Dr. Francisco Molino Olmedo
January 13, 2021
Dr. Cum Laude in biology from the University of Granada, ex-Professor at the Autonomous University of Madrid, scientific collaborator for the EC, Basque Government, CSIC and National Heritage, participant in several international congresses such as the World Congress on Amber Inclusions and the International Congress of Enthomology. Molino Olmedo has to his credit about 50 scientific publications in impact journals such as Cretaceus Research and his articles have been cited by organisations such as FAO and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), among others.
Original version posted by ralazzadi@protonmail.com
Summarising, I conclude from the following that the RNA vaccine currently proposed by laboratories is not only unsafe but may actually interact with the different elements of the human genome, causing unpredictable reactions in the short, medium or long term.
SCIENTIFIC REASONING
1 Transformation model by incorporation of complex systems.
Darwin's evolutionary theory, elaborated by its successor neo-Darwinism, cannot explain much of what is observable in the emergence of new taxa (species), in particular their rapid and almost sudden appearance, & the cyclicality of these appearances approximately every 27 million years (Labandeira, 1994; Molino Olmedo, 1999). Nor can it solve the fact that throughout history many taxa remain unchanged, while others in the same environment undergo great modifications, nor the fact that groups as separate as scorpions, onychophores, sharks and mammals developed placentas, nor that the wings of insects develop rapidly from the gills of crustaceans. In short, it cannot explain the appearance of taxa or physiological structures and mechanisms by way of random natural selection, which is too slow, nor by the mechanisms of classical genetics as argued for by neo-Darwinists.
To resolve and overcome the classically established Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory, we elaborate on the transformation model (Sandín, 2010) that wonderfully explains the transformations of organisms by the incorporation of complex systems such as whole cells, viruses, DNA, RNA or proteins. There are two examples known and agreed upon by everyone. As explained in the endosymbiotic theory of Lynn Margulis (2012) the former wife of Carl Sagan:
1) mitochondria and chloroplasts are symbiotic bacteria 2) ribosomes themselves may even be endosymbiotic viruses. As I will explain below, every day we see examples of organs, structures and functions that are produced and regulated by genes incorporated into our genome that have a viral or bacterial origin, thus supporting Sandín's model. Meanwhile, DNA modifications perfectly timed in molecular clocks, and far removed from the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian model due to their low randomness, are used to time the jumps that create new taxa and structures or functions (Mckenna & Farrell, 2009; Molino Olmedo et al. 2020).
SUMMARY
The evolution of organs, organisms and physiological structures is due to the incorporation of viruses and bacteria into other genomes, whether that of humans or of any other species.
2 Are Viruses So Bad?
The view of viruses and bacteria held by doctors, pharmacists and many biologists, especially molecular biologists and parasitologists, is highly biased by the training they receive as well as by monetary and personal ego interests. This view makes viruses appear as disease-causing entities that must be fought at all costs and by any means. Unfortunately, this vision is passed on to the general public through the media, conferences or works published in "impact" publications.
The reality is quite different. It has been calculated that there are a nillion (a 1 followed by 30 zeros) of bacteria on Earth and between 5 and 25 times this number of viruses. As I have commented before and will return to later, viruses (and bacteria) are of the utmost importance in the evolution of life and organisms, but they also play an essential role in the ecology of the planet and in support of our health.
In shallow marine waters, up to 10 billion viruses per liter have been counted. Their function is to control the foundation of the marine food chain. When the colonies of bacteria and algae grow to excess and preventing the the sun's rays from reaching the seabed, viruses destroy them until their lower density restores the passage of the sun's rays. By the way, the sulfurous products derived from this process contribute to the nucleation of the clouds, producing rain (Fuhrman, 1999). In soils their number is variable, in any case astronomical. In a study they have yielded mean figures of 5.3-10e8 m3 and they are also involved in the control of bacterial communities (Williamson et al. 2003).
