We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
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 so it's not possible
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.
how we don't have any of the Machinery to enable the reverse