TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached an agreement on the topic.

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached an agreement on the topic.

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached the desired agreement.

In this video, the speakers discuss the challenges of targeting specific tissues in drug delivery systems. They mention that despite efforts over the past 40 years, there has been no success in targeting nanomedicine to cancer cells or other desired tissues. The difficulty lies in the immune response and the need to avoid side effects. The speaker shares their personal experience of working on this project with five graduate students, with the last one refusing to continue. Despite these challenges, the speaker acknowledges that they have made changes to their approach.

We are developing non-scale machines that mimic bacteria and aim to enhance life longevity through genetic engineering. The concept is similar to the mRNA technology used in COVID vaccines. Our long-term goal is to create genetically engineered human cells, which is more challenging than manipulating bacterial cells. While some may view this as unethical, our focus is on the potential benefits. We utilize a lentiviral vector, a type of virus, to introduce new DNA into cardiac cells, enabling them to combat unhealthy cells. Welcome to this institute event; I’m Maurice Pomerantz, the Executive Director.

Every day, just the 1% of the cells of your DNA that gets replicated stretches from here to the sun four times. If you're to line it up end by end, that's very hard to conceptualize. But it should give you a little bit of humility before you go and start monkeying with it with these vaccines that can actually alter your DNA. And that's what I'm gonna show you. Is that the vaccines had a DNA contamination in them that didn't tell you about that could in fact alter your genome. Alright? These people are vibe coding your genome. And this is a major attack surface to the human gene pool because if this thing starts to alter the lifespan of people, it's going to part you with your Bitcoin. You're gonna end up spending money in a fiat system that has no controls, has no liability, and ends up oftentimes inducing mandates to get what it wants done. Many people had have peer have gone and replicated this work. It happened on Twitter. It did not happen very quickly in the peer review system. The peer review system kinda kicked it out. Some of these papers have now been peer reviewed, but it took years for them to come to this conclusion. Now, the FDA, the EMA and the TGA have all admitted that this mistake has happened. How did it happen? There's a big bait and switch. Pfizer actually ran the trial of 22,000 people on the process on the left and after they got to the trial, they then switched to the process on the right and didn't retrial the drug. And in doing so, they left a tremendous amount of excess DNA behind in the product. So all of the vaccine efficiency numbers you've heard in the news are flawed. They're not real because that's not what actually went into the trial. What went to the public was actually something that came out of this process too. It's published now in the BMJ that this fraud happened and no one has yet been prosecuted for it. So what did they leave in there? What they left in there was something we know from the polio scandal. If you're not familiar with the polio scandal, that polio vaccines were also contaminated with something known as SV40 and it created a massive cancer wave. Now the whole virus isn't in these vaccines, but there is a very curious part of this called the SV40 region that Pfizer intentionally removed from the disclosure that they gave to the FDA. So the FDA has admitted that this SV40 material is in there. They did not spell this out to the regulators. The regulators did not find them and they're actually running cover for them saying this DNA is too little consequence to matter, it's too small, and it's not functional. But we know it's functional because Dean et al has published that this piece of DNA drives DNA straight to the nucleus. It gets used in gene therapy vectors.

Speaker 0: I read the sequence and it's high-resolution. Speaker 1: It may seem low at first, but it's understandable. Speaker 0: This is written in a loop. Speaker 1: This is the genetic sequence of the spike protein. The issue is that the model RNA has a sequence that surprised me. We need to design it a bit. It contains part of the sequence SB4T, which is necessary for gene expression. The problem is that it is found in a virus that has negative effects. Also, there is another problem with this sequence. The DNA that has been transferred so far becomes more susceptible to mutation. It's a problematic point. Speaker 1: So, this SB4T sequence is also included in the promoter of this SB method, which allows it to migrate to the nucleus. Speaker 0: This is quite famous. Speaker 1: Yes, it is. The issue is that it has no relation to the process of synthesizing the messenger RNA. Speaker 0: Why did they keep the promoter sequence in the SB4T that has nothing to do with the camera's perspective in the messenger RNA synthesis process?

The speaker discusses the challenge of targeting specific tissues for gene expression. They explain that the current approach is to deliver the genetic material to the desired tissue, such as the liver, but this limits transfection to that specific area. To achieve more widespread gene expression, they propose using long circulating systems that can reach multiple tissues. The speaker acknowledges the difficulty of targeting specific cells but suggests that it may not be crucial to express the CFTR protein in other tissues for cystic fibrosis treatment. They conclude by stating that many questions regarding tissue targeting and gene expression still need to be answered.