With regard to our body, the number of complete viruses that perform essential functions for our body is of such a surprising scale. Billions (or rather trillions) of bacteriophage viruses coexist with the trillions of bacteria in our intestinal tract that are essential for our life. Bacteriophages or phages regulate populations of bacteria and exchange genetic information between them. That is, viruses control the bacteria that control our body (Barr et al. 2013). An enormous amount of bacteriophages in the body's mucous membranes prevent the penetration of external bacteria that do not belong. That is, they also protect our body.
SUMMARY
Viruses are essential not only for the functioning of ecosystems but also for our own body and its processes of protection and balance.
3 DNA-RNA-Protein Interactions
We are continually being bombarded with the idea that the mRNA in the vaccine will not alter the DNA of the host cell. This is radically false, as I will show.
The different RNAs that can be found in a cell have as their function both the synthesis of proteins and the regulation of gene and protein expression.
Proteins are essential for cell function and structure, and for defense and communication at both the intra and intercellular level and at the level of the organism. The cell switches the reading of protein-coding genes on or off according to its needs. This switching regulation is due to so-called operons regulated by induction and suppession due to certain circumstances or elements (for example the presence of foreign proteins) in the extra or intracellular medium. Regulation can be carried out at the level of transcription of mRNA or at the level of mRNA translation in the ribosome. In this way, the molecules present in the intracellular environment can interact with specific regulatory proteins for each system of each operon or each group of operons and, in turn, the regulatory proteins will interact with an area of the operon close to the promoter (the sequence of DNA located before the nucleotide sequence tthat is to be transcribed)
The intermediary used by DNA to read genes and translate them into proteins is mRNA, like the one used in these vaccines. Retroviruses (RNA viruses, a group to which the Coronaviridae family belongs) are an exception because they present an enzyme called reverse transcriptase that allows transcription in the opposite direction, from RNA to DNA if necessary (Malajovich, 2020). Although reverse transcriptase is typical of retroviruses, in eukaryotic cells, there are enzymes with a reverse transcriptase function, as is the case with telomerase, which adds deoxyribonucleotides to telomeres. But this addition is directed by an RNA.
Contrary to what is stipulated by classical genetics with its model of one gene per protein, modern genetics and, even more so, epigenetics have shown that the same gene can encode several polypeptides or proteins according to the cell's needs, the actual reading of the gene or the latter's interactions with neighboring genes.
Protein coding sequences in the human genome account for 1.5% of the total, with the remaining 98.5% being made up of so-called called junk DNA. This is because its function is not yet known, although the cell cannot actually afford to maintain so much functionless DNA due to the requirements of space, energy, survival and perpetuation. This is logical if we view a cell as a highly efficient company or industry (Bueno Campos, 2004).
Proteins can recognise DNA and RNA through DNA binding domains (Harrison, 1991); amino acids so common in proteins such as Asn, Gln, Glu, Lys and Arg can establish hydrogen bonds between their side chains and the base pairs of DNA and / or RNA. Domains are a common evolutionary structural element in DNA to RNA transcription regulatory proteins. Mutations and polymorphisms (multiple forms of the same gene) can generate different readings of genes, with unknown consequences, and proteins can create, through the indicated domains, those polymorphisms, with DNA having the ability to take on not only the typical double helix structure, but three other spatial organisations (A, B and Z) with great plasticity and adaptability arising due to environmental factors (including foreign proteins inside the cell) and internal capacities. As with social organisations, DNA can be subjected to internal and external disturbances of different types that affect its relationships with RNA and consequently generate changes in the fulfillment of its purposes. These can put life itself at risk (Ostos Ortiz, 2009).
There are studies in which complementary RNA with mRNA that was introduced into a cell was used to deactivate a gene in such a way that the mixture of RNA and mRNA produced a hybrid RNA that abolished the normal expression of the gene, giving rise to so-called interference RNA (RNA-i). This presents a new dimension to RNA in the regulation of gene expression and as an experimental and therapeutic tool (Gómez, 2006). It demonstrates, contrary to what was commonly believed and asserted, that it is not only proteins that co-regulate DNA gene reading and expression, but also RNA that can interact to regulate these processes inside the cell.
