The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
so it's taken up it's in a lipid nanoparticle the lipid nanoparticles taken up in the cell it's stripped away and then that messenger RNA enters the ribosomal system where like the other couple hundred thousand copies of messenger RNA that are in your cytoplasm it's then translated to a protein and that happens over over days and then the messenger RNA like all message rnas breaks down and and is no longer making that protein
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
first of all it has to be able to cross the nuclear membrane which which requires a nuclear access signal that it doesn't have secondly even if it got into the into the nucleus it's RNA it's not DNA so in order to affect DNA it has to be converted to DNA which means which requires an enzyme like reverse transcriptase which it also doesn't have even if it was converted to DNA which it can't because it can't cross the nuclear membrane and it can't be basically averse reverse transcribed back to DNA it still has to insert itself into the DNA which requires an integrase enzyme that it also doesn't have