reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asserts that packaged DNA fragments have been found en masse as vaccine contaminants. Once they reach the nucleus, short DNA sequences have an increased propensity to insert into chromosomal DNA. The possible consequences are unending, including disruption of the exquisitely tuned network that controls cell division and differentiation, which can lead to cancer and developmental defects. Mutations in sperm and fertilized egg cells could render altered traits inheritable. Speaker 0 further states that cost effective procedures to reliably separate mass produced RNA from plasmids do not exist, and therefore contamination of RNA vaccines with plasmid DNA must be expected to be the rule and not the exception. Whoever propagates RNA vaccines as being safe and effective, whoever claims that nothing can happen to your genome is either incredibly ignorant or endlessly evil. That person is turning his back on the horror scenario that is unfolding in front of our very eyes. Fellow citizens and physicians of the world are urged to turn away from the perpetrators of this monstrous crime against humanity. Speaker 0 concludes with admonitions to do this to save yourself, your descendants, and to rescue the name of your family or go down in history as one of the greatest criminals of all time. Speaker 1 responds: Thank you very much, professor Bhakti. You continue to be an inspiration both scientifically and ethically for all of us.

Quan et al demonstrated that the introduction of DNA into a cell, even without integration, can trigger the oncogenic cGAS-STING pathway. The speaker claims that the presence of an SV40 origin of replication, a mammalian origin, in a vaccine grown in E. coli is reckless because it allows the plasmid DNA to replicate episomally in the host. The speaker alleges evidence suggests Pfizer, unlike Moderna, may have included this origin of replication due to carelessness. The speaker highlights concerns about nucleic acid persistence, noting that RT-PCR methods used in studies like Krausson and Rolchen may have amplified both DNA and RNA. The speaker suggests that prior studies assumed detected nucleic acids were RNA, but that further investigation using primers specific to the plasmid backbone might reveal the presence of residual plasmid DNA. The Krausson paper found nucleic acids present for thirty days in heart tissues, and the Rolchen paper found them for sixty days.

"Packaged DNA fragments have been found en masse as vaccine contaminants." "Once they reach the nucleus, short DNA sequences have an increased propensity to insert into chromosomal DNA." "The possible consequences are unending." "Disruption of the exquisitely tuned network that controls cell division and differentiation can lead to cancer and to developmental defects." "Mutations in sperm and fertilized egg cells could render altered traits inheritable." "Cost effective procedures to reliably separate mass produced RNA from plasmids do not exist." "Contamination of RNA vaccines with plasmid DNA must therefore be expected to be the rule and not the exception." "Whoever propagates RNA vaccines as being safe and effective, whoever claims that nothing can happen to your genome, is either incredibly ignorant or endlessly evil."

Kevin McKernan recently discovered that there is contamination in the mRNA shots with cDNA, including a cancer-promoting segment called SV40. SV40 turns on cancer genes in the human body and impairs tumor suppressor systems. This means that the shots not only promote cancer through SV40 but also inhibit our ability to fight cancer. The increase in cancer rates is undeniable, but the question remains: how much of this is due to the vaccines?

Speaker 0 argues that because it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued. Speaker 1 counters that there is immunity from liability dependent on there having been no fraud, and asserts that there clearly was fraud, so in light of that... Speaker 0 expresses surprise at known caveats to liability. Speaker 1 confirms the caveats and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0 asks how fraud is defined in this context, noting that drugs were sold with many studies but only one was good. Speaker 1 responds, “Let's try this one,” and discusses safety testing: the insufficient amount of safety testing before release was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA. The product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, with massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter (simian virus 40). The point is that safety testing was performed on one process, but people were injected with something different that had other components not tested, which Speaker 1 calls fraudulent. Speaker 0 asks for an explanation of the SV40 issue. Speaker 1 explains production methods: techniques to generate product using a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, allowing vats to grow the product before coating in lipid nanoparticle, with bacteria doing the work. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for residual DNA contamination. In this case, not only was quality control poor, but there was a much more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. As a result, vials given to Kevin McKernan, containing material actually injected into people, showed DNA contamination across the board. Speaker 1 states that leftover DNA includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is carcinogenic. This promoter is left over in vials from shots actually injected into people, implying that the claims about the potential for mRNA shots to integrate into the genome were incorrect. Speaker 1 asserts that there is DNA in the vials, not just some old DNA, and that it includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. Therefore, Speaker 1 concludes, this seems to be clear fraud: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing conducted with a product produced by a different process.