SUMMARY
A new type of RNA unknown until 1998 called interference RNA is a hybrid of mRNA with another type of RNA. This finding runs contrary to what was commonly thought and expressed, and shows that it is not only proteins that regulate DNA gene reading & expression, but that RNA itself can also interact with DNA regulation inside the cell.
Thus, RNA-i shows how wrong the central dogma of molecular biology is. According to this dogma, the information encoded in our genes is transcribed into an mRNA chain that is translated into the corresponding final protein, and, in this way, if expression of a gene is inhibited, the production of the final protein is also blocked. In the case of interference RNA, gene inhibition takes place through the selective degradation of messenger RNA which, as a consequence, cannot be translated into the corresponding protein (Somoza, 2010).
In other words, the RNA of the vaccine can be degraded and hybridised with RNA of the cell and transformed into RNA-i which, as we have seen, can affect the reading of DNA with unpredictable consequences.
On the other hand, non-coding RNAs are emerging as communication factors in physiological and pathological states and have been reported to act as miRNA sponges, interacting with miRNA and modulating availability to mRNA. It is important to note that synRNAs may have a cell-type specific pattern of expression, and it has been proposed that siRNA-miRNA interactions, analogous to receptor-ligand interactions, are responsible for specific cell-type results. The specific binding of miRNAs to RNAsinc can lead to specific cell-type signaling cascades and modulate the biochemical feedback loops that ultimately determine cell identity and response to stress factors (Ramón y Cajal & Hümmer, 2018).
RNA from junk DNA
In recent years, researchers have highlighted the importance of genomic variants that alter the processing or maturation of pre-mRNA, causing various diseases. It is estimated that approximately 15% of disease-causing mutations affect the pre-mRNA maturation process (González Paredes, 2011).
We take into account that the vaccines used are based on coronavirus mRNA and on molecular biology's orthodox dogma, according to which the information encoded in our genes is transcribed into an mRNA chain that is translated into the corresponding final protein. But this has been overturned by the discovery of RNA-i, and the complex and not fully understood interactions of DNA, RNAs and proteins. It is overturned by the fresh discoveries that are continuously being made, and not only those dealing with molecular biology's orthodox DNA-protein dogma, but those of functional plasticity and three-dimensional DNA based on the complex DNA-RNA-protein interactions and the exogenous and endogenous compounds in the cell. With all this, I consider that these vaccines are not safe and do not allow a 100% safe assertion that there will be no interaction between the newly-introduced mRNA and the proteins made by ribosomes from the genetic material of human host cells.
4 Epigenetics
Genetic dogma, like the evolutionary dogma of the pigeon-breeding Darwin, cannot explain cell development or the phenotype by looking at genes in the classical sense (the understanding that still serves as a basis for mRNA vaccines). Genetics cannot explain how, from one cell, cells of different types can be differentiated when they all carry the same genetic material. It cannot explain how characteristics acquired by the parents after the formation of gametes (especially in the case of ovules in mammals) can be transmitted to the succeeding generations, nor how twins from the same zygote can be different when they carry the same genetic profile.
The answer lies in the fact that cellular behavior can be modified without the need to alter DNA. These modifications of physiology and cellular structure without changes in the genetic material are studied by the relatively recent discipline of epigenetics. Mendelian genetics cannot explain all the observations of phenotypic expression and inheritance of traits acquired after parental gametogenesis These traits do not follow the rules of basic genetics, afact which led to the belief that not all information is collected in the genes. The main epigenetic mechanisms are DNA methylation, the modification of histone proteins and other proteins responsible for regulating the reading and transcription of DNA to mRNA and non-coding RNAs such as RNAi (Delgado Coello, 2011) which is produced, as we said earlier, by hybridisation of RNAs with mRNA. There is evidence that there are DNA-RNA interactions that can give rise to epigenetic modifications that produce modifications in the phenotype but not in the genotype, and that these variations can be transmitted via mitosis and meiosis (Delgado Collo, 2011). These can produce diseases and hereditary modifications which are Lamarkian in character, but not Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian. This, on the one hand, supports the Lamark-Sandín transformation model without the need for Darwin and his pigeons, and on the other, shows that DNA-RNA interactions may exist that produce phenotypic modifications without the need to alter the genome.
