Figure 1.Dipsacus fullonum L. harvested from Saaremaa, Estonia, 2017.
Abstract
Lyme disease (LD) is a tick-borne bacterial disease that is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi. Although acute LD is treated with antibiotics, it can develop into relapsing chronic form caused by latent forms of B. burgdorferi. This leads to the search for phytochemicals against resistant LD. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the activity of Dipsacus fullonum L. leaves extract (DE) and its fractions against stationary phase B. burgdorferi in vitro. DE showed high activity against stationary phase B. burgdorferi (residual viability 19.8 ± 4.7%); however, it exhibited a noticeable cytotoxicity on NIH cells (viability 20.2 ± 5.2%). The iridoid-glycoside fraction showed a remarkable anti-Borrelia effect and reduced cytotoxicity. The iridoid-glycoside fraction was, therefore, further purified and showed to contain two main bioactives—sylvestrosides III and IV, that showed a considerable anti-Borrelia activity being the least toxic to murine fibroblast NIH/3T3 cells. Moreover, the concentration of sylvestrosides was about 15% of DE, endorsing the feasibility of purification of the compounds from D. fullonum L. leaves.
____________________
**Comment**
Dipsacus fullonum L, or wild teasel has been known in the Lyme/MSIDS world for a long, long time. Many patients swear by it’s anti-inflammatory properties.
Here we learn that the leaves showed anti-borrelia activity in mouse cells – which doesn’t necessarily translate over to humans, but it’s a start. It also only looked at the stationary phase and borrelia is pleomorphic and likes to mutate to evade treatment and the immune system. Previously, research on the herb stevia was touted by many as a “cure” for Lyme. It is anything but a cure, although some doctors use it as a “biofilm buster.”
Every patient responds differently to treatment and I know patients who herx on one drop of an herbal tincture; however, I’ve taken a lot of herbs over the years and never herxed or had a noticeable change on nearly any of them, but don’t let that stop you from trying. We are literally Guinea Pigs, and we have to kiss a lot of frogs to find our Prince!
The exception for me was a potent form of arthemisinin along with Mepron and an intracellular antibiotic for Babesia: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/01/16/babesia-treatment/ I write about my personal experience at the end of the article, along with the brand of arthemisinin used. It was extremely potent and we pulsed it due to the heart-attack type herxes it gave me. I’m happy to report that treating Babesia for a year has left both my husband and I symptom-free.
Lyme disease, which is caused by infection with Borrelia burgdorferi and related species, can lead to inflammatory pathologies affecting the joints, heart, and nervous systems including the central nervous system (CNS). Inbred laboratory mice have been used to define the kinetics of B. burgdorferi infection and host immune responses in joints and heart, however similar studies are lacking in the CNS of these animals. A tractable animal model for investigating host-Borrelia interactions in the CNS is key to understanding the mechanisms of CNS pathogenesis. Therefore, we characterized the kinetics of B. burgdorferi colonization and associated immune responses in the CNS of mice during early and subacute infection. Using fluorescence-immunohistochemistry, intravital microscopy, bacterial culture, and quantitative PCR, we found B. burgdorferi routinely colonized the dura mater of C3H mice, with peak spirochete burden at day 7 post-infection. Dura mater colonization was observed for several Lyme disease agents including B. burgdorferi, B. garinii, and B. mayonii. RNA-sequencing and quantitative RT-PCR showed that B. burgdorferi infection was associated with increased expression of inflammatory cytokines and a robust interferon (IFN) response in the dura mater. Histopathologic changes including leukocytic infiltrates and vascular changes were also observed in the meninges of infected animals. In contrast to the meninges, we did not detect B. burgdorferi, infiltrating leukocytes, or large-scale changes in cytokine profiles in the cerebral cortex or hippocampus during infection; however, both brain regions demonstrated similar changes in expression of IFN-stimulated genes as observed in peripheral tissues and meninges. Taken together, B. burgdorferi is capable of colonizing the meninges in laboratory mice, and induces localized inflammation similar to peripheral tissues. A sterile IFN response in the absence of B. burgdorferi or inflammatory cytokines is unique to the brain parenchyma, and provides insight into the potential mechanisms of CNS pathology associated with this important pathogen.
