Comment on “Potential Mechanisms for Human Genome Integration of Genetic Code from SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination”
Even a layperson, such as the author of this commentary, can spot the chunky inconsistency clumps in what Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 are serving. The reader is encouraged to put in writing what more can they find in addition to what is mentioned here.
The first red flag should immediately be the fact that one of the credited authors is a "naturopathic oncologist". See Atwood, 2003, Atwood, 2004, Gorski, 2014, Russell, 2009, Ernst, 2001, Wilson et al., 2004, Busse et al., 2008, Downey et al., 2010, Herzog et al., 2013.
Imagine a "metaphysical firefighter" — "Yes, ma'am, what is it?... Your house is on fire?... I'll start meditating right away!"
But, hey, "not all Nazis..." So let us move on then, shall we?
Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 cite Zhang et al., 2021 9 times, but those results have been criticized as not reproducible (Smits et al., 2021), misleading and infrequent (Parry et al., 2021), and artefactual (Yan et al., 2021).
Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 paraphrase (emphasis added):
The SARS-CoV-2 sequence copies most frequently integrated into human DNA are those close to 5’ and 3’ untranslated regions (UTRs), showing a preference for sequences neighboring promoters and poly(A) tails [Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020].
Take note of how a couple of subtle wording changes — slipping in "are those" in one place, striking "integration [into]" from another — completely change the meaning of the sentence. In reality, Zhang et al., 2021 (not Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020) wrote (emphasis added):
We noted that viral–cellular boundaries were frequently close to the 5′ or 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs) of the cellular genes, suggesting that there is a preference for integration close to promoters or poly(A) sites in our experimental system.
In other words, in vitro, in this one very specific experimental setup, viral material integration was observed to occur more frequently near those host (cellular) genome sites that have promoters or polyadenylation (poly(A)) sites nearby.
That is not the same as saying that viral material that has promoters or runs of poly(A) would be integrated frequently (or at all) in vivo. There goes the whole premise for Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022, as SARS-CoV-2 spike protein vaccine mRNA is stabilized with poly(A).
And the S-protein takes us to the next point: the DNA copies of SARS-CoV-2 sequences detected by Zhang et al., 2021 in the genomes of infected cells were those of nucleocapsid proteins. They say nothing about the S-protein sequences on which the mRNA vaccines are based. Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 do admit this in passing:
The integration corresponds to the full-size sub-genomic nucleocapsid (not spike) sequences of SARS-CoV-2, which can be expressed in chimeric (virus-host) transcripts in human cells [Zhang et al., 2021].
But then they immediately move on to never mention that ever again and wax poetically instead about the epidemiological implications of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and S-protein sequences.
Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 misquote Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020:
By this kind of DNA interference, which is highly plausible with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA sequences [Pardi et al., 2018, Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020, Zhang et al., 2021], regions of DNA [like those of HERV-K elements] can also be awakened [46,48]. Such a phenomenon has already been proven for other non-retroviral RNA viruses [10] as well as other coronavirus sequences [Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020].
Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020 explicitly write (emphasis added):
The related coronaviruses SARS-Cov had a 41 BP human sequence on chromosome 3 that was not part of a human gene, and MERS had no human sequence.
That is, SARS-CoV-1 is the only other coronavirus Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020 found besides SARS-CoV-2, the genome of which contains a (short) sequence of bases that can also be found in the human genome. There are no "other coronavirus sequences", there is exactly one other. Furthermore, there is no mention of any "woke" coronavirus-related sequences in Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020. Or "awakened", whatever.
Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 appear to have misunderstood (or are intentionally misrepresenting) the context in which Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020 mention SARS-CoV-2. At no point do Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020 claim that the sequence match between the human genome and that of SARS-CoV-2 is due to a fragment of one being integrated into the other. Quite the contrary,
We have no explanation for the NSP14-NSP15-SARSCov-2 sequence we observed here or how it might relate to infectiousness. Further studies are warranted.
Some questions that might be worth looking into are: are there other organisms or viruses that also have this exact sequence? For what purposes? Are they related? How?
Several times Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 cite Aldén et al., 2022, who openly admit:
The cell model that we used in this study is a carcinoma cell line, with active DNA replication which differs from non-dividing somatic cells. It has also been shown that Huh7 cells display significant different gene and protein expression including upregulated proteins involved in RNA metabolism.
Merchant, 2022 also addresses this and other points, but Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 do not appear to take that into consideration.
