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.

They tested many vials and found DNA in all of them, with “a lot of DNA” in all the vials and above alleged EMA limits. The claim is that these limits rely on “naked DNA” assessments rather than assessments for slip and nanoparticle encapsulated DNA. One DNA fragment identified is the “SV40 promoter enhancer,” described as a strong mammalian promoter. The speaker says that the presence of SV40 promoter enhancer, along with other DNA fragments, can induce problems that “basically all lead to cancer.” The speaker explains they considered gene mutations and looked for reports of specific gene mutations related to the situation. They say they expected to find nothing but did not find nothing. They also state they are not asserting a causal link, but are seeking evidence to generate hypotheses. They describe how SV40 in particular can cause genomic instability, insertions can occur, and gene defects could be anticipated when inserting cells with billions of fragments of foreign DNA. They also mention potential for epigenetic modifications, referring to methylation patterns discussed by Kevin in a preprint. The speaker’s bottom line is that there are questions “everybody kind of needs to answer,” and they direct viewers to read their Substack for those questions.

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.

Speaker 0 asks: "Do you think there's evidence that the changes to people to their genetic structure wrought by these vaccines could be passed on to their children?" Speaker 1 responds: "The McCullough Foundation, of which I am the vice president, we just published a person who had cancer of the bladder, which is a very severe cancer, in that tumor, so in the bladder cells that had become dysplastic, that messenger RNA was found in the cancerous cells of this tumor. So it seems to be integrating. Now the question is, is it integrating in a way that is can be passed on to the offspring, or is it so dysfunctional that it's killing the host before it can be passed on? And and I don't know that we yet know that, but remember, the science is the topography of ignorance. I mean, there's a lot about this that is is very, very concerning. There's also a study that this messenger RNA seems to have transcribed into liver cells."

Speaker 0 asks whether genetic changes to people’s genetic structure caused by vaccines could be passed on to their children. Speaker 1 says the McCullough Foundation, where he is vice president, published a person with bladder cancer, a severe cancer type. He reports that in bladder cells that had become dysplastic, messenger RNA was found in the cancerous cells of the tumor. He states that this suggests the messenger RNA “seems to be integrating,” and then raises two possibilities: whether it integrates in a way that can be passed to offspring, or whether it is so dysfunctional that it kills the host before transmission can occur. He says it is not known yet which outcome applies and references the idea that “the science is the topography of ignorance.” He also mentions a study suggesting that messenger RNA transcribed into liver cells.

The speaker describes unbridled enthusiasm and irrational exuberance for life as sacrificing safety. They state they presented autopsy work on death after COVID-19 vaccination at the American Society of Microbiology, where thousands of microbiologists, vaccinologists, and immunologists attended. As people visited, the speaker was stunned by what they call scientific seduction by messenger RNA technology. They predict a cataclysmic recognition that mRNA platforms are unsafe, claiming there is no way to break down pseudourrogenated messenger RNA. The speaker asserts that circulating messenger RNA from Pfizer or Moderna remains in patients’ bloodstream three years after the shots, described as intact.

Speaker 1 says that people do not know the long-term side effects of “basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA.” Speaker 0 responds that DNA is inherent in a person’s own nuclear cell. Speaker 1 reiterates that the long-term side effects of modifying people are unknown. The discussion then shifts to social media policy. Speaker 0 says that last week Facebook announced it is expanding its efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19 vaccines. Speaker 0 says the video will look at Facebook’s most updated COVID-19 vaccine policy, focusing on a specific part of the policy: Facebook says it would remove any content that claims the COVID-19 vaccine changes people’s DNA. Speaker 0 then says that they “got a new leaked tape from Zuckerberg himself,” the CEO of Facebook, which is described as violating his own code of conduct. Speaker 0 claims that, based on Facebook’s policy, Zuckerberg would be censored on the platform today for what he said. Speaker 0 highlights a claim attributed to Zuckerberg: that the vaccine is “modifying people’s DNA.” Speaker 0 says that it “seems pretty clear” that “modifying is synonymous with changing.” Speaker 0 states again that Zuckerberg would be banned from Facebook for saying this. Speaker 0 frames this as a conflict between what Zuckerberg said and what Facebook’s policy would remove from the platform. The transcript ends mid-sentence as Speaker 0 begins to describe showing the CEO of Facebook talking.

"I did a case where I did fecal transplant on a patient with Alzheimer's, and he could remember his daughter's date of birth six months after the procedure. So when I changed his microbiome, his poop in his colon, and gave him his wife's microbiome, who was super with it, started remembering things. So, when we start looking, and we're actually publishing stuff at ACG, because the deadline's today actually to publish for ACG American So, College of we have six abstracts coming up, and so we're showing the data on Alzheimer's, autism, long haulers. So, can't say vaccine injured because then it's not gonna be, you know, it's too controversial. So we have to stay within the but here's the problem. It should not be controversial. In order to advance science, in order to advance medicine, we need to be, better. We need to be better at listening"

Speaker 0: We need to investigate irregularities in their menstrual cycle, that’s number one, because that’s a little concerning and the reaction shouldn’t be interfering with that. Speaker 1: You’re a urologist, you must understand what’s going on with it. Speaker 0: It’s weird. I hope we don’t find out that there’s somehow this mRNA losing the body, because it has to be impacting something hormonal. It can impact menstrual cycles. The entire next generation is, like, super fucked up. Speaker 1: So tell me more, what’s developing with the mutation process? Speaker 0: They’re still conducting experiments, they’re optimizing it slowly, they’re very cautious and don’t want to accelerate too much. They’re doing it as exploratory work so you don’t advertise future mutations. Speaker 1: How would the research study be delayed for COVID stuff? Speaker 0: Now we’re focusing on mRNA beyond COVID. Our forward-looking studies must stay on track. Speaker 1: What is RNA going to be used for in the future? Speaker 0: Lots of stuff. Not just for viruses—we’re applying it to oncology, gene editing, and more. The portfolio has moved beyond COVID. There’s a dedicated COVID environment team; the company is asking where they’ll use this technology in the future for investors. Speaker 1: Is Pfizer going to be held liable for vaccine injuries? Speaker 0: I don’t think so. Usually drugs have known side effects. There have been reports like Clozapine being illegal, and Biox with heart issues—though that wasn’t for us, it was another company. They told me to monitor over time. So far, nothing major; we’ll see if anything arises. Speaker 1: Hope nobody grows three legs or the entire next generation is fucked up. Right? Speaker 0: Yeah. Or that their menstrual cycles are investigated down the line because that’s concerning. If you think about the science, it shouldn’t interact with the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, which links hormones and menstrual cycles. It shouldn’t interfere—yet something might be happening. Speaker 1: The HPG axis. Speaker 0: It goes hypothalamus, pituitary, gonads—signal shingles. The HPG axis is tied to fertility problems. Speaker 1: They decide to pack these hormones somehow. But the signaling into the brain is tricky, and the vaccine doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. Speaker 0: If it does come down the line and something bad happens, there’d be substantial criticism given the social pressure and professional consequences. If downstream issues are really serious, the scale would be significant.

There were concerns about endotoxin in COVID genetic vaccines and how that might cause damage, suggesting it could be another route of injury to consider. The discussion acknowledges there could be a variety of factors at play. Speaker 1 references studies by Kevin McKernan and Philip Buchholz, which reportedly showed contamination as V 40, describing this contamination as a possible mechanism related to how “this vaccine became a bifida fudge too.” The conversation raises the question of whether such factors could also influence the vaccine’s ability to stimulate cancer cells, with Speaker 0 asking if there are known cases where people have been treated for vaccine injury or long COVID using fecal transplants. Speaker 1 responds that fecal transplant is something they might consider bringing up, but emphasizes a broader view: there are other ways to fix what might come in the future. The speaker stresses the importance of keeping up with research, describing research as a “story that’s untold,” where it is one experiment after another. As each experiment yields a result, researchers move on to new questions; other people then bring their opinions and work to validate, verify, and reproduce what has been done, which in turn helps the field progress. The conversation also touches on the concept of “the art and perhaps of refloralization,” with Speaker 0 expressing appreciation for the term. They describe it as a very Floral term for something that may not look as nice if one were to stare at it closely, suggesting a metaphorical or descriptive use of the term to characterize anomalies or imperfect appearances in the subject under discussion.

Speaker introduces herself as 'the girl that brought vaccines to market' and cites data that 'the messenger RNA killed the bifidobacteria,' claiming this controversy has halted research and science. She asserts, 'What we discovered with the vaccine is that it did kill the bifida bacteria within a month, persisted in killing the bifida bacteria.' She notes daily reports of 'long COVID or vax' and outlines her interview approach: asking patients if they had COVID, were vaccinated, and whether they contracted COVID after vaccination, concluding 'did the vaccine kill their bifida bacteria.' She describes the immune concept as thinking of the body as 'a group of communities, group of gangs or communities in your gut,' warning that a 'foreigner' prompts autoimmunity. She argues vaccination may 'kill your bifidobacteria,' leading to timing effects on long COVID or vaccine injury, with 'zero bifidobacteria across the line.'

Kendall asks for an explanation of the process by which the MMR vaccine causes autism, referencing the movie Vaxxed. Speaker 2 responds that they are currently researching those questions, as parents and physicians have reported children developing autism immediately after the MMR vaccine. The speaker claims studies that should have been done long ago were not. Instead, the speaker alleges that captured researchers at the CDC, mainly people who work for the pharmaceutical industry, produced bad epidemiological studies. The speaker asserts that these studies deliberately avoided comparing health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. Speaker 0 states that this is one of the things they are studying now with gold standard science. Speaker 2 confirms they are doing gold standard science, which includes replication. They are allocating about 20% of their budget to replicating studies. Speaker 0 explains replication as an independent group repeating a study with the same parameters and data sets to achieve the same result. Speaker 2 agrees.