Consequently, assertions in the media by pharmaceutical, sanitary and governmental sources that the RNA of the vaccine does not alter our genetic code does not imply that unknown phenotypic alterations cannot not occur, especially considering that the interactions of RNAs and proteins with DNA are not yet fully understood.
5 Retroviruses and their implications in the evolution, creation of biological structures and physiological activities of cells and organisms.
10% of the human genome is considered to be formed of endogenous retroviruses, that is, viruses that have been inserting their gene sequences into our genome across evolutionary history. But if we take into account the sequences derived from viruses (mobile elements such as transposons and retrotrasposons, long and short repeated elements, introns ...) we find that the vast majority of our genome is made up of viruses and their derivatives that control the expression of the protein-coding genes. We find that what was considered the genome, that is, the protein-coding genes, which constitute 1.5% of the entire genome, is made up of viruses and their derivatives (Britten, 2004).
Endogenous viruses have long been known to express themselves as a constituent part of the genomes. That is, they are the genome. This fact is of great importance because endogenous retroviruses, or parts of them, are expressed in processes as important as the production of fundamental enzymes (Dunn et al., 2003) or the formation of the placenta during pregnancy (Dunlap et al., 2006 ).
A multitude of endogenous retroviruses are expressed (participate in development) in embryonic tissues. As can be seen, they are expressed in the placenta, adrenal cortex, kidneys, tongue, heart, liver, and central nervous system as well as in the rest of the tissues, and in normal adult individuals endogenous retroviruses are expressed in all tissues, confirming that they are permanent components of the human transcriptome. (Andersson et al., 2002; Seifarth et al., 2005M; Saito et al., 2008).
An important function, inherent to human beings, is the storage of memory in the brain. In my time as a graduate student, my physiology professor Dr. Manuel de la Higuera had already pointed out that memory was possibly stored in the form of RNAs or proteins. Well, very recently, in 2017 it was found that memories are stored and preserved by means of a mysterious protein called Staufen homolog 2 (Stau2) linked to an RNA, and it is precisely an mRNA that is responsible for going to specific sites in the brain to program the specific proteins that store that information. It is the afoementioned protein that directs the mRNA to the synapses (Berger et al. 2017). In 2018, Arc, the gene responsible, was discovered and it turned out to be a gene from a retrovirus integrated into our genome and, this gene was furthermore capable of self-assembling into virus-like capsids that produce mRNA mediating transfer to other neurons in a new signaling and communication pathway between neurons, similar to the process by which viruses infect cells (Pastuzyn et al. 2018).
We see that not only do retroviruses play a very important role in the development and functions of the organisms, but the precise functioning of endogenous retroviruses and the role of the mRNA produced by them is unknown. This has been verified with the studies on the storage and transmission of memory, and is one more reason to distrust vaccines made from mRNA.
HISTORICAL AND MEDICAL SAFETY REASONS
Although in the official history of science things are "prettied up", the hidden reality is something quite different. This is specially the case for the general public but also for those not initiated into the history of science. Few know, for example, that the father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, falsified the data from his studies on peas to fit his laws or that Nobel laureates Watson and Crick were not the true discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA. The latter was an achievement of the scientist Rosalind Franklin, and Watson and Crick were accused of stealing her findings.
When you look at the history of vaccines, you will only see the achievement of Pasteur with his rabies vaccine administered to the 9-year-old boy Joseph Meister in 1885, seeing that it was a success and that the vaccines were previously tested with animals such as chickens. But the reality is different and the tests were also carried out on people, causing deaths that were hidden (and are still hidden) for obvious reasons.
Classical vaccines with attenuated viruses or microorganisms have failed to successfully provide effective vaccines against most pathogens. Thus, reverse vaccines based on the genome sequences of the virus, bacterium or parasite have arisen. The use of bioinformatics tools allows us to identify the most likely antigens to be vaccine candidates. Although it has been said that reverse vaccinology has been successful for the first time against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B, paving the way for its application against other human pathogens such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) amongst others (Ferreira and Porco, 2008) it is scandalous that this supposed success is conspicuous by its absence.