For biodistribution, Pfizer did not use the actual spike mRNA product in their studies. Instead, they substituted in a luciferase reporter mRNA packaged in the same lipid nanoparticles. This approach allowed them to track where the mRNA traveled in rodents. The studies showed that following intramuscular injection, most of the mRNA remained at the site of injection, but there was also notable levels detected in the liver. Despite the limitations of this approach, which can underestimate low level or transient distributions to other tissues, it nevertheless showed that the vaccine components do not remain confined to the injection site. Next slide. For Moderna, no dedicated biodistribution study was performed with the COVID mRNA itself. Instead, data was provided from a surrogate product, a CMV mRNA, mRNA-sixteen 47, which used the same lipid nanoparticle formulation. In their rat study, after intramuscular injections, high levels of the mRNA were detected at the injection site, but also in multiple organs such as the draining lymph nodes, spleen, eye, and liver. Lower levels were also found across a wide range of tissues, including the heart, lungs, testes, and brain. Importantly, this study clearly showed that the mRNA can cross the blood brain barrier. Next slide. Consistent with what is seen in animal studies, the vaccine mRNA and its spike protein have been detected in humans across multiple tissues, including blood, lymph nodes, the heart, and even the brain. These findings make it clear that the mRNA does not remain confined to the injection site. Importantly, persistence has been documented well beyond the initial hours or days, lasting weeks in some tissues, and in certain studies detectable for many months. Next slide. To summarize the biodistribution data, it's important to note that neither Moderna nor Pfizer used their actual commercial mRNA vaccine products in the preclinical biodistribution studies. Instead, they relied on surrogate construct packaged in same or similar lipid nanoparticles. Second, the results of those studies show that the mRNA and lipid nanoparticles were not confined to the injection site. Systemic distribution was observed with evidence that the mRNA can cross the blood brain barrier. Consistent with these findings, studies in humans have confirmed that vaccine mRNA can be detected in multiple tissues, including lymph nodes, the heart, the central nervous system, and blood. Finally, persistence is not just short term. In some reports, mRNA has been detected for weeks to months, and in certain cases as long as seven zero six days post vaccination. Taken together, these data highlight that biodistribution is broad and persistence is longer than initially expected, raising important questions and concerns for ongoing research and safety monitoring.

Ralph Barrick from the University of North Carolina discusses synthetic genomics of SARS in this video. He explains the structure and genome organization of the SARS coronavirus and its various proteins. Barrick also discusses the use of synthetic genomics as a platform to control emerging infectious diseases and develop vaccines. He presents the results of experiments involving the synthesis of different SARS virus strains and their ability to infect human airway cells. Barrick also discusses the use of deoptimized codons to attenuate SARS pathogenesis and the rewiring of SARS coronavirus transcription circuits to further attenuate viral pathogenesis. He concludes by highlighting the potential of synthetic genomics and universal attenuation schemes to rapidly produce candidate live virus vaccines for emerging pathogens.

The speakers describe a study in which gene expression profiles are compared across several groups to assess the impact of mRNA injury. The comparison set includes a healthy control group that was observed before the COVID-19 era, individuals classified as mRNA injured, a subset of three individuals with cancer, and a smaller number of participants who exhibited neurological and cardiovascular adverse events. The central finding reported is that, in the mRNA-injured group, thousands of gene expressions become dysfunctional. The dysfunction spans several critical cellular and biological processes, notably mitochondrial function, immune function, and protein production. The speakers indicate that these alterations include the production of abnormal proteins as a consequence of the disrupted gene expression patterns. In addition to widespread dysfunction in metabolic and cellular pathways, the speakers note that genes involved in cancer surveillance are turned off in the mRNA-injured group. Specific genes named are p53, KRAS, and BRCA, with their expression or regulatory activity described as being suppressed or deactivated. The implication conveyed is that the disruption of cancer surveillance mechanisms accompanies the broader profile of gene expression changes observed in response to the mRNA injury. The overall conclusion presented by the speakers is that flooding the body with synthetic messenger RNA is associated with unleashing biochemical havoc, which they characterize as having severe consequences. The framing suggests a causal or strongly associative link between exposure to synthetic mRNA and the observed downstream effects on gene expression, including mitochondrial and immune dysfunction, abnormal protein production, and the suppression of key cancer-related surveillance genes. The narrative emphasizes the magnitude of the molecular disturbances, noting that thousands of gene expressions become dysfunctional and that critical safeguards against cancer may be compromised in the mRNA-injured group.

In this video, the speaker discusses a study on the biodistribution of lipid nanoparticles used in mRNA injections. They mention that these nanoparticles tend to concentrate in the ovaries, which are biologically active organs. The speaker also mentions that the Pfizer paperwork states a 16% decrease in fertility in rats. Overall, the video raises concerns about the potential effects of these nanoparticles on fertility.

