The additional DNA added to the nucleus of whatever cell happens to get infected by the chimpanzee adenovirus spins off mRNA. That RNA exits the nucleus into the cells cytoplasm, finds a ribosome, and instructs the ribosome to start pumping out whatever proteins the DNA designers intended.
you said
spins off mrna instruct the ribosome to pump out whatever protein the DNA designer intended..
ha .. funny.
nice way for you to back track by now saying its not dna but now 'mrna instructions' and not DNA programming but 'instructions which a designer(labtech) intended
so thank you for admitting that no DNA goes through the ribosome process.
...
As usual, you are trying to imply that I said something which I did not. I never said that 'DNA goes through the ribosome' and you will not find me saying so which is one of the reasons you won't provide a quote.
I'll go ahead are break this down for the benefit of those who might be wishing to inform themselves about the technology before getting the injections:
The RNA is typically copied off of the DNA so it codes the same information. It's like me taking one .mp3 song off an album collection from my HDD (DNA) and putting it onto a thumb drive (RNA) for transport to a mp3 player (ribosome).
- RNA
vaccines gene therapies (Pfizer, Moderna) are basically the shot being the thumb drive with the song on it and getting it into the cell somehow. The 'song' then plays on the cells player (the ribosome.)
- DNA
vaccines gene therapies (AstraZeneca, J&J) are basically the shot giving you a whole album in the form of an animal virus. Some of the songs on the album were synthesized in their lab. The virus then inserts the whole album onto your central hard drive (cell nucleus.)
- The designers expect that from time to time you will load up the right song from the album they gave you, put it on a thumb drive (RNA), transport it to a player (a ribosome in your cells cytoplasm) and it will make their music.
- When the player makes their music, the cell starts expressing parts of the SARS-cov-2 virus. Your immune system is then supposed to recognize these virus parts and develop an immune reaction.
As I said in an earlier explanation, it's fairly unknown what the regulatory mechanism is which keeps the song from playing to often, or keeps it from playing long after it is needed. If the developers even tried to figure this stuff out it's a trade secret. It seems like they intend to answer some of these questions simply by seeing what happens to the people who got the jab.
---
Now to a contentious issue about 'changing DNA':
The adenovirus vector delivers DNA to the nucleus but it is supposed to be in it's own self-contained little ring (plasmid). It is not supposed to mix with your cell's chromosomal DNA. You could think of it as the chromosomal DNA is on the C: partition and the new album data is going onto the D: partition. That's the theory anyway.
It is worth note that the RNA platform folks (Pfizer, Moderna) point out that the advantage of their methods are that it avoids the danger associated with the DNA platform (AstraZeneca) of unintended mixing of the synthetic DNA (their special song) with the chromosomal DNA. Whether this is a real danger or a marketing ploy I do not know. If adenovirus never mixes with chromosomal DNA, it's probably a fair bet that this theoretical danger is not that big a deal with the AstraZeneca gene therapy I would say. I've not run across research on this one way or another. But there are plenty of OTHER dangers which have nothing to do with genetic material mixing.
---
Edit: Important note on dis-info agents and plants.
Be very careful of ANYONE saying the vaccine will 'change your DNA'. It is a well known and obvious psychological warfare technique to insert agents who pretend to be on one side but who's purpose is to sew confusion.
IF someone wants to point out the 'danger' of 'changing people's DNA' they need to either present it as a theoretical danger OR they need to link to high quality and credible research demonstrating this occurance. I've not yet seen that happen.
There are well meaning people with valuable technical information who might 'slip up' and take things farther than they should, but for the most part if I see someone actually say this without proof I write them off of my list of credible persons. It is VERY common for someone who may or may not be well meaning titling a vid something like 'scientists say it will change your genes', but when the content is viewed, the scientist said nothing of the sort or simply talked about the theoretical dangers.
Probably the most critical thing to understand about this whole scamdemic (and almost every other event of importance) is the informational warfare element. It's sad but true. The good news is that this element works similarly across a wide variety of situations so when you understand it in something like 9/11, you more or less understand it for the covid-19 scamdemic. Understanding these informational warfare techniques is a valuable and necessary skill here in the world of 2021 even more than ever.