Author summary
Lyme disease is a result of inflammation-induced tissue pathology in response to infection with Borrelia burgdorferi. A major barrier to progress in understanding the neurologic manifestations of Lyme disease has been a lack of a tractable laboratory animal model to evaluate the mechanisms of central nervous system pathogenesis. Here we addressed this barrier by characterizing for the first time the kinetics of Borrelia burgdorferi colonization in the meninges of laboratory mice, and the resulting immune responses in both the meninges and brain. We demonstrate the presence and kinetics of live spirochetes in the meninges of infected mice, and show that meningeal infection is a general phenomenon shared by several Lyme disease Borrelia species. Meningeal colonization was associated with infiltrating leukocytes and local changes in immune response genes previously shown to be associated with Lyme disease pathology. Intriguingly, we show increased expression of immune response genes including those involved in antigen presentation in the brain, despite a lack of detectable infiltrating bacteria or leukocytes in this tissue. Overall, these findings characterize the central nervous system responses to Borrelia burgdorferi infection in a cost-effective and genetically robust animal model, and provide insights into the mechanisms of neuropathologies associated with Lyme disease.
__________________
**Comment**
Although this was in mice, patients the world over have experienced inflammation in the brain, including yours truly. I wondered if I’d ever have a day without head and neck pain that honestly felt like a horse kicked me. Thankfully, integrated, persistent treatment resolved this issue. I also have met numerous patients who ended up with a Chiari diagnosis due to the effects of undiagnosed Lyme/MSIDS, so the results of this inflammation can be severe: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/04/02/chiari/
Lyme disease: An underdiagnosed cause of mono-arthritis?
Welcome to another Inside Lyme Podcast with your host Dr. Daniel Cameron. In this episode, Dr. Cameron will be discussing the case of a 26-year-old man who was diagnosed with mono-arthritis after his clinical evaluation overlooked the possibility of Lyme disease.
A 26-year-old man presented with acute knee pain.He recalled having similar knee pain occurring one year prior when he began walking for extended periods of time.
A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the knee revealed a large joint effusion. He was not diagnosed or treated for Lyme disease.
Four months later, he had a follow-up MRI, which showed again a persistent joint effusion with diffuse enhancement, thickening of the synovium, enlarged lymph nodes in the popliteal fossa and enhancement of the soleus muscle.
He was subsequently evaluated again for acute knee pain that had been present for several days. On further questioning, the 26-year-old man recalled a history of serologically confirmed Lyme disease.
“The combination of synovitis, lymphadenopathy in the popliteal fossa, and serology led to the diagnosis of Lyme mono-arthritis,” wrote the authors.
“Mono- and oligoarthritis is one of the most common manifestations [of Lyme disease], mostly affecting the knee, although the hip, ankle, elbow, and wrist may be affected.”
There was no evidence of septic arthritis. The authors highlighted the need for a careful clinical history to avoid overlooking Lyme disease.
The following questions are addressed in this Podcast episode:
What is synovitis?
What is Lyme arthritis?
What is septic arthritis?
What manifestations of Lyme disease are there?
Why is timely treatment of Lyme disease important?
Thanks for listening to another Inside Lyme Podcast. Please remember that the advice given is general and not intended as specific advice to any particular patient. If you require specific advice, please seek that advice from an experienced professional.
Inside Lyme Podcast Series
This Inside Lyme case series will be discussed on my Facebook page and made available on podcast and YouTube. As always, it is your likes, comments, and shares that help spread the word about this series and our work. If you can, please leave a review on iTunes or wherever else you get your podcasts.
References:
Marcelis S, Vanhoenacker F. Lyme Disease: A Probably Underdiagnosed Cause of Mono-Arthritis. J Belg Soc Radiol. 2021;105(1):80. doi:10.5334/jbsr.2625
___________________
**Comment**
I fully intend to write an article on Lyme arthritis and various helpful treatments in the future but for now I’ll share what I’m personally doing and learning (briefly, it’s always conplicated!).
I’ve been dealing with a Baker’s Cyst for 9 months and have found the niacinamide (B3) and vitamin C protocol to be helpful with pain and mobility.
I too have discovered that dosing more frequently makes a difference as it keeps the blood levels more consistent (similarly to herbs): http://www.doctoryourself.com/kaufman3.html
Don’t forget about MSM and DMSO – they are truly miraculous in what they can do for pain and inflammation.
Various laser therapies can also help. I’ve had patients report in that a cheap, cold laser they bought on Amazon was nearly miraculous in alleviating pain. I’m sorry I don’t remember which one in particular they used.