Speaker 0: This is kind of dark, and I'm sorry. I gotta go there. It's kind of impossible that they didn't know all this shit. We didn't need the foyer requested pharmacokinetic data from Japan, although thank God for Byron Bridal for getting which that to shows clearly in Wistar rats that the lipid nanoparticles in this Pfizer context traffic everywhere in the body and bioaccumulate, including into the ovaries and the adrenals, etcetera. There was a paper published in 2012 that demonstrated exactly this in Wistar Rats, same model, same lipid nanoparticles, they use different kinds of nanoparticles, but it showed the same thing very clearly that one of the main places that these lipid nanoparticles traffic to were the ovaries. And the reason why we use Wistar rat models and mice models before we go to humans is because we're very similar biologically. That's the whole reason. So if something happens in a mouse or a rat, you gotta be careful because it might happen in a human too. Wink, wink. So another thing I wanna throw in here is that we there's this drug pardon me. There's this drug called ONPATTRO, which is utilizing the exact same kinds of lipid nanoparticles, which act as like in the same way that chylomicrons do. It's like these things that we inherently have for fat metabolism that have, proteins absorbed, which is on the surface of the lipid nanoparticle, that traffic these guys, these lipid nanoparticles with their silencing RNA, cargo to the liver via APOE because there are these APOE receptors in the liver in high quantity or they're expressed at high levels. And so these genius biotech guys have discovered and I'm not being sarcastic. They are geniuses for doing this. This shit shouldn't be being used in humans. This stuff traffics directly to the liver. This is all known. They've been studying lipid nanoparticles and trying to make them not toxic for freaking two decades, people. But the thing is that's very suspicious to me and I have no answers to these questions so far is how is it possible that in 2020 or whenever it was they did this, Moderna and Pfizer simultaneously solved the toxicity problem of lipid nanoparticles by coming up with this ionizable cationic lipid? What the hell is that? Speaker 1: It was Operation Warp Speed, because you wave a magic wand from the executive office of the President of The United States and everything, all the checks and balances downstream go away. He's very proud of the fact Speaker 0: that

I've been involved in over 50 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines. mRNA is like DNA, giving cells instructions to make proteins. This technology was originally for gene therapy, now used for vaccines. It's a new, experimental technology never used in humans before COVID. Animal studies were skipped for COVID vaccines, a novel approach.

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached an agreement on the topic.

This video provides a comprehensive overview of the problems and potential risks associated with mRNA vaccines. The speaker identifies five main issues with the current technology, including dose, pharmacokinetics, localization, fidelity, and innate immunity. They argue that the technology is not yet fully understood or controlled, and that it has been introduced prematurely. The speaker also highlights the lack of tools to measure the production and distribution of the vaccine in the body, as well as potential risks and side effects. They discuss modifications made to the mRNA sequence and how they can impact protein production. The speaker also mentions the potential for immune system suppression and increased risk of infections, parasites, and cancers due to the inhibition of innate immunity. The lack of transparency and proper regulation in the approval process for these vaccines is criticized, and the need for further research and long-term monitoring of their effects is emphasized.

"So here we see the syringe needle going in and the lipid nanoparticles coming out." "Probably three to 6,000 per injection." "These are completely new to the human body, and they circulate around in the blood." "They're supposed to stay in the deltoid muscle, but they don't." "They circulate everywhere around the body." "Then when they come to a cell, they'll go inside the cell, this process called endocytosis." "Any contaminating DNA will be carried very, very efficiently by the lipid nanoparticles into cells, coming into contact with the walls of the vascular endothelium, the lining of the blood vessels." "If the lipid nanoparticles are 80 nanometers each, it would be 87 of them to fit across the diameter of a red blood cell." "So 5,000,000,000 of these red blood cells in one milliliter of blood, and yet this is the size of the lipid nanoparticles." "Until these problems are resolved there should be a moratorium on mRNA vaccines." "In my view let me know what you think."

We are in a digital and scientific revolution, hacking the software of life with mRNA. Our body is made of organs, organs of cells, and in each cell is messenger RNA transmitting DNA information to proteins. This "operating system" can be altered to impact diseases like the flu and cancer. For instance, instead of injecting virus proteins for a flu vaccine, mRNA instructions can teach the body to make its own protection. This mRNA technology has vast potential for disease prevention and treatment.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

Current optimization, often considered harmless, can actually have negative effects. Synonymous mutations, which don't change the translated amino acid, have been linked to diseases. The reasons behind this association are often unknown, but factors like translation rate and RNA structure have been implicated. Since many synonymous mutations have been associated with disease, it is possible that codon optimization, which involves multiple substitutions, could also have an impact. This has been extensively reviewed.

Silencing and upregulating proteins require careful regulation to avoid overexpression. This approach allows for titration, starting with low levels and increasing as needed. The production of the protein is not continuous, typically lasting only a week or two. If there are adverse effects, the administration can be stopped. The frequency of dosing depends on the desired duration and stability of the protein. Improvements in technology may allow for longer-lasting effects. Targeting specific tissues is challenging, as attempts to do so have been unsuccessful for over 40 years. The difficulty lies in avoiding immune responses and aggregation. Despite efforts, achieving success in this area remains elusive.

A viewer asks if the proteins from the vaccine enter the bloodstream. The speaker explains that the mRNA blueprint for the protein is given, which is then translated into the protein in the muscle cells. The protein may enter the tissue and possibly trace amounts may enter the blood, but it is not measurable. The reaction occurs in the muscle, the corresponding defense cells, lymph nodes, and minimally in the blood. The speaker concludes that they have reached an agreement on the topic.

Current optimization, often considered harmless, has been shown to have effects on disease. Reports indicate that a single synonymous mutation can be linked to disease, although the exact reasons are often unknown. Factors such as translation rate and RNA structure have been implicated in some cases. It is important to note that many synonymous mutations, which do not change the translated amino acid, have been associated with disease. Therefore, if multiple substitutions occur through codon optimization, there is a likelihood of having an impact. This information has been reviewed multiple times.