TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @BroadbentMP
@BroadbentMP - Russell Broadbent
Esteemed scientist @Kevin_McKernan was the first to raise the alarm about DNA contamination in the COVID mRNA vaccines. Teams of scientists are working around the clock to uncover the significance of this issue. It’s only a matter of time... @DJSpeicher @DrJulieSladden https://t.co/JSzmvSTqfH
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kevin McKernan discusses his unexpected journey into vaccine research, initially driven by concerns over PCR testing during the COVID pandemic. After receiving vaccine vials, he discovered unexpected DNA sequences, leading to ethical dilemmas about reporting findings. He emphasizes the lack of regulatory oversight and the potential dangers of DNA contamination in vaccines, which could have unknown health implications. He urges for more rigorous testing methods beyond PCR and highlights the persistence of vaccine DNA in human cells long after vaccination. Recent studies show this DNA can remain detectable for weeks, raising concerns about its potential link to cancer. McKernan calls for increased funding and research into these issues, noting resistance to support within current funding structures.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi, everybody, and welcome. Joining us today is scientist Kevin McKernan. Kevin, thank you for signing my letters cosigning my letters to prime minister. It was honored to have you cosign them and give them the power that they needed to have. Kevin, this has been an unexpected journey for you.
Like, you didn't choose this path. This path chose you. So tell me how it all started for you.
Speaker 1: Uh-oh. That's a it's a bit of a long story and somewhat distractionary, but we're we're a company that does genetic testing, and and, we build safety testing to pick up microbes in the cannabis and food industry. So, when I saw, what was going on with the PCR field, I knew there was problems in the PCR going on with COVID. They they didn't have internal controls, And, that that stimulated some people in the field to send me vaccine vials after I published a paper with Peter McCullough about some of the differences between the vaccine and the and the virus. And, I didn't know what to do with those, threw in the freezer, and then an experiment showed up on my desk where we needed an RNA molecule to spike into an experiment to figure out what was going on.
And I had those in the shelf, so I threw them in and didn't expect to find anything other than the vaccine in there. And out came these these plasmids, these DNA sequences, which we are then stuck with. We were faced with being a small company. What do we do with this information? If if we bury it, we're we're part of the crime, and if we raise any alarm bells, we'll be sued.
So, we chose the potentially getting sued route and just doubled down on all of our work and and, you know, double, triple checked it with many different platforms and then built really easy tools to allow others to replicate it so that we weren't left alone without any replication. So that's kinda where it started, and it, it hasn't ended. I would just say that. It's only magnified in time.
Speaker 0: Kevin, what are you and I was concerned about particularly?
Speaker 1: I'm concerned that it's very clear there is no regulatory oversight on this, that, the regulators seem to be responding in a manner that's covering for the for the sponsors as opposed to covering for the people. This is work that anyone can do in a high school laboratory, and, it's something that, shocks me that it was found by us. This is not our business. We had no we didn't wanna get into this field, and we have no commercial interest in this field. We just found this and felt like the world had to know about it.
So this is a very easy thing for a genomics laboratory to find. And so any agency that's hiding the protocols they're using to look at this, you can't trust. And I've seen that in particular in Australia. The TGA will not share the protocol they're using to measure the residual DNA. That tells me they have something to hide.
Speaker 0: Kevin, can you spell out for everyday Australians what does this mean?
Speaker 1: Well, we we don't know the, the implications of this, in that I I don't know if the DNA contamination is actually responsible for some of the acute effects that people are seeing with the vaccines. There are some people who faint, and some people who have clots and of myocarditis. I don't know if the DNA is doing that. It's possible it's inflaming heart cells with a particular pathway known as the c c gas sting pathway, which is a complicated pathway. But those in the molecular biology space will know what that means.
But I think most of the adverse events that you find immediately after vaccination may in fact be due to the spike protein or or or the the act of transfecting these foreign proteins into human cells. However, the longer term consequences were never measured in the trials, and nobody consented to there being DNA in these vaccines. And we do think there is concern that this DNA, if it gets transfected into cell lines, can integrate with the human genome and cause cancer. And that we have no trial data to know whether it's true or not. They never did genotoxicity studies on these vaccines.
Speaker 0: Where do you think we are right now, Kevin?
