Takedown of "Intracellular Reverse Transcription" Study Results

A closer look at what has been observed and what it means for mRNA Covid-19 "vaccines".

The study “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line“ (2022.02.25) has made quite a splash, most recently. But as the discussion section is very terse and cryptic, for a non-professional, and the slides not fully explained (maybe for professional safety reasons), it deserves a closer look and discussion. Keep in mind that this is the best effort exercise, not claiming to be fully authoritative.

The study investigated the effects of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro in the following ways:

• 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 indicated increased nucleus distribution of LINE-1.

• PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2.

• Results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution.

• We show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.

The study thus succinctly summaries itself : “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.“ Lovely! Shouldn’t these studies have been performed by Pfizer, Moderna, NIH, EMA before the jabs were administered? And the results made widely available and discussed? Rhetorical questions at this point, but worth asking nonetheless. “WTH!” - to put it mildly.

The study does not test whether thus reverse-transcribed DNA actually integrates into the human chromosomes. But in the Jaenisch et al. study from May 2021 “we found that DNA copies of SARS-CoV-2 sequences can be integrated into the genome of infected human cells. …in some patient-derived tissues, evidence suggesting that a large fraction of the viral sequences is transcribed from integrated DNA copies of viral sequences, generating viral–host chimeric transcripts.“ Thus, it can be taken for granted that this also happens in the BNT162b2-spiked cells.

As has been already mentioned in my post “Lasting Legacy of Trojan Horses“, something about the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaxx significantly increases LINE-1 gene (mRNA) and protein expression. And that abundance of LINE-1 greatly increases the translation of jab mRNA into DNA and the subsequent integration thereof into the chromosomes of transfected cells. Also, the authors of the study stress that the distribution of LINE-1 changes in the vaxx-transfected cells with higher concentration of the LINE-1 protein in the cell nucleus, exactly where the transcribed DNA can integrate into the cell chromosomes. The intensity of red in the slide below corresponds to LINE-1 protein concentrations in cytosol; the intensity of fluorescent blue corresponds to LINE-1 protein concentrations in cell nucleus:

The graphs c and d in the slide above have different Y-scales, so I will rescale them for better visual comparison:

We can see now that the LINE-1 concentrations in the cell cytosol and nucleus are basically equal in the untreated cells (maybe slightly less in the nucleus), whereas the nucleus concentration of LINE-1 protein is higher in the treated cells, and significantly so for the most-treated cells.

Another way to look at it is to notice how the individual sample results cluster and spread over the Y axis in : we observe higher upper bounds in samples proportional to the vaxx concentration in d, but, strangely, the cytosol concentration in the most treated cells is lower compared to the less treated cells, apparently due to more LINE-1 being retained in the nucleus the more the cells are treated with BNT162b2.

So, why may that be? Why is LINE-1 protein “stuck” in the cell nucleus? I guess it is tied up doing what it is supposed to do - assisting in the reverse transcription of mRNA to DNA where the chromosomes reside. Isn’t that lovely?

Another figure to look closely at is this:

Figure 3. LINE-1 mRNA levels in Huh7 cells treated with BNT162b2. Huh7 cells were treated without (Ctrl) or with 0.5 (V1), 1 (V2), and 2 µg/mL (V3) of BNT162b2 for 6 (green dots), 24 (red dots), and 48 h (blue dots). RNA was purified and qPCR was performed using primers targeting LINE-1. RNA levels of LINE-1 are presented as 2−ΔΔCT values relative to house-keeping genes GAPDH and ACTB. Results are from five independent experiments (n = 5). Differences between respective groups were analyzed using two-tailed Student’s t-test. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM. (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 vs. respective control at each time point, or as indicated; † p < 0.05 vs. 6 h-Ctrl).

When they say 2-ΔΔCT, they actually mean 2^-(ΔΔCT): the negative powers of two in the difference of concentrations of LINE-1 mRNA and some control (house-keeping) genes also present in the cells, between the control (untreated) cells and the treated cells. I hope I make myself clear here. So, the higher bars correspond to lower concentrations of LINE-1 mRNA, and vice versa.

We see that, at 6 hours post vaxx exposure, the least treated cells had mRNA concentrations higher that in the untreated cells, for some reason. The mRNA concentrations after 24 hours actually increased in two more treated cells, and all treated cells had LINE-1 mRNA concentrations higher that the untreated cells. After 48 hours, the treated cells still had LINE-1 mRNA concentrations higher that the untreated cells, although these concentrations were greatly reduced for all cells (Does it mean the cell samples were aging? If you are better educated than me, please let me know so I can reflect it correctly in this post).

In any case, at 6 hours the treated cells were displaying LINE-1 mRMA concentrations reversely proportional to the BNT162b2 concentrations they were exposed to. So, when the authors say “RNA was purified“, is it free LINE-1 RNA only, not being tied in reverse-transcription? I would suspect so. Then this graph would agree with the previous one. Let me also know if you have a better explanation.

The last slide to look at is the reverse-transcribed S spike DNA detected in th treated samples:

Figure 5. Detection of DNA amplicons of BNT162b2 in Huh7 cells treated with BNT162b2. Huh7 cells were treated without (Ctrl) or with 0.5 µg/mL of BNT162b2 for 6, 24, and 48 h. Genomic DNA was purified and digested with 100 µg/mL RNase. PCR was run on all samples with primers targeting BNT162b2, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. DNA amplicons (444 bps) were visualized on agarose gel. BNT: BNT162b2; L: DNA ladder; Ctrl1: cultured Huh7 cells; Ctrl2: Huh7 cells without BNT162b2 treatment collected at 6 h; Ctrl3: Huh7 cells without BNT162b2 treatment collected at 24 h; Ctrl4: Huh7 cells without BNT162b2 treatment collected at 48 h; Ctrl5: RNA from Huh7 cells treated with 0.5 µg/mL of BNT162b2 for 6 h; Ctrl6: RNA from Huh7 cells treated with 0.5 µg/mL of BNT162b2 for 6 h, digested with RNase.

The grey bars under BTN columns correspond to five least-treated samples in the study all showing BNT162b2 mRNA converted to DNA already after 6 hours. We can see that there is more of such DNA after 24 hours, but less after 48 hours? Is it because this DNA has been degraded, or is it because it has been also integrated into the cell genome?

In summary, we can see some interesting results, but also further questions are raised that beg for answers… That is my best effort so far. Please help me with your insights.

The question remains, is the modified S spike mRNA the only mRNA in these jabs, or do they carry other Trojan Horses?

The very last, but not the least, remark. Remember the persistent reports hinting on the presence of graphene quantum dots in mRNA jabs and my speculation, back in December, that these GQDs are being another “adjuvant” added to jabs to aid in the transport of mRNA into the cell nuclei (“GQDs as mRNA Delivery System into Cell Nuclei?“)? Isn’t it all coming together nicely in the spring of 2022?