This is not conspiracy theory. This has been published in the BMJ by Retzaf Levy, and they go through this process: one where they ran these vaccines in the trial and how they changed that when they decided to go and inject the rest of the world. This is traditionally a mortal sin in vaccine manufacturing or in any sort of biologic manufacturing. The process is the product. You change the process, you have to go through trials again. And the EMA even asked them to do that, although they failed to. They asked for another trial of 250 people once they changed the process and that data was never delivered. So this bait and switch is very important for you to understand why the trial data is of absolute zero consequence to what we're actually seeing in the field. Those numbers are a caricature of what they're actually doing with these injections. They know something. Pfizer very early on they had the data on this from their trial, they knew this was going to happen and they quickly went out and acquired cancer companies. They put $43,000,000,000 into the acquisition of C Gen and they put $2,260,000,000 to acquire Trillium Therapeutics. Trillium was focused on blood cancers that have a CD one forty seven marker on them. Okay? That is one of the markers that is known to be involved in COVID. So, they have a very interesting window on those malignancies and, they're buying up the cancer companies that are probably gonna play the biggest role in benefiting from the mess that they've created. So, in summary, the Pfizer vaccines on the market are not the same formulation as what was tested in the clinical trials. This is a big bait and switch and it's a fraud. So you can't believe anything they're saying about the vaccine efficiency, which we have seen even those numbers decay over time. This is probably why. They're not really what they trialed. They gave you something different. There is significant DNA contamination that's found. Like, 10 out of 11 studies have found this, and the ones that haven't found it have some financial conflicts. So, I think the consensus is out. 10 out of 10 out of 10 of the real studies, are finding this. Several are through peer review, which have not been easy to get through peer review. The peer review journals do not like these papers. They get beat around in peer review for months to years, but they're making their way out now. There is also significant DNA contamination now found in five peer reviewed studies that were not looking at this. They were looking at people's blood and tissue and it was accidentally in there. Other people had to go sleuth it out. We've got cancer on the rise and there's several papers that report cancer post vaccination. Like, right at the site of injection, they'll see neoplasms. Alright? There is there's something going on here. This can't be ignored saying it's a coincidence anymore. Now this is these are liability free and they're often mandated. Okay? This may be the largest carcinogenic hit ever to the human population. And we have these on childhood schedules. We're giving these to pregnant women. This has gone absolutely off the rails.

The speaker claims SV40 in literature turns on cancer genes. They further claim the spike protein impairs tumor suppressor systems P53 and BRCA, promoting cancer and inhibiting the ability to fight it. The speaker suggests cancer rates are up, and the question is how much is due to vaccines. They state that repeated shots every six months increase the chances of getting loaded with synthetic genetic material that will cause harm, including heart disease, neurologic disease, blood clotting, immunologic problems, and cancer.

When COVID-19 vaccines were sequenced, commercial annotation software highlighted functional parts of the plasmids, including antibiotic resistance genes and SV40 components. The speaker claims that Pfizer had to manually remove these annotations before submitting the plasmid map to regulators. According to the speaker, regulators received the DNA sequence, but the sponsor is obligated to annotate every open reading frame and promoter, even if their function is unknown. The speaker alleges that Pfizer intentionally removed annotations, hiding them from the FDA, which the speaker believes is a violation of guidelines. The speaker suggests the reason for hiding SV40 components is due to SV40 virus contamination in polio vaccines and its debated link to cancer. The speaker asserts that while epidemiological data is confounded by vaccine shedding, laboratory studies show SV40 is a potent oncogenic virus. The speaker claims that the vaccines contain some of the more carcinogenic components of that virus, and that these sequences are functional and have consequences.

An article in Spectator Australia reported that DNA plasmids are contaminated with SV40 promoter sequences, which are oncogenic and used in cancer development in mice. The speaker questions why this is in an RNA vaccine, as the presence of DNA means it can integrate. Despite claims that the spike protein stays at the injection site, it has been identified everywhere, including in metastases from a colorectal cancer case where spike messenger RNA from the vaccine insertion was confirmed. The speaker was refused autopsies, even with consent from relatives, including a case of explosive melanoma after a booster shot. A report in The Lancet about deaths after vaccines was pulled, allegedly due to improper peer review. The speaker claims a media channel warned them that the government had made it a crime to criticize the vaccine program on the media.