Hungarian biochemist Katalin Kariko, Vice President of BioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals recently created vaccines using the mRNA of pathogens. Ignoring the underlying economic interests of that company of which she is vice-president, this is the type of vaccine that is going into use.
According to the media and official communiqués, these vaccines are safe. But the pharmaceutical and medical industry make mistakes that are frequently hidden for a variety of reasons. A well-known example, among many other hidden ones, is that of Thalidomide which caused serious teratogenic problems in children whose mothers took it during pregnancy. The pharmaceutical company that discovered and marketed it did not apologise or acknowledge the adverse effects until 2012, 50 years after the drug's teratogenic effects were discovered (Papaseit et al., 2012). In recent years it has been recognised that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) cause significant morbidity. The importance of this has been established in different works. In 1994 it was estimated that ADRs made up 4.7% of hospital admissions and were among the top six causes of death in the US (Lazarou et al., 1998). As much as pharmaceutical companies attempt to identify adverse effects before marketing the drugs, the studies are carried out in a limited number of selected subjects - a sample - without comorbidities, at controlled doses and conditions. This leaves the full spectrum of adverse effects unknown (Valencia et al., 2004). A large number of drugs, for example, have serious haematological effects, such as different types of anaemia, red blood cell aplasias, immune problems, etc. (Mintzer et al., 2009). A large number of drugs, some in common use, initiate very diverse types of diseases, whether haematological, hepatic, dermal, gastric, respiratory in nature. These reactions are estimated to be very common in the practice of medicine and are believed to affect some 7- 8% of patients admitted to hospital, of which around 10% are fatal (Elservier Connet, 2018).
As far as we are concerned, viruses, in this 21st century, vaccines and antivirals will be the star products of the pharmaceutical industry. But let's see some history. One of the first antiretrovirals (remember that retroviruses are the group to which Coronaviridae belongs and that, as we have seen, they are essential for the functioning of organisms) was Tamiflu, a drug that inhibits neuramidase, one of the surface antigens.This enzyme is related to the formation of myelin, so the inhibition stops myelination and consequently, causes serious neurological disorders, as happened to children and adults who received treatment against influenza A based on that inhibitor (EFE Agency, 2009).
In view of this, it is natural that the safety of this novel vaccine technique inspires little credibility for me. It is not yet well-studied nor well-tested, no matter how much officialdom claims to the contrary.
In consideration of the side effects of diverse drugs, vaccines and antiretrovirals that were supposedly safe, the safety of this vaccine has low credibility.
ETHICAL REASONING
Although the basic national health law of 1944 and the constitutional law 3/1986 for special public health measures cover a possible mandatory coronavirus vaccination, some lawyers call for the introduction of new instruments to make compliance more effective. The provisions approved in the last century in Spain for diphtheria and smallpox, including the possibility of declaring the vaccine mandatory, facilitates a legal path so that vaccination could be compelled in this case. Although the measure is in accordance with the law It is not so popular in the medical community due to the "counterproductive" effect that it could have. And although the 2002 law on patient autonomy indicates that the affected person can accept or reject some therapies, this right to decide has some exceptions, principally that of the risk to public health. This risk is developed in the constitutional law of 3/1986, which in article 2, extends authorities the power to take any necessary measure to preserve public health.
For the jurist, the issue of compulsory vaccination comes down to the collision of two rights: the right to health preservation, which prevails in the case of a pandemic such as covid-19, and the right to intimacy and privacy (Malvesi, 2020).
An ethical issue that is not discussed, or that is little discussed, is the use of human fetal cells in the manufacture of vaccines. The culture of human viruses in embryos of other animals makes it possible to express a multitude of endogenous viruses, which leads to hybridisation with their corresponding viruses, in turn leading to the production of ineffective vaccines with characteristics different from the original ones. The use of human embryos for the manufacture of vaccines has been recognised by the website of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical and Manufaturers & Associations (http://www.ifpma.org/influenza/index.aspx?47), although, for obvious reasons, the page in question was removed from the web. The use of chicken embryos to grow yellow fever virus for the purpose of making vaccines shows evidence of two types of retroviral particles, endogenous avian retrovirus (EAV) and endogenous avian leukosis virus (ALV-E) that contaminate yellow fever vaccines (Hussain et al., 2003).