The real gem, though, is this paragraph:
The integration of the whole or segmented genomic sequences of yet other retroviruses or RNA or DNA viruses into the human genome is undoubtedly proven, and these can get fixed into chromosomes after several generations [10]. As such, the presence of synthetic mRNAs [Pardi et al., 2018] in the mRNA vaccines, carrying sequences from the pathogenic spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in close proximity to a poly(A) tail, also means that these have all the prerequisites to become inserted into human DNA. Furthermore, special attention in the manufacturing process of synthetic mRNAs has been paid towards unnatural modifications, such as the conversion of all uridines to methylpseudouridines, aimed to protect the mRNA from degradation [Pardi et al., 2018]. This enhanced longevity within the cell increases the likelihood of reverse transcription and incorporation into DNA via various mechanisms involving mobile elements [17]. Possible mechanisms of human genetic interference and consequences to human health are therefore revisited.
Observe how the rather lengthy paragraph leads with "integration of [..] genomic sequences of [..] viruses into the human genome is undoubtedly proven," as if that in itself was a statement concerning what is proven about SARS-CoV-2. They quickly name-drop the technology once so that there was a something to pin a citation to, and then they just fuck off to the sky with their baseless brazen bullshit conjecture. Swiftly following that up with another statement about the technology to stick a citation marker in, just to prevent the reader from realizing the steaming pile they have just been sold.
To be explicit, this:
[The presence of mRNAs in vaccines with] sequences from the pathogenic spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in close proximity to a poly(A) tail, also means that these have all the prerequisites to become inserted into human DNA.
Where the fuck do they get this shit from, the 8kun or something? What "all prerequisites"? — "Yo, like, [citation needed], guy!"
Also, note how Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 have been using the term "integration" when quoting from actual cited research, up until this point where someone inserted, well, "inserted".
The use of references by Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 is also somewhat peculiar. The following are the top three articles most frequently cited in their manuscript:
- Pardi et al., 2018, with 14 citations (which seems reasonable, given the overlap in the subject matter),
- Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020, with 13 citations, and
- Zhang et al., 2021, with 9 citations.
The evident heavy reliance on the latter two sources is quite concerning, given that the failure to accurately reflect their contents, as discussed in the preceding sections, suggests some degree of negligence, incompetence, or lack of moral integrity on the part of Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022.
Furthermore, 83–92 of the 106 total listed references are not cited anywhere in the manuscript. Make of it what you will.
Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 begin their conclusion with
Recent discovery of SARS-CoV-2 genome integration [Pardi et al., 2018, Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020, Zhang et al., 2021, Aldén et al., 2022] through a mechanism involving LINE-1 or polymerase theta raises great concern regarding possible unwanted durable incorporation of spike protein sequences into the human genome.
This is highly problematic for the following reasons:
- Pardi et al., 2018 not only do not mention SARS-CoV-2, but there is no way they could have done so by the time of publication in early 2018, given that SARS-CoV-2 was not even discovered until very late 2019.
- As previously discussed, Lehrer and Rheinstein, 2020 never mention integration, not even by implication.
- The in vitro results of Zhang et al., 2021 have been repeatedly contested as non-reproducible and artefactual. See Smits et al., 2021, Parry et al., 2021 and Yan et al., 2021.
- Aldén et al., 2022 used a culture of anomalous cells for their in vitro model, which, as discussed in a preceding section, is not accurately representative of typical in vivo conditions. Cf. Merchant, 2022.
Yan et al., 2021 write:
Collectively, our data analyses and experimental findings indicate that currently observed and widely reported [host-virus chimeric (HVC)] events are infrequent, not reproducible, and likely to be artifacts of reverse transcription during RNA-seq library preparation. As anticipated from the cytoplasmic replication stage of positive-strand RNA viruses, viral integration is not expected to be a major pathological factor for SARS-CoV-2 and, by extension, not a cause for concern in the use of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. In summary, current data do not support the authenticity of HVC events in SARS-CoV-2-infected samples.
Kyriakopoulos et al., 2022 evidently have built their manuscript around the premise that it has been "undoubtedly proven" that not only SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RNA tends to get reverse-transcribed and integrated into the host cell DNA, but that the synthetic vaccine mRNA in particular is somehow even better suited for integration.
If one eliminates the latter assumption, for which there does not appear to be any evidence at this point, they are left with some inconclusive evidence that the presence of excessive quantities of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RNA of any origin might pose, at worst, a remote threat of infrequent integration into the host genome and the consequential associated health risks.
It is one thing to ignore all research that contradicts one's position and instead cherry-pick facts and evidence in support of one's hypothesis. Confirmation bias is human nature — not at all optimal, but at least understandable. Intentionally misquoting, paraphrasing and misrepresenting research just to serve one's narrative, on the other hand, is a whole new level of malpractice, a blatant display of lack of professional integrity and disregard for the principles of scientific inquiry.