The speaker claims that this is not conspiracy theory and cites a BMJ publication by Retzaf Levy, which describes a process in vaccine development: vaccines were trialed under one formulation, but when the decision was made to deploy them globally, the process was changed and the product injected to the rest of the world. The speaker asserts that changing the process requires new trials, yet the EMA asked for an additional trial of 250 people after the process change, and that data was never delivered. This is described as a “bait and switch,” asserted as crucial for understanding why trial data is of zero consequence to what’s seen in the field, implying that real-world outcomes do not match trial data and that the numbers from trials are a caricature of field performance. The speaker claims Pfizer had early data indicating what would happen and acted on that by acquiring cancer companies: $43,000,000,000 into the acquisition of C Gen and $2,260,000,000 to acquire Trillium Therapeutics. Trillium is described as focused on blood cancers with the CD147 marker (CD Adaptor 147) on them, a marker claimed to be known to be involved in COVID. The implication is that Pfizer is building an investment portfolio in cancer companies that would benefit from the consequences the speaker alleges they caused. In summary, the vaccines on the market are said to be not the same formulation as what was tested in clinical trials, labeling this a “bait and switch” and a fraud, and asserting that vaccine effectiveness numbers are not reliable because the products differ from trial formulations and because those numbers decay over time. The speaker alleges significant DNA contamination, stating that 10 out of 11 studies have found this, with the remaining studies allegedly constrained by financial conflicts. The claim is that consensus among real studies supports DNA contamination, with several studies through peer review, which the speaker notes is difficult for those papers to pass through peer review. It is claimed that five peer-reviewed studies not originally examining contamination found DNA in blood and tissue upon sleuthing. The speaker asserts that cancer is on the rise and that several papers report cancer post-vaccination, including neoplasms at the site of injection. The claim is that this situation cannot be dismissed as coincidence and is described as “liability free” and often mandated. The speaker posits that this may be the largest carcinogenic hit to the human population, with vaccines on childhood schedules and given to pregnant women, stating that “this has gone absolutely off the rails.”

The speakers discuss how initial kidney cells from monkeys used to make vaccines inadvertently gave people simian virus 40, which can lead to rapid cancer. One speaker says that this is one of the cancer-causing issues with the shots, explaining that it's supposed to stay out of the nucleus but can get in. One speaker says the initial claim was that the shot would stay local, in the arm, and dissipate quickly, but "they know that's not true." The other speaker mentions pseudouridine, a replacement nucleotide that is hard to break down, and that there's no study showing that it can be cleared from the body. This could be why some people have high antibody levels years later.

The speaker explains that there is contamination in the messenger RNA, including fragments of DNA called cDNA, with one of them being s v 40, a known cancer-promoting segment. The other speaker mentions that mainstream news reports estimate that millions of Americans had cancer due to SV 40 contamination in the past. The first speaker confirms that SV 40 turns on cancer genes and that the spike protein in the shots impairs tumor suppressor systems. They conclude that the shots promote cancer through SV 40 and suppress our ability to fight cancer. The speaker acknowledges that cancer rates are increasing, but the extent to which vaccines contribute to this is still uncertain.

Speaker 0: They argue that because the vaccine is classified as such, they don’t have to worry about being sued. They claim immunity from liability is dependent on there being no fraud, and there clearly was fraud. Speaker 1: They say there is fraud. They note that immunity from liability depends on fraud, and in light of that, it matters. They explain that there was fraud. Speaker 0: Expresses surprise and asks for caveats about fraud. Acknowledges there were caveats. Speaker 1: Confirms there is fraud and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0: Asks how fraud is defined, noting that drugs were sold with multiple studies and only one was good. Speaker 1: Responds with a point about safety testing for the mRNA vaccines. States that the insufficient safety testing was done before release, and that the product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids. There is massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter from simian virus 40. The point is that safety testing for one drug was completed, but people were injected with something different that had other components that were not tested, which is described as fraudulent. Speaker 0: Requests an explanation of the SV40 issue for the audience. Speaker 1: Describes production techniques used to generate the product. Explains that a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, was used to produce the product in vats, with bacteria performing the production, later coated in lipid nanoparticle. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for DNA contamination, with limits that cannot be exceeded. In this case, the problem isn’t only poor quality control but that there was a more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. Consequently, leftover material in vials injected into people contained DNA contamination across the board. Kevin McKernan tested vials, finding DNA contamination in the samples. Speaker 1: Explains that the DNA left over includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is known to be carcinogenic. Since this promoter is left in the vials from injections given to people, it challenges the claim that the mRNA shots could not integrate into the genome. While acknowledging that there are cellular processes such as reverse transcription, the speaker asserts that even the claim of “no DNA” is false because there is DNA in the vials, specifically DNA with the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. The speaker concludes that this appears to be fraud: injecting a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was conducted with a product produced by a different process. Speaker 0: Reiterates the conclusion: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.

The initial regulatory response claimed the DNA fragment was too small to matter, but this was based on an assumption without measurement. The quantity of DNA is now shown to be over the limit, especially considering lipid nanoparticles, even if the limit were justifiable. Claims that the DNA is non-functional are also incorrect. The DNA sequence includes the SV40 promoter and enhancer region, as well as an SV40 origin of replication.

A colon biopsy from a Pfizer-vaccinated individual who died a month after tumor emergence revealed SV40 in the origin of replication from the Pfizer vaccine. Preliminary sequencing suggests the presence of Pfizer's vaccine. The vaccine DNA copy number was greater than the human genome, indicating replication. PCR signals suggest the vaccine concentration is similar to or higher than the original vial, despite dilution in the body. This indicates the mammalian origin of replication in Pfizer's vaccine is active in human tumors. This finding may explain shedding, which is not supposed to occur because the COVID vaccine is not intended to alter DNA. However, evidence suggests that the vaccine may be altering DNA, making it a VGBT (genome altering) product. This could mean that spike proteins are continually created, and shedding is real.

A peer-reviewed paper confirms Pfizer's mRNA vaccine is contaminated with DNA and SV40 enhancers, considered dangerous. Pfizer used bacterial plasma DNA during mass production, leading to contamination with spike protein genes, antibiotic resistance markers, and SV40 enhancers. Researchers found 4-5 times more DNA than the safe limit. The DNA fragments could integrate into the human genome due to the SV40 enhancer. Injected vaccine samples caused super strong kidney cells to produce spike protein, excreted via exosomes, potentially spreading body-wide. The vaccines were toxic to these cells, causing pathological changes. The DNA, tucked into lipid nanoparticles, could integrate into the human genome, turning the jab into accidental gene therapy. The SV40 enhancer drags DNA into the nucleus. The study suggests the inclusion of SV40 enhancers was deliberate, not accidental, and scrubbed from regulatory paperwork. Experts theorize this contamination could be linked to an explosion of turbo cancers. The study concludes mRNA shots should be suspended until safety is determined. Another study found vaccine spike protein expressed in cerebral arteries of stroke patients for up to 17 months, accompanied by an autoimmune response.

The speaker states they found four pieces of the virus, not the whole virus. The pieces found include the SV40 origin of replication, the SV40 promoter, the SV40 enhancer, and part of the poly A signal. The speaker claims David Dean published that the SV40 enhancer is a nuclear targeting sequence. Therefore, claims that it will not reach the nucleus are inaccurate. The speaker asserts the presence of the SV40 origin of replication, a mammalian origin of replication, means it will replicate inside mammalian cells. The speaker believes regulators need to consider this risk.

A peer-reviewed paper confirms Pfizer's mRNA vaccine is contaminated with dangerous DNA and SV40 enhancers. During production, bacterial plasmid DNA led to contamination with spike protein genes, antibiotic resistance markers, and SV40 enhancers. Researchers found four to five times more DNA than the safe limit; these DNA fragments could integrate into the human genome due to the SV40 enhancer. Experiments showed the vaccines were toxic to cells, causing pathological changes and spike protein production, potentially spreading body-wide via exosomes. The DNA contamination, tucked into lipid nanoparticles, could lead to unintended gene therapy. The SV40 enhancer, deliberately added but removed from regulatory paperwork, raises questions about Pfizer's intentions. Experts theorize this contamination could be linked to an increase in "turbo cancers," coinciding with Pfizer's acquisition of a cancer drugmaker. An epidemiologist noted the study found DNA from the manufacturing process way over regulatory limits, including the cancer-promoting SV40 promoter enhancer and spike-producing DNA. A separate study found vaccine spike protein expressed in cerebral arteries of stroke patients for up to seventeen months, potentially contributing to autoimmune responses. There are now 11 independent reports that have found, DNA contamination within these shots of up to 60000% above regulatory limits.

Moderna has a patent on the use of RNA for vaccines (patent number 2019-024-0317-A1). In that patent, Moderna explicitly acknowledges that RNA is superior to DNA for vaccine purposes because of “problems” including the possibility of insertional immunogenesis, which could lead to the activation of oncogenes or the integration of tumor suppressor genes. The transcript says that while the FDA says it is not aware of any concerns, Moderna’s own patent lays out the same concerns about DNA and insertional immunogenesis and genotoxicity, and that Moderna “knows it.” The discussion then turns to DNA as a contaminant. The transcript says DNA is left in because, in “process two,” circular DNA is purified from bacteria to make RNA; RNA makes protein; then the DNA is degraded and must be purified away from the RNA. It says the process is apparently not very good, and that DNA fragments were detected after some scientists in the U.S. and Canada obtained unopened vials with clear chain of custody, sampled them, and performed deep sequencing to reconstruct what circular plasmid DNA looked like in the RNA preparation. The transcript claims that these DNA fragments were not disclosed to the public. It adds that the reconstructed sequences include sequences “normally not allowed” in anything going into humans, including an antibiotic resistance gene for kanamycin or neomycin. It also says sequences from simian virus 40 (SV40) are present, specifically highly active promoter sequences. The transcript states that FDA older regulations said these must be avoided because they confer additional risk for insertional mutagenesis. The transcript further claims that when Pfizer provided documents to the FDA, EMA, and Health Canada, Pfizer took standard plasmid maps generated by publicly accessible programs and deleted the notation indicating SV40 sequences. It then says that the FDA did not reconstruct raw DNA sequences to check these maps and instead relied on Pfizer’s submissions. The transcript attributes the emergence of these findings to researchers performing work “akin to the lot release testing that is not happening.” When asked about downstream bad outcomes, the transcript says the outcomes associated with DNA damage include birth defects and cancer.

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.

The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA, not just mRNA. This DNA is the DNA vector used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction. This was discovered by sequencing vials of Pfizer vaccine from Colombia. It's surprising that there's any DNA in there. The speaker is alarmed about the possible consequences of this, including rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest. Mixing DNA with a lipid complex allows it to enter cells and become a permanent fixture. This is a real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells, like stem cells, and could cause a sustained autoimmune attack. There is also a very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people. The risk is not zero and it may be high enough that we ought to figure out if this is happening or not.

The speaker reports that they tested many vials and found DNA in all of them, with “a lot of DNA” in all vials and levels over the alleged EMA limits. They state these EMA limits are “too high” because they rely on “naked” DNA assessments rather than slip and nanoparticle encapsulated DNA assessment. They say the reason for highlighting these findings is the identification of a DNA fragment called the SV40 promoter enhancer, described as a strong mammalian promoter. They add that the presence of SV40 and the other DNA fragments can induce problems “that basically all lead to cancer,” and they summarize this as a connection between foreign DNA fragments and cancer-related outcomes. The speaker then shifts to gene mutations and describes investigating whether there are reports of specific gene mutations in the relevant context. They say they did not find the expected evidence—“I didn’t find nothing”—and clarify that they are not claiming a causal link. They describe their goal as generating hypotheses based on evidence. They state that the presence of SV40 in particular can cause genomic instability, including insertions and gene defects. They connect this to the idea of inserting cells containing billions of fragments of foreign DNA, which they say raises the potential for epigenetic modifications. They mention that Kevin discussed epigenetic methylation patterns in a preprint and that those methylation patterns are described there. They conclude that there are “questions that everybody kind of needs to answer,” which they say they asked in a Substack and invite readers to read it, referring to the Substack as containing the questions they want addressed.

The video discusses the presence of SV40 (simian virus 40) in COVID genetic vaccines and its potential link to cancer. The speaker clarifies that while the vaccines do not contain the entire virus, they do contain the promoter and enhancer from SV40, which could increase the risk of DNA integration and potential oncogenesis. The speaker also mentions the role of lipid nanoparticles in vaccine delivery and the need for further research on their toxicity. Additionally, concerns are raised about the biodistribution of the vaccines and their potential impact on the germline. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding these risks and considering alternative approaches to respiratory virus vaccination.

Speaker 1 expresses concern about the presence of SV40 sequences in vaccines, suggesting it is not accidental and could lead to cancer due to insertional mutagenesis. They argue that gene therapies were delayed due to the risk of cancer from insertional mutagenesis. The speaker believes that alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are safe and questions why the FDA redacted data on endotoxin levels for 75 years. They emphasize the unusual nature of the current situation and urge the protection of citizens by not administering experimental products to pregnant women and babies. The speaker pleads for one state to take a stand and set an example for others. No questions are asked.

The speaker explains that the messenger RNA in the shots is contaminated with cDNA, including a cancer-promoting segment called s v 40. They mention that s v 40 turns on cancer genes in the human body and that the spike protein in the shots impairs tumor suppressor systems. The speaker suggests that the shots promote cancer through s v 40 and inhibit our ability to fight cancer. They also mention that cancer rates are increasing. The speaker raises the question of how much of this is due to the vaccines.