If you want a source:
Voet & Voet Biochemistry, 3rd Edition Chapter 31: Transcription. Page 1216.
I didn't copy paste anything. I wrote that from scratch. Sure, I copied it from another reply of mine because I didn't feel like re-typing that all from memory for the like 10th time, but that is my own writing. In case you don't believe me, the original post is here: https://communities.win/c/AskWin/p/12i3zEjNc8/x/c/4DyOSnZK9uG
I understand the science (NOTE: Different from "trusting the science"). This is my field. I know what I'm talking about.
What substantive points do you believe that I have stated incorrectly? Do you have any rebuttals or refutations to anything that I said? I doubt it. Because aside from oversimplifying things, what I stated in that post is substantively true and correct.
I await your educated refutation, although I doubt it will be forthcoming.
Allow me to repost a reply that I made explaining how this works to another idiot who also didn't understand mRNA or vaccines.
He has to understand that this is NOT a vaccine. It is a mRNA editor. Normally, you inject someone with a dead virus and the body builds antibodies to it. The Not Vaccine forces your body to create the antibodies.
I can tell by these four sentences that you don't actually understand the principle behind the mRNA vaccines or how antibodies are made/work.
The vaccines contain an mRNA message that gets delivered to your cells. Normal mRNA is a transient molecule in your cells that relays information from your genome (DNA) to your protein manufacturing enzymes inside cells. Each mRNA encodes for a single gene that gets converted into a protein (one mRNA can be translated many times, but only for one type of protein). An mRNA molecule only exists in your body for a few hours or days before it gets degraded and broken down.
What the mRNA vaccines are doing is that they've isolated the message needed to create the "spike protein" of the virus, without any other part of the virus. The spike protein gets embedded on the surface of the virus particle and it is responsible for attaching to cells to begin infection.
So the mRNA vaccine has isolated and refined this gene, it introduces it into your cells, and your cells make many copies of this spike protein. The spike protein will then embed itself into the cell membrane of the cells that made it and show on its surface.
Your innate immune cells (monocytes and phagocytic white blood cells) circulating in your system will notice this spike protein as a foreign agent and destroy the cells that have it expressed, then take this marker to the cells of your adaptive immune system (T and B cells) and train them to recognize this target and create antibodies that recognize it and bind to it. The B cells release these antibodies into your circulatory system, and attach to this target wherever they see it, which makes it easier to initiate an immune response against.
Once the infection is cleared, a small subset of T and B cells that know how to make this specific antibody will be retained as memory immune cells. If this marker is ever detected again, these immune cells already know how to make the antibody against it and so they begin to very quickly replicate and start pumping out antibodies and other immune system regulation signals. This means that in theory the second response is much faster than the first.
The only difference between this vaccine and the conventional protein or live attenuated virus vaccines is that we're introducing the signal to make these spike proteins rather than the spike proteins themselves.
The vaccines DO NOT alter your genome or fundamentally alter any cell functions.
That doesn't mean that there isn't cause for concern with them though, since this kind of vaccine has NEVER been released for humans before, and the short timespan likely means that safety testing was accelerated drastically and there's no longterm safety data.
Like I said, if the vaccine is being made in good faith, the technology should be sound and there should be no longterm side-effects. I just don't trust that it is being made in good faith...
Yes, I know very well how mRNA works. And how vaccines work. Do you?
Agreed absolutely.
I just mean that a legit mRNA vaccine should work and be pretty safe.
I will be honest, I predict that too many people who have taken these mRNA vaccines will sadly end up with major harmful side effects in the future.
ASsuming that the mRNA vaccines were made in good faith to work as intended, there should not be any long term side-effects because mRNA only persists for a few days.
But that's giving them a lot of faith.
The part that gets me is that the Government of Canada said that all of these vaccines have been thoroughly tested and are definitely safe, no need to worry. Then other countries started finding a causal link between the Astra Zeneca vaccine and brain blood clots, which led to at least 5 deaths of young adults who were at no risk of dying to the virus. And it's only after that happens that Canada suddenly pulls that vaccine from use for under 55's.