In summary, we can conclude from the foregoing that the RNA vaccines currently proposed by laboratories are not only unsafe but may actually interact with the different elements of the vaccine recipient's genome, causing unpredictable reactions in the short, medium or long term.
***
References
Agencia EFE. 2009. Alta tasa de efectos secundarios en niños que recibieron Tamiflu contra la gripe A. Agencia EFE 30/7/2009.
Anderson, A.C., Venables, P.J.W., Tönjes, R.R., Scherer, J., Eriksson, L. and Larsson, E. 2002. Developmental expression of HERV-R (ERV3) and HERV-K in human tissue. Virology, 297(2): 220 – 225.
Barr, J.J., Auro, R., Furlan, M., Whitheson, K.L., Erlo, M.L, Pogliano, J., Scotland, A., Wolkowicz, R., Curtting, A.S., Doran, K.S., Salamon, P., Youle, M. and Rohwer, F. 2013. Bacteriophage adhering to mucus provide a non-host-derived immunity. Edited by Lenski, R.E., Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mi.
Berger,, S.M., Fernández-Lamo, I., Schönig, K., Fernández Moya, S.M., Ehses, J.., Schieweck, R.,, Clementi, S., Enkel, T., Grothe, S., von Bohlen und Halbach, O., Segura, I., Delgado-García, J.M. Gruart, A., Kiebler, M.A. & Bartsh, B. 2017. Forebrain-specific, conditional silencing of Staufen2 alters synaptic plasticity, learning, and memory in rats. Genome Biol 18, 222 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1350-8
Britten, R.J. 2004. Coding sequences of functioning human genes derived entirely from mobile element sequences. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 101(48): 16825 – 16930.
Bueno Campos, E. 2004. Comunicación personal.
Delgado Coello, B. 2011 ¿Que es la epigenética? Project Science Comunication. En: : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235324187
Dunlap, K.A., Palmarini,M., Varela, M., Burghardt, R.C., Hayashi, K., Farmer, J.L. and Spencer, T.E. 2006. Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and diferentiation. PNAS, 103(39): 14390 – 14395.
Dunn, C.A., Medstrand, P. and Mager, D.L. 2003. An endogenous retroviral long terminal repeat is the dominant promoter for human β1,3-galactosyltransferase 5 in the colon. PNAS, 100(22): 12841 – 12846.
Elservier Connect 2018. Lesiones por fármacos: reacciones adversas a los medicamentos. https://www.elsevier.com/es-es/connect/medicina/reacciones-adversas-farmacos-medicamentos
Ferreira, J. y Porco, A. 2008. Vacunas derivadas del análisis de los genomas: vacunología inversa. Interciencia, Revista de ciencia ytecnología de América, 33(5): 353 – 358.
Fuhrman, J.A. 1999. Marine viruses and their biogeochimical and ecological effects. Nature, 399(6736): 541 – 548.
Gómez, L.A. 2006. Premios Nóbel en Fisiología o Medicina y Química, año 2006. Una nueva dimensión del ARN en la regulación de la expresión genética y como herramienta experimental y terapéutica. Biomédica, 26: 475 – 484.
González Paredes, F.J. 2011. Alteraciones en el procesamiento del pre-arnm de los genes pkd1 y pkd2 debidas a mutaciones exónicas relacionadas con la enfermedad poliquística renal autosómica dominante. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de La Laguna.
Harrison, S. 1991. A structural taxonomy of DNA-binding domains. Nature: 353: 715 – 719.
Hussain, A.I., Johnson, J.A., Marcos da Silva Freire, I. and Heneine, W. 2003. Identification and characterization of avian retroviruses in chicken embryo-derived yellow fever vacines: investigation of transmission to vaccine recipients. J. Virol. 77 (2): 1105 – 1111.
Labandeira, C.C. 1994. A compendium of fossil insect familie. Milwake Public Museum Countr. Biol. Geol. 88: 1 – 71.