COVID-19 Spike Protein Sequence ‘100% Match’ to Sequence Patented in 2016 by Moderna, Study Shows
A study published last month in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the COVID-19 virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified mRNA sequence patented by Moderna in 2016, and last month, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel proposed the COVID pandemic may have been the result of a lab leak.
A study published Feb. 21, 2022, in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016.
The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells.
According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research.
According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.
In a Feb. 24, 2022, interview, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel proposed the COVID-19 pandemic may have been the result of a lab leak.
The facts surrounding SARS-CoV-2’s origin just keep getting stranger and more disturbing as time goes on.
From the start, most of the evidence seemed to point to the virus being a lab creation that somehow escaped the confines of the laboratory. We really don’t have much of anything to suggest otherwise.
Now, a studypublished Feb. 21 in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented by Moderna — in 2016.
Some believe this is a smoking gun, proving gain of function research is at the heart of this mystery. Of course, more research is needed to verify the findings, but if proven correct, it could be rather incriminating.
What did Moderna patent?
The genetic sequence patented by Moderna — and now found to be part of the SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein that gives the virus access into human cells — is a 19-nucleotide sequence of a human gene called MSH3, which is a DNA repair gene.
Nucleotides code for specific amino acids. The MSH3 gene works with the part of your immune system responsible for combating cancer by repairing damaged cells. This pathway has been identified as a potential target for new cancer treatments.
As noted in the patent application, the gene sequence has been modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research. The first name listed on the patent is Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who has been Moderna’s chief executive officer since 2011.
What’s so curious here is that the scientists of the Frontiers in Virology paper searched all viral and bacterial databases looking for matches to the furin cleavage site patented by Moderna, and SARS-CoV-2 is the only pathogen that has this sequence. It’s an absolute match — 100% identical.
What are the chances of a naturally-occurring virus having a rarely encountered furin cleavage site that is genetically identical to an engineered and patented one? As noted by the authors:
“The absence of CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG from any eukaryotic or viral genome in the BLAST database makes recombination in an intermediate host an unlikely explanation for its presence in SARS-CoV-2.”
In other words, the sequence being a natural zoonosis is extremely unlikely. According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.
They also noted that “Recombination in an intermediate host is an unlikely explanation.” What’s more, it’s known that inserting a furin cleavage site on the spike protein of a virus will make it more infectious.
Moderna CEO suggests lab leak responsible for COVID-19
One hypothesis raised in the paper is that the matching code might have been introduced into the SARS-CoV-2 genome through infected human cells that express the MSH3 gene. The question, then, is how and when did that happen?
Interestingly, in a Feb. 24 interview, Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo questioned Bancel about the finding. He responded saying their scientists are looking into the claim, adding:
“That it came from a lab is possible. Humans make mistakes. It’s possible that the Wuhan lab in China was working on virus enhancement or gene modification and then there was an accident where somebody was infected in the lab, which affected family and friends. It is possible. On the claim you just mentioned, scientists will look to know if it’s real or not.”
Why This Code?
Now, if SARS-CoV-2 was man-made, why would they use this particular code? As noted in the Frontiers of Virology paper, the MSH3 sequence in question has been shown to cause mismatch repair in DNA, and faulty repair of genetic damage can lead to a number of diseases, including cancer. But overexpression of MSH3 also plays a role in virology:
“Overexpression of MSH3 is known to interfere with mismatch repair … which holds virologic importance. Induction of DNA mismatch repair deficiency results in permissiveness of influenza A virus (IAV) infection of human respiratory cells and increased pathogenicity. Mismatch repair deficiency may extend shedding of SARS-CoV-2 …
“A human-codon-optimized mRNA encoding a protein 100% homologous to human MSH3 could, during the course of viral research, inadvertently or intentionally induce mismatch repair deficiency in a human cell line, which would increase susceptibility to SARS-like viral infection.”
It’s interesting to note that Moderna did not have a single successful mRNA product brought to market before the COVID-19 pandemic allowed them to bypass normal regulatory requirements.
Now, all of a sudden, we’re to believe they managed to throw together a safe and effective mRNA injection against SARS-CoV-2, a virus that just so happens to contain one of its own patented components. What are the odds?
Did Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading promoter of mRNA technology as a replacement for traditional vaccines, have anything to do with Moderna’s sudden “success”? It certainly looks that way.