But if they had thoroughly tested it and knew it was safe, how did this escape their notice? They must be either incompetent or malicious and either way, why should I now trust any of the other vaccines on offer? Can I trust that as much "care" was put into vetting them too?
I'm not even anti-vac or even anti-mRNA vaccine, because I understand the mechanism behind how they work and it makes sense. But I am anti-"give everyone in the world a new vaccine type that has never been implemented in humans before for a virus that 99.9% of the population shouldn't be legitimately concerned over"
Their demigods in charge have told them what to think. Before the election the vaccines were dangerous and untested. Now they're safe because Glorious Leader says so.
Trust the science.
Same. My company is strongly urging people to get the vaccine but saying that it's a personal choice. The province where I live also says it's illegal to discriminate against people who don't get the vaccine.
However at the same time, the CEO of my company sent out a mass email saying
The best vaccine for you is the one that is available. Trust that they're all safe
Hours before Canada put all Astra Zeneca vaccinations for under 55's on hold.
The election.
Not necessarily. You can't speak if air travel is being blocked through your vocal chords, which would be the case if you're being strangled.
However, you can still speak if your lungs are filling with fluids from a drug overdose, because the air is still passing your vocal chords but it is not getting absorbed by the lungs into your body because the drugs are melting your lungs.
The only thing I would bring up to counter is that (IIRC, been a while since I watched the videos) Chauvin and others kept kneeling on him for an extra minute or two after he clearly lost consciousness. And Chauvin didn't bother to check for pulse or consciousness and even when the other officer did and said he found no pulse, he continued to kneel on his neck for a while longer.
I think at worst though that Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter due to negligent care rather than intentional murder.
I feel like it's a joke based on Community: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrXdqqkoQKA&ab_channel=LordMarks
Just FYI, any vaccine that's a viral vector vaccine (the J&J, Sputnik and Astra-Zeneca ones) is an mRNA vaccine that just uses a virus particle to deliver the mRNA.
To be fair, the spiders in Grounded can be fucking scary.
Yes. But that doesn't mean that you can't still appreciate the different cultural backgrounds that people came from.
Actually, that reminds me of something. I have a vague memory of when I was a kid and having it explained to me that Americans tended to be more patriotic, while Canadians were more nationalist, and having the distinction between the two concepts be made.
Nowadays the word nationalist is a dirty word because it's been tied intrinsically to white nationalism, but I do support the concept of a strong and united nation.
As a Canadian, I am on board with multiculturalism, and I know from experience that it can and does work okay, as long as "diversity" isn't the goal in and of itself, and that there's a broader blanket culture over top of the multiculturalism that the other cultural groups can buy into and respect.
It used to be that Canada prided itself on being a multicultural mosaic and that every person brought their own unique aspects of culture to share. But above all else, they were CANADIANS first, and had pride in being Canadian. This Canadian pride was probably best captured by this old beer commercial that I can never imagine being made today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pASE_TgeVg8.
But now I'm seeing more and more of a push from the left that we need to hate or be ashamed of the canadian identity and break off into these segregated cultural enclaves, and everything is falling apart.
It also doesn't help that certain groups of immigrants to this country just inherently don't want to integrate with the parent culture (I'm sure you all know what group this tends to be....)
The point is, you need to foster a strong pride in a uniting culture in order for multiculturalism to thrive underneath, or else you just all break up into infighting groups.
Communism.
Why would Terry Crews align the the democrats? He seems to be solidly anti-identity politics and anti-marxism.
Literally Brave New World.
Forgive the long comment but this is extremely relevant and unnerving
OUTSIDE, in the garden, it was playtime. Naked in the warm June sunshine, six or seven hundred little boys and girls were running with shrill yells over the lawns, or playing ball games, or squatting silently in twos and threes among the flowering shrubs. The roses were in bloom, two nightingales soliloquized in the boskage, a cuckoo was just going out of tune among the lime trees. The air was drowsy with the murmur of bees and helicopters.
The Director and his students stood for a short time watching a game of Centrifugal Bumble-puppy. Twenty children were grouped in a circle round a chrome steel tower. A ball thrown up so as to land on the platform at the top of the tower rolled down into the interior, fell on a rapidly revolving disk, was hurled through one or other of the numerous apertures pierced in the cylindrical casing, and had to be caught.
"Strange," mused the Director, as they turned away, "strange to think that even in Our Ford's day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption. It's madness. Nowadays the Controllers won't approve of any new game unless it can be shown that it requires at least as much apparatus as the most complicated of existing games." He interrupted himself.
"That's a charming little group," he said, pointing.
In a little grassy bay between tall clumps of Mediterranean heather, two children, a little boy of about seven and a little girl who might have been a year older, were playing, very gravely and with all the focussed attention of scientists intent on a labour of discovery, a rudimentary sexual game.
"Charming, charming!" the D.H.C. repeated sentimentally.
"Charming," the boys politely agreed. But their smile was rather patronizing. They had put aside similar childish amusements too recently to be able to watch them now without a touch of contempt. Charming? but it was just a pair of kids fooling about; that was all. Just kids.
"I always think," the Director was continuing in the same rather maudlin tone, when he was interrupted by a loud boo-hooing. From a neighbouring shrubbery emerged a nurse, leading by the hand a small boy, who howled as he went. An anxious-looking little girl trotted at her heels.
"What's the matter?" asked the Director.
The nurse shrugged her shoulders. "Nothing much," she answered. "It's just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I'd noticed it once or twice before. And now again to-day. He started yelling just now …"
"Honestly," put in the anxious-looking little girl, "I didn't mean to hurt him or anything. Honestly."
"Of course you didn't, dear," said the nurse reassuringly. "And so," she went on, turning back to the Director, "I'm taking him in to see the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology. Just to see if anything's at all abnormal."
"Quite right," said the Director. "Take him in. You stay here, little girl," he added, as the nurse moved away with her still howling charge. "What's your name?"
"Polly Trotsky."
"And a very good name too," said the Director. "Run away now and see if you can find some other little boy to play with."
The child scampered off into the bushes and was lost to sight.
"Exquisite little creature!" said the Director, looking after her. Then, turning to his students, *"What I'm going to tell you now," he said, "may sound incredible. But then, when you're not accustomed to history, most facts about the past do sound incredible."
He let out the amazing truth. For a very long period before the time of Our Ford, and even for some generations afterwards, erotic play between children had been regarded as abnormal (there was a roar of laughter); and not only abnormal, actually immoral (no!): and had therefore been rigorously suppressed.
A look of astonished incredulity appeared on the faces of his listeners. Poor little kids not allowed to amuse themselves? They could not believe it.
"Even adolescents," the D.H.C. was saying, "even adolescents like yourselves …"
"Not possible!"
"Barring a little surreptitious auto-erotism and homosexuality–absolutely nothing."
"Nothing?"
"In most cases, till they were over twenty years old."
"Twenty years old?" echoed the students in a chorus of loud disbelief.
"Twenty," the Director repeated. "I told you that you'd find it incredible."
"But what happened?" they asked. "What were the results?"
"The results were terrible." A deep resonant voice broke startlingly into the dialogue.
They looked around. On the fringe of the little group stood a stranger–a man of middle height, black-haired, with a hooked nose, full red lips, eyes very piercing and dark. "Terrible," he repeated.
- Brave New World, Chapter 3 by Aldous Huxley
YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO EMULATE A DYSTOPIA WHO!!!
Can I just say, as a center lefty who's been redpilled to this since about 2015 when I first learned about Gamergate: most of my friends are much more lefty than me and most of them are genuinely good, kind, people who want to do the right thing. I just think many of them don't realize what's really going on.
Doesn't mean I'm any less terrified of telling them about my true political opinions, though, because I'm scared of what would happen if they found out...
Also there's absolutely a ton of disgusting hateful self-projecting narcisists on the left too. But most of them I think are well meaning followers who don't see what's really happening.
What do you mean? All I've seen are nazis and white supremacists and evil evil evil people. That's what the Guardian told me to believe so it must be true!
Want another one?
Lehninger- Principles of Biochemistry written by David L. Nelson and Michael M. Cox Chapter 26- RNA Metabolism and Chapter 27.2 Protein Synthesis