Lazarou, J., Pomeranz, B.H. y Corey, P.N. 1998. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA, 279: 1200 – 1205.
Malajovich, M.A. 2020. ADN, ARN e información. Biotecnología: enseñanza y divulgación. En: http://bteduc.com
Malvesi, L. 2020 ¿Existe base legal para obligar a vacunarse del Covid-19 en España? Diario El Mundo, 14 de noviembre de 2020. En: https://www.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/salud/2020/11/14/5fafbca721efa0bc188b458a.html
Mckenna, D. D. & Farrell, B. D., 2009. - Beetles (Coleoptera). pp. 278-289. In Hedges, S. B. and Kumar, S. (Eds.). The timer of life. Oxford University Press
Mintzer, D.M., Billet, S.N. and Chmielewski, L. 2009. Drug-induced hematologyc syndromes. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Advances in Hematology Volume 2009, Article ID 495863, 11 pages doi:10.1155/2009/495863
Molino Olmedo, F. 1999. Importancia del ámbar en el registro fósil de coleópteros saproxílicos. Est. Mus. Cien. Nat. de Álava 14 (Núm. espec. 2): 211 – 215.
Molino Olmedo, F., Ferreira, V.S., Branham, M.A. & Ivie, M.A. 2020. The description of Prototrichalus gen. nov. and three new species from Burmese amber supports a mid-Cretaceous origin of the Metriorrhynchini (Coleoptera, Lycidae). Cretaceous Research, 111: 104452.
Ostos Ortiz, O.L. 2009. La molécula de la vida en su dimensión hipercompleja: diálogo entre saberes de sistemas complejos e hipercomplejos. NOVA publicación Científica en Ciencias Biomédicas 7(12): 111 – 174.
Papaseit, A., García-Algar, O. y Farré, M. 2013. Talidomida: una historia inacabada. An. Pediatr. (Barc.), 78(5): 283 – 287.
Pastuzyn, E.D., Day, C.E., Keams, R.B., Kyrke-Smith, M., Taibi, A.V., McCormick, J., Yoder, N., Belnap, D.M., Erlendsson, S., Morado, D.R., Briggs, J.A.G., Feschotte, C. & Shepherd, J.D. 2018. The neuronal gene Arc encodes a repurposed retrotrasposon gag protein mediates intercelular RNA transfer. Cell, 172: 275 – 288.
Sagan, C. 2012. Lynn Margulis. The life and legacy of a scientific rebel. Tusquets Eds. Vermont. U.S.A.
Seifharth, W., Frank, O., Zeilfelder, U., Spiess, B., Greenwood, A.D., Hehlmann R and Leib-Mösch, C. 2005. Comprehensive analysis of human endogenous retrovirus transcriptional activity in human tissues with a Retrovirus-specfic microarray. J. Virol. 79(1): 341 – 352.
Sandín, M. 2010. Pensando la evolución, pensando la vida. Cauac editorial nativa.
Somoza, A. 2010. Modificaciones químicas en ARN interferente: de la investigación básica a las aplicaciones terapéuticas. An. Quim. 106(3); 215 – 222.
Ramón y Cajal, S. & Hümmer, S. 2018. Más allá de los genes. Cómo podemos entender el DNA no codificante. Anales de la Real Academia Nacional de Medicina de España, 135(3): 230 – 236.
Saito, M., Sato-Bigee, C and Yu, R.K., 2008. Neuraminidase activities in oligodendroglial cells in rat brain. Journal of Neurochemistry, 58(1): 78 – 82.
Valencia, M.A., Quispe, J.C. y Rumiche, J.V. 2004. Enfermedades inducidas por dorogas: anemia aplásica adquirida, hepatitis medicamentosa y gastritis hemorrágica en el hospital nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen agosto 1998 – octubre 2001. Ciencia e investigación Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica UNMSM, VII (2): 24 – 33.
Williamson, K.E., Wommack, K.E. and Radosevich, M. 2003. Sampling natural viral communities from soil for culture-independent analyses. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 69(11): 6628 – 6633.
Translation: David Montoute
Leer en castellano:
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário