theory of harm from vaccines on bad articles from non-experts in fringe journals, there might be less distance between you and the 5G nutters than you wish to acknowledge

Two words: Ad Hominem [1]

Do you have anything else to say apart from trying to paint others with your broad brush? I did ask for some constructive arguments after all, not baseless character attacks. As it stands now I can only assume you don't have rational arguments (other than 'my experts are better/more virtuous than your experts' but that is not much of an argument).

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ad-homin...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com