After all, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), both funded and co-developed Moderna’s COVID-19 jab.
As explained by the NIH, the injection “combines Moderna’s mRNA delivery platform with the stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike immunogen (S-2P) developed by NIAID scientists.”
In mid-November 2021, Moderna granted co-ownership of its COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” patent to the NIH to resolve a dispute involving the naming of the inventors.
Can the COVID jab trigger cancer?
Incidentally, since the release of the mRNA COVID jab, some doctors have raised concerns about the possibility of the injections to trigger cancer, largely due to its detrimental impact on your immune function.
For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein.
So far, the link to cancer post-jab seems to be related to the downregulation of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), which is involved in both infections and cancer. In an October 2021 article, Dr. Nicole Delépine, a French pediatric oncologist, discussed reports of exploding cancer cases post-jab:
“Several months ago, we expressed at least “theoretical reservations” about vaccinating cancer patients or former patients who had been cured, because of the underlying mechanism of the gene injection on immunity.
“Several geneticists had also expressed their concerns about the possible interference between active or dormant cancer cells and the activity of gene therapy on lymphocytes in particular. Months have passed, and the vaccine madness has amplified …
“[C]learly there seems to be three situations:
The appearance of a cancer rapidly after the injection (two weeks to a few months) and very progressive, in a person who was previously free of known carcinological pathologies.
The resumption of cancer in a patient who has been in complete remission for several months or years.
The rapid, even explosive, evolution of a cancer that is not yet controlled.
“Beyond the testimonies that are pouring in from relatives and friends and on social networks, a Swiss newspaper has finally addressed the subject in a broader way. Here are some excerpts from their article and their references:
“‘Can COVID vaccines cause cancer? In some cases, the answer seems to be yes … [It] has been shown that in up to 50% of vaccinees, COVID vaccines can induce temporary immunosuppression or immune dysregulation (lymphocytopenia) that can last for about a week or possibly longer.
“Furthermore, COVID mRNA vaccines have shown to ‘reprogram’… adaptive and innate immune responses and, in particular, to downregulate the so-called TLR4 pathway, which is known to play an important role in the immune response to infections and cancer cells.
“Thus, if there is already a tumor somewhere — known or unknown — or if there is a predisposition to a certain type of cancer, such a state of vaccine-induced immune suppression or immune dysregulation could potentially trigger sudden tumor growth and cancer within weeks of vaccination …’”
Dr. Ryan Cole, in August 2021, alsoreported seeing a significant increase in certain types of cancer, especially endometrial and uterine cancers, since the start of the mass injection campaign. Cole runs a large pathology laboratory in Idaho.
Other key components of SARS-CoV-2 have also been patented
Time will tell where this all leads, but clearly, SARS-CoV-2 does not appear to be the result of natural evolution. The evidence for it being man-made is simply overwhelming. So far, few in mainstream media have been willing to touch this story, for obvious reasons.
Finding a key gene sequence of the virus in a patent of one of the primary vaccine makers is inconvenient to say the least — and this is in addition to all the other patents relating to the virus.
As previously detailed by David Martin, Ph.D., SARS-CoV-2 appears to have been engineered in the 1990s, perfected in 1999 and patented in 2002. Evidence also shows that plans for mandatory vaccinations were hatched in 2015. That year, during an Academies of Science meeting, Dr. Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance stated:
“… until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCM’s [medical countermeasures] such as pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine.
“A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of [the] process.”
According to Martin, “That’s admission of a felony, and the felony is domestic terrorism.”
In a November 2021 Red Pill Expo speech, Martin reviewed the timeline of the COVID-19 jab, which began in 1990 with the first coronavirus vaccine patent for canines (dogs) filed by Pfizer.
That vaccine was an S-1 spike protein vaccine — just like the current Pfizer COVID shot, and according to Martin, that S-1 spike protein is a bioweapon, not a pathogen.
Nine years later, in 1999, Fauci, as director of the NIAID, tasked the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill with the creation of “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.
The patent for that replication-defective coronavirus that attacks human lung cells, filed April 19, 2002, (Patent No. 7279327), details the gene sequencing of the resulting virus, and how the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain and the S-1 spike protein were engineered and could be synthetically modified in the lab using readily available gene sequencing technologies.
Basically, computer code is turned into a manmade pathogen, or an intermediate pathogen. This technology was initially funded in order to harness the coronavirus as a vector for an HIV vaccine, but it clearly didn’t end there.