Speaker 1: We're at a stage where you're going to see a a fury of papers coming out that demonstrate we're not alone on this, that many other people are finding this contamination of vaccines. And it needs to be expanded even beyond those the the papers that I know of that are coming out because we've only looked at a few lots. In terms of PCR, there's maybe been 50 to 70 lots in the world that have been PCR ed. Actually, less than that. 50 to 70 vials of PCR, they're probably half the number of lots.
There's only been maybe 3 vials in the world that have been sequenced. And PCR is one level of information. It's a 40,000 foot view. Sequencing gives you every single nucleotide in there that tells you whether the plasmids are all the same in every file. We we don't even have that information yet.
This is something that is really affordable to do. I've been involved in building next generation sequencers. They've gotten a 100,000 fold cheaper in the last 20 years. Alright? And they're not sequencing every lot.
That's insane. They should know every single discrepancy in these lots before they inject people, particularly considering they're pushing these with mandates and they don't have any liability.
Speaker 0: What needs to happen next?
Speaker 1: What happens next is I I would encourage other academics and other people to step up and including the regulatory agencies to begin testing lots with more than the method that the pharmaceutical industry gave you. Moderna has patents that will teach that you should not use PCR to measure this because it undermeasures the problem, yet the regulators are letting them use PCR to measure this. That's a contradiction. They should be measuring with a variety of tools that we've described in some of our papers. What David Speaker did for the work in Australia was the was the appropriate approach was to use a a fluorometer that erases the RNA.
So you're only measuring DNA, and that still gives you numbers that are, like, 50 to a 100 fold over the limit. Second to that, we need research done on transfecting fragmented DNA like this that has these components in it, these, mammalian origins of replication and these mammalian promoters known as the SP 40 promoters. We need to start transacting those into cell lines to see if they drive cancer. SV 40 has a notorious history in cancer in the polio vaccine. That was the full virus.
But we have the we have the promoter elements in this vaccine. Those, in fact, could land in front of genes and create an oncogenic event. So, that work is not hard to do. It's it's easy to fund, and it should be funded at many different places. So we have a concert of scientists looking at this from different views.
Speaker 0: There is a rash of increasing cancer around the world. I understand there was a statement by on Twitter or x by professor Buckholz today. Can you tell me about that?
Speaker 1: That was a very important post. So, what he has found is that he's taken human organoids, which are like growing human cells into a semi organ like shape and treated them with the vaccines. And then he grew them for a month and washed them frequently. That gets rid of any vaccine that's not in the cell anymore, and it allows the cells to replicate. And he can still find DNA from the vaccine in those cells 30 days later.
That tells you it doesn't go away, and that's an important thing to to to look at in concert with another paper 2 other papers that came out this week. One from who also replicated the work from speaker and myself and and Koenig showing that the the vaccine you can sequence the all the DNA out of these vaccines and find the Pfizer vaccine in there. But another one from of India who went and scanned a bunch of research projects that were in the NCBI SRA. That's that's an area where we stored a lot of sequencing information for all the published papers. And he just went and scanned those for evidence of these vaccine sequences in blood samples, and he found a lot of it.
So this is something that should be looked for and scanned for routinely in any any clinical study that happens to be taking samples from patients to see how much of this is around post vaccination. So Philip's work shows that the DNA persists for 30 days. We have probably 4 other publications out there that demonstrate this as well. There's the Hanna et al paper that shows it's in breast milk 5 days out. There's a Castriota paper that shows it's in plasma 28 days out.
There's a there's the Krausen paper that shows it in heart cells 30 days out. There's even one from Gonzales that shows it in placentas 2 to 10 days out. As as these women had to get vaccinated, I think, to get to give birth, and the placentas were collected. They were vaccinated 2 10 days before before giving birth. So, the persistent the DNA persistence problem is real.
It's not 48 hours. It's staying longer. And if you're only looking in the blood, you may not find it for as long because the blood clears very quickly. We have to be looking in tumors. So there should be a program in place to be screening tumors for positivity for these vaccine sequences.
And then they help inform us on the cause of the cancer and maybe even the treatment.
Speaker 0: Is there a resident still to support your ongoing work?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Is there
Speaker 0: Is there reluctance still to support
Speaker 1: Yes. There there is. This is not something that's readily funded throughout the current NIH. The current NIH funding architecture has $400,000,000 in vaccine royalty from Moderna alone, and they're probably gonna get twice