historian said:

---

These days X is probably more reliable than Big Pharma propaganda sites.

---

Do NOT take another ‘Vaccine’ EVER AGAIN. They LIED to you.

“Emerging evidence reveals that elites and Big Pharma executives faked taking the mRNA shots, paying to appear on vaccination registers while never actually taking the jab…” -Jim Ferguson pic.twitter.com/N61etsPUge

— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) September 20, 2025

• It's a review/opinion-style article published in the journal Industrial Psychiatry Journal in October 2021 (PMCID: PMC8611574) by authors affiliated with medical colleges in India. PMC
• The article summarises known side-effects of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (such as reactogenicity, injection site pain, fever, headache, muscle aches) and discusses issues like vaccine efficacy metrics (relative risk reduction vs. absolute risk reduction) and monitoring of adverse effects. PMC
• It raises concerns and questions rather than presenting new experimental data showing that vaccine mRNA enters brain, bone marrow, cancerous cells, or embryonic cells.

• The article does not provide direct experimental evidence that the mRNA from the vaccines enters the nucleus of human cells, integrates into DNA, or specifically transfects brain, bone marrow, or embryonic cells.
• It does not provide data showing large-scale harm from mRNA vaccines beyond the known and monitored side-effects.
• It is more of a cautionary/opinion piece rather than a definitive mechanistic study.
• The authors themselves acknowledge the hope the vaccines provide despite their stated concerns. PMC
• Being a review/opinion, it's subject to interpretation, bias, and it does not change the bulk of peer-reviewed mechanistic and safety literature that supports vaccine use.

Assassin said:

---

Moderna Scientists Warn mRNA Vaccines Carry Toxicity Risks

---

Assassin said:

---

How long do mRNA and spike proteins last in the body?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Assassin said:

---

How long do mRNA and spike proteins last in the body?

---

No. COVID-19 vaccines cannot change your DNA.
DNA is stored in the nucleus of your cells. mRNA vaccines do their work outside of the nucleus (in a space called the cytoplasm) and have not been observed to interact with the nucleus. The cell breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it's finished using the instructions.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Assassin said:

---

How long do mRNA and spike proteins last in the body?

---

No. COVID-19 vaccines cannot change your DNA.
DNA is stored in the nucleus of your cells. mRNA vaccines do their work outside of the nucleus (in a space called the cytoplasm) and have not been observed to interact with the nucleus. The cell breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it's finished using the instructions.

---

Every so often people ask why I don’t post much anymore about Covid origins, like this week, when a few reached out about the new FOIA release uncovered by @USRightToKnow. First off, the new drop is shocking and huge credit to them for their persistence. They’ve done phenomenal…

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) October 26, 2025

Assassin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Assassin said:

---

How long do mRNA and spike proteins last in the body?

---

No. COVID-19 vaccines cannot change your DNA.
DNA is stored in the nucleus of your cells. mRNA vaccines do their work outside of the nucleus (in a space called the cytoplasm) and have not been observed to interact with the nucleus. The cell breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it's finished using the instructions.

---

Of course not. Thats not what the article said. Nobody on this entire thread that said anything could change our DNA

I do understand that you attempting to educate Tempus. Not sure it will do him any good, but give it a go!

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Assassin said:

---

How long do mRNA and spike proteins last in the body?

---

No. COVID-19 vaccines cannot change your DNA.
DNA is stored in the nucleus of your cells. mRNA vaccines do their work outside of the nucleus (in a space called the cytoplasm) and have not been observed to interact with the nucleus. The cell breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it's finished using the instructions.

---

Of course not. Thats not what the article said. Nobody on this entire thread that said anything could change our DNA

I do understand that you attempting to educate Tempus. Not sure it will do him any good, but give it a go!

---

I quoted word for word from your article

---

Assassin said:

---

Health risks of mRNA-based vaccine therapy

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Health risks of mRNA-based vaccine therapy

---

You really are r e t a r d e d.

The manuscript is a hypothesis article, not an original research study presenting new experimental data. The title itself includes "A hypothesis". PMC+1

The journal Medical Hypotheses has a particular editorial model: it publishes speculative ideas and hypotheses that are not necessarily backed by rigorous empirical data. Historically, this journal has been considered less "rigorous" in terms of peer-review compared to some other biomedical journals.