CDC holds patents on SARS coronavirus
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also holds key patents, including an illegally obtained patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent No. 7220852), which Martin says is 99% identical to the sequence now identified as SARS-CoV-2.
That CDC patent also had several derivative patents associated with it, including U.S. patent 46592703P and U.S. patent 7776521, which cover the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus and the means for detecting it using RT PCR testing.
With these two patents, the CDC has complete scientific control, as it owns the provenance of both the virus and its detection.
According to Martin, there’s also evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving the CDC and Sequoia Pharmaceuticals. April 28, 2003 — three days after the CDC filed its patent for the SARS coronavirus — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent on an antiviral agent for the treatment and control of infectious coronavirus (Patent No. 7151163).
So, the CDC filed a patent on SARS coronavirus, and three days later there’s a treatment? This strongly suggests there was a working relationship behind the scenes. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2002, develops antiviral therapeutics with a special focus on drug-resistant viruses. Its lead investors include the Wellcome Trust.
But there’s yet another problem with Sequoia’s 2003 filing for an antiviral agent. It was actually issued and published before the CDC patent on SARS coronavirus had been granted, which didn’t happen until 2007, and the CDC had paid to keep the application private.
So, there is zero possibility for anyone but an insider to have that information. This is clear evidence of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion, Martin notes. You cannot develop a treatment for something that you do not know exists.
Sanofi also owns a series of patents detailing what we’ve been told are novel features of SARS-CoV-2, namely the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain. The first of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 9193780, was issued Nov. 24, 2015.
Between 2008 and 2017, a series of patents were also filed by a long list of players, including Crucell, Rubeus Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong and the Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.
According to Martin, there are 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, that describe the very elements that are said to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. It’s unclear whether Moderna’s 2016 patent filing is part of that list.
The following scientific study has conclusively shown the mRNA spike protein coding from COVID shots are copied into human DNA. The process is called intracellular reverse transcription of mRNA. Long-term consequences of the shots are unknown.
Received: 18 January 2022 / Revised: 19 February 2022 / Accepted: 23 February 2022 / Published: 25 February 2022
Abstract
Preclinical studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2, developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, showed reversible hepatic effects in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection. Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells. In this study, we investigated the effect of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. Huh7 cells were exposed to BNT162b2, and quantitative PCR was performed on RNA extracted from the cells. We detected high levels of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells and changes in gene expression of long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1), which is an endogenous reverse transcriptase. Immunohistochemistry using antibody binding to LINE-1 open reading frame-1 RNA-binding protein (ORFp1) on Huh7 cells treated with BNT162b2 indicated increased nucleus distribution of LINE-1. PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
Important excerpts from Discussion section:
In the assessment report on BNT162b2 provided to EMA by Pfizer, the pharmacokinetic distribution studies in rats demonstrated that a relatively large proportion (up to 18%) of the total dose distributes to the liver [26].
In the current study, we employed a human liver cell line for in vitro investigation. It is worth investigating if the liver cells also present the vaccine-derived SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which could potentially make the liver cells targets for previously primed spike protein reactive cytotoxic T cells. There has been case reports on individuals who developed autoimmune hepatitis [39] after BNT162b2 vaccination. To obtain better understanding of the potential effects of BNT162b2 on liver function, in vivo models are desired for future studies.
In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. 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.
The Pfizer EMA assessment report also showed that BNT162b2 distributes in the spleen (<1.1%), adrenal glands (<0.1%), as well as low and measurable radioactivity in the ovaries and testes (<0.1%) [26]. Furthermore, no data on placental transfer of BNT162b2 is available from Pfizer EMA assessment report. Our results showed that BNT162b2 mRNA readily enters Huh7 cells at a concentration (0.5 µg/mL) corresponding to 0.5% of the local injection site concentration, induce changes in LINE-1 gene and protein expression, and within 6 h, reverse transcription of BNT162b2 can be detected. It is therefore important to investigate further the effect of BNT162b2 on other cell types and tissues both in vitro and in vivo.
Conclusions: Our study is the first in vitro study on the effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 on human liver cell line. We present evidence on fast entry of BNT162b2 into the cells and subsequent intracellular reverse transcription of BNT162b2 mRNA into DNA.
____________________
**Comment**
Remember when Covidians stated that those who believe the shots are gene therapy are “conspiracy theorists?”
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 