(LifeSiteNews) — A recently published scientific article shows evidence that it is not possible to guarantee that mRNA in the Pfizer genomic COVID “vaccine” will never be integrated into the DNA of cells with which it is in contact. The peer-reviewed article in Current issues in molecular biology (available on the open-access platform mdpi.com, here), came as a bomb-shell that directly contradicts ongoing claims by the Centers for Diseases Control that “COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way.”
Titled “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line,” the study appears to justify concerns that the genomic “vaccines” could potentially be modifying, to an unknown extent, the DNA of at least some of the 5 billion individuals having received at least one dose to date.
Its authors consider that the Pfizer jab “showed high efficiency in a wide range of COVID-19-related outcomes in a real-world setting,” but they warned, “Nevertheless, many challenges remain, including monitoring for long-term safety and efficacy of the vaccine. This warrants further evaluation and investigations. The safety profile of BNT162b2 is currently only available from short-term clinical studies.”
The Swedish study led by Markus Aldén at Lund University does not go as far as to prove that once injected into the human body, the full mRNA, devised to trick cells into producing the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein in order to elicit an immune response, will actually be integrated into the human genome. But it seems to indicate that under the conditions of the study, a fragment of the messenger RNA quickly made its way into cancerous human liver cells, i.e the Huh7 cell-line derived from the tumor in an adult’s liver. This led to “changes in gene expression of long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1),” said the abstract.
French geneticist Professor Alexandra Henrion-Caude told LifeSiteNews that while she felt a little uncomfortable with the somewhat “misleading” way in which the title presented this study to the readers, the issue of the fate of the mRNA in humans should have prompted a worldwide immediate concern, and should warrant far more prudence and studies addressing the risk of “reverse transcription” and “integration,” and thus potential human modification.
Before quoting further remarks by Henrion-Caude, it is important to understand that in normal conditions, a portion of DNA serves as a template to make mRNA molecules within the nucleus of the cell; the messenger RNA then goes out into the cell and triggers the production of the corresponding protein. In “reverse transcription,” the process works the other way around, with RNA serving as a template to make DNA. Whether this neo-portion of DNA will penetrate into the nucleus and integrate into the genome of the cell is a second question.
The Swedish study used the Pfizer vaccine BNT162b2, which is composed of encapsulated modified synthetic mRNA encoding a modified SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein developed by Pfizer-BioNTech. This product from Pfizer was put in contact with liver cells since the liver is a major site of distribution as indicated below:
In pharmacokinetics data provided by Pfizer to European Medicines Agency (EMA), BNT162b2 biodistribution was studied in mice and rats by intra-muscular injection with radiolabeled LNP and luciferase modRNA. Radioactivity was detected in most tissues from the first time point (0.25 h), and results showed that the injection site and the liver were the major sites of distribution, with maximum concentrations observed at 8–48 h post-dose.
The amount of BNT162b2 used by Aldén and his colleagues was scaled down (meaning it was diluted) to mimic the concentrations observed in various organs from previous studies of mRNA flu vaccines (these concentrations were about 100 times lower than on the injection site). They then looked for the presence of potentially reverse-transcribed BNT162b2 in the liver cells’ DNA, first eliminating the injected mRNA and then using PCR tests. Untreated cells were used as controls.
The first result of this study is that treated cells were shown to have “high levels” of the BNT162b2 mRNA, varying at points in time, decreasing after 24 hours but increasing again at 48 hours. According to the authors, the study presents “evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro”.
The second result is that the exposure of those cells to the Pfizer product led to an increase in the expression of LINE-1, which is one cell’s own source of reverse transcriptase.
The third result of this study, last but not least, is that a reverse transcription into DNA of some of the Pfizer RNA product can occur intracellularly, and that this process is helped along by the cell’s own reverse transcriptase LINE-1.
The study remarked:
In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.
Alexandra Henrion-Caude told LifeSite that “this was the paper some of us really expected to see, so much that some may have given it too much importance.” Working on a cancer cell line does make a difference, she explained, drawing on her own expertise to voice her caveats:
Indeed, the choice of that particular cell line is not, in my opinion, the best choice in this context. While it does make sense to do the demonstration using a cell line and not a primary cell culture which would make the experiment more tedious, the cell model used in this study is a carcinoma cell line, with active DNA replication and notable altered expression of hundreds of genes including those involved in RNA metabolism.
In simple words, the Huh7 are something of a five-legged sheep: among cell lines, they are really a little bit special.
The other aspect that made me a little uncomfortable was that I really had the impression when I read the title of the article and quickly browsed through the abstract that it was the full messenger RNA of the vaccine that was reverse transcribed, when it was only a fragment amplified by PCR. And when you read the text in detail, I could not find a few critical pieces of information: neither the number of PCR cycles used to amplify the fragment, nor the usual repetition of the experiment thrice, on a figure that was not of “best quality” either.
Henrion-Caude added that if she had been tasked with reviewing the paper, she would have asked the authors to “rephrase” at least the title, to add a few technical indications and repeat some experiments. She stressed that in the present situation it is more important than ever, due to the billions of people injected, to be extremely “rigorous”.
I thought it over again: some of us might have hoped too much for a clear-cut demonstration, but the topic is difficult and warrants much attention. What we really have here, which is already substantial, is some demonstration that little pieces of the puzzle, step-by-step, seem to be falling together as to form the picture of an ongoing genetic modification. But none of the studies are yet fully conclusive.
At this stage, we now have sufficient data, adding up one piece of the puzzle to the other, that no one can dare saying that “integration and inheritance of this artificial viral RNA is not possible” and that “it’s something that will never happen.” We have the literature from the past that was very clear: nobody could already say that this event could not take place. And that was just based on the previous literature. Now we have had three articles, two in one direction (including a correspondence of two letters and reply by the original authors to the first study) and one in the other. Basically, not only do we understand that it seems as though these things may happen, but with this very latter study dedicated to the product itself, it is high time we considered that this issue is a central one for humanity.
She went even further, recalling that a great deal of prudence is necessary and that it should be up to the vaccine manufacturer to prove that a product is safe, and will never modify DNA.
That’s what I’ve been pointing out lately: it’s not up to the people to demonstrate that integration may take place, it should be up to the companies and/or the governments to demonstrate that it does not take place. Unfortunately, for the last two years that we’ve been injecting billions of people, we still miss this key answer.
The very first piece of the puzzle came from a study by Rudolph Jaenisch , who happens to be the father of the discovery of viral integration in our genome, and who showed that the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 may be reverse transcribed and that it could even go so far as to integrate the human genome, and that this took place by endogenous reverse transcriptase. This paper raised a great deal of reactions, including two opposite letters, and the two responses from Jaenisch’s team.
Regarding the grave concerns raised by this Swedish study, Henrion-Caude added:
Thus, it was already a significant concern that this could take place with the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome but now potentially as well with the products of injection.
Indeed, the second piece of the puzzle is this new paper which shows that when the vaccine is in the presence of those Huh7 cells, the cells can pick up the artificial mRNA within a few hours. An increased expression of reverse transcriptase (as assessed by LINE-1) is then described, as well as the reverse transcription of the artificial mRNA, as assessed by a PCR that detects a fragment of DNA of this molecule. The presence of detectable DNA from the injection product illustrates the fact that besides the translation machinery, which translated the mRNA in Spike protein as expected, the artificial mRNA can interact with other molecules, and in this case “reverse transcriptase.” Now, if I extrapolate a little further, bordering on imprudence, I would say that all the cells that do express LINE-1, and in particular, for example, embryonic cells or bone marrow cells, which have endogenous reverse transcriptases, are therefore very probably going to be exposed to this same possibility of reverse transcription and eventually to the fact that the product can go into the nucleus, and can possibly integrate our genome (just like the DNA of an adenovirus, by the way).
In my opinion, this toots an extremely strong signal, that tells us that we must stop. Should it happen in real life (in vivo and not in vitro as in this study), we are simply in the process of modify genetically a number of humans without knowing how many, nor to what extent, because we have no idea whether this event is rare or not. In any cases, with the likely acceptation of a rare event, the laws of heredity are such that once it has occurred in one or two humans — as we are used to observe in genetics isolate with a founding mutation — it has the capacity of spreading.
Henrion-Caude concluded her discussion with LifeSiteNews by quoting an “impeccable” passage from the study that truly shows the grave concerns to which it has given increased substance. It said:
However, cell proliferation is also active in several human tissues such as the bone marrow or basal layers of epithelia as well as during embryogenesis, and it is therefore necessary to examine the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity under such conditions. Furthermore, effective retrotransposition of LINE-1 has also been reported in non-dividing and terminally differentiated cells, such as human neurons.
We are talking here about developing embryos and brain cells that could be modified by the COVID mRNA vaccines.
Professor Alexandra Henrion-Caude studied genetics and is specialized in RNA. In 2013, she became an “Eisenhower Fellow,” entering into the prestigious American network of “mid-career leaders.” She discovered the role of non-coding RNA in genetic illnesses and has worked as a neurobiologist at Harvard Medical School and then held a tenure position at the French INSERM, the National Institute for Health and Medical Research, for over twenty years. In 2019, she retired from being Director of Research to found her own Research Institute in Africa, SimplissimA, whose objective is to find and promote “simple health solutions” that are “low-cost, ethical and durable.” She is a faithful Catholic and has actively promoted the defense of human life from conception. She was a guest speaker at the 2019 Vatican Conference “Yes to Life.” Throughout the COVID crisis, alone or together with international colleagues, Henrion-Caude has actively shared her questions regarding the unknowns of massive COVID vaccination campaigns, and joined demonstrations against sanitary and vaccine passes. She started warning against the mRNA’s potential integration into the human genome in the summer of 2020.