The claims in the article are broad and raise serious safety concerns about mRNA vaccines (e.g., risk of DNA damage, autoinflammation, cancer) based largely on speculative mechanisms, rather than definitive evidence. For example: "We propose that … susceptible individuals … have … increased risk of DNA damage, chronic autoinflammation, autoimmunity and cancer." PubMed+1

Because it is hypothesisbased, it does not establish causality or provide direct proof that the risks claimed actually occur in realworld vaccinated populations.

The journal has an unusual peer-review / editorial review history. For example, its Wikipedia entry notes longstanding concerns:

Quote:

---

"Medical Hypotheses has long been a source of concern in the scientific community because the articles are not peer-reviewed," and the National Library of Medicine had been requested to review the journal "for de-selection from PubMed" on those grounds. Wikipedia+1

---

The literature around mRNA vaccine platforms (mechanisms, delivery systems, immunologic responses) is rich and evolving. For example, a recent survey article (in a more conventional journal) notes many technical challenges of mRNA therapeutics and modifications to structure to enhance safety and efficacy.

I was unable to locate a large number of peer-reviewed publications using this specific hypothesis paper as a foundation for subsequent empirical data. While the paper is cited in several contexts (e.g., other reviews discussing mRNA vaccine platforms or theoretical risks) such as in the article "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and the Multi-Hit Hypothesis of Oncogenesis" these are mostly theoretical or review mentions rather than empirical studies validating the hypothesis. Cureus+1

The hypothesis paper draws on speculative mechanisms (e.g., genomic integration of reverse-transcribed mRNA, activation of transposable elements) which have not been established in large-scale human studies as of the data I found. For example, the assertion of "increased risk of DNA damage, chronic autoinflammation, autoimmunity and cancer" is theoretical. PMC+1

Because the journal has historically had weaker peer-review standards (or non-traditional review) compared to many top biomedical journals, this raises the need for extra caution in treating conclusions as established facts. For example, the journal was criticised prior to 2010 for publishing controversial or potentially harmful ideas with minimal review. Science+1

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Health risks of mRNA-based vaccine therapy

---

You really are r e t a r d e d.

The manuscript is a hypothesis article, not an original research study presenting new experimental data. The title itself includes "A hypothesis". PMC+1

The journal Medical Hypotheses has a particular editorial model: it publishes speculative ideas and hypotheses that are not necessarily backed by rigorous empirical data. Historically, this journal has been considered less "rigorous" in terms of peer-review compared to some other biomedical journals.

The claims in the article are broad and raise serious safety concerns about mRNA vaccines (e.g., risk of DNA damage, autoinflammation, cancer) based largely on speculative mechanisms, rather than definitive evidence. For example: "We propose that … susceptible individuals … have … increased risk of DNA damage, chronic autoinflammation, autoimmunity and cancer." PubMed+1

Because it is hypothesisbased, it does not establish causality or provide direct proof that the risks claimed actually occur in realworld vaccinated populations.

The journal has an unusual peer-review / editorial review history. For example, its Wikipedia entry notes longstanding concerns:

Quote:

---

"Medical Hypotheses has long been a source of concern in the scientific community because the articles are not peer-reviewed," and the National Library of Medicine had been requested to review the journal "for de-selection from PubMed" on those grounds. Wikipedia+1

---

The literature around mRNA vaccine platforms (mechanisms, delivery systems, immunologic responses) is rich and evolving. For example, a recent survey article (in a more conventional journal) notes many technical challenges of mRNA therapeutics and modifications to structure to enhance safety and efficacy.

I was unable to locate a large number of peer-reviewed publications using this specific hypothesis paper as a foundation for subsequent empirical data. While the paper is cited in several contexts (e.g., other reviews discussing mRNA vaccine platforms or theoretical risks) such as in the article "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and the Multi-Hit Hypothesis of Oncogenesis" these are mostly theoretical or review mentions rather than empirical studies validating the hypothesis. Cureus+1

The hypothesis paper draws on speculative mechanisms (e.g., genomic integration of reverse-transcribed mRNA, activation of transposable elements) which have not been established in large-scale human studies as of the data I found. For example, the assertion of "increased risk of DNA damage, chronic autoinflammation, autoimmunity and cancer" is theoretical. PMC+1

Because the journal has historically had weaker peer-review standards (or non-traditional review) compared to many top biomedical journals, this raises the need for extra caution in treating conclusions as established facts. For example, the journal was criticised prior to 2010 for publishing controversial or potentially harmful ideas with minimal review. Science+1

---

Good post except for your first sentence

---