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.

Speaker 0 adds to what Tina said about changes in personality and depression, stating that “very real” reasons have been identified from theory and confirmed by some doctors and pathologists in Italy. Speaker 0 says the spike protein attacks and destroys the endocrine system, including the glands producing hormones, which Speaker 0 links to emotions and feelings. Speaker 0 then cites an Italian pathologist near Venice who allegedly told a newspaper that, among brains he investigated, the pineal gland was “completely destroyed” in all people who were vaccinated. Speaker 0 concludes that the spike protein is dangerous to the endocrine system and that this is why people experience changes in personality.

Speaker 0 added a comment building on what Tina said about changes in personality, depression, and related symptoms. They stated that the issues are “very real” and said they have identified the reasons “from theory” and with “some doctors in Italy,” as well as “some pathologists” who have confirmed these reasons. Speaker 0 claimed that the spike protein “unfortunately attacks and destroys also the endocrine system.” They explained that the endocrine system includes “the glands producing hormones,” and they said that these hormones “are what make our emotions and feelings and all those things.” In their view, this connection is directly relevant to why people experience changes in personality and other emotional or mental effects. Speaker 0 then referenced an Italian pathologist “near Venice.” They said this pathologist “went on a newspaper” and reported that, among “all the brains he had investigated,” he found the pineal gland “completely destroyed” in “all the people who were vaccinated.” Speaker 0 presented this as an example supporting the idea that the spike protein is dangerous to the endocrine system. According to Speaker 0, because the spike protein affects the endocrine system—particularly through harm to hormone-producing glands, and specifically via the pineal gland as described by the Italian pathologist—the result is changes in personality. They also linked the endocrine disruption to depression, describing the emotional and personality changes as a downstream effect of the claimed destruction of hormone-related systems. Overall, Speaker 0’s main points were: (1) changes in personality and depression are described as real; (2) the reasons are said to come from theory and confirmation by doctors and pathologists in Italy; (3) the spike protein is described as attacking and destroying the endocrine system; (4) hormones from endocrine glands are said to govern emotions and feelings; (5) an Italian pathologist near Venice is said to have reported pineal gland destruction in the brains of vaccinated individuals; and (6) this endocrine-system impact is said to be why people experience changes in personality.

Speaker 0 expresses clear personal hesitation about vaccines, stating that they are not jabbed and would not touch the experimental mRNA and gene therapy experiments, asserting there is a lot of concern about these technologies from many medical people. They reference political figures and media narratives, saying Kennedy in the United States will expose much of this material and that Donald Trump is keen to see it as well. Speaker 0 then recalls personal health concerns related to vaccination, mentioning friends who have experienced myocarditis, blood clots, strokes, and other problems after receiving the COVID jab, and emphasizes the idea of long-term effects being unknown. Speaker 1 counters by saying they still believe in vaccinations, but notes that no one on that side would discuss possible problems with vaccines, and they themselves got vaccinated multiple times and are now open to the idea that there might have been problems. They acknowledge the complexity of the issue and state they do not object to vaccines inherently. Speaker 0 clarifies their stance further, stating they are not a medical expert but their instinct was not to have the vaccine, and they acknowledge how difficult it was to avoid it since the state appeared to force people to receive it. Speaker 1 adds that their own vaccination status includes having been vaxxed several times, and they feel okay today, though they recognize the complexity of the situation and that long-term effects are uncertain. Speaker 0 then discusses the notion that the state and public health authorities pressured people to vaccinate, naming the NHS, Matt Hancock, and portraying the messaging as a duty to vaccinate “because you might kill granny,” mentioning Trudeau and the World Economic Forum Brigade as part of the broader narrative. Speaker 0 proposes an alternative approach: those who are vulnerable should isolate themselves. They reference Anders Tegnell’s approach in Sweden, which did not impose lockdowns. They claim Sweden’s economy hardly missed a heartbeat, in contrast to “ours,” and argue that the pandemic greatly disrupted young people’s lives and education, with knock-on effects described as huge. Speaker 0 concludes that those who made the lockdown decisions are not ready to admit they got it wrong, for a host of reasons.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss vaccines and vaccine technology. Speaker 0 begins by saying, “He injected billions of people with an experimental it wasn't a bloody just no. It wasn't,” expressing that the vaccine was experimental and not straightforward. Speaker 1 counters briefly with, “It was no one isn't,” then suggests uncertainty about the claim. Speaker 0 adds that “Yes. It is. It's Well, it doesn't have a 100%,” indicating skepticism about a perfect success rate. Speaker 1 asks, “You think it's a definition of all point of is to give your body a,” challenging the stated purpose of the vaccine in terms of its aim to train the immune system. Speaker 0 then states, “protein train on. The immune system works. Technology,” implying that the vaccine trains the immune system and works as a technology. Speaker 1 responds that “Who cares if it's not the same? There's plenty there's,” implying there are multiple vaccines or approaches enough to matter, suggesting diversity in types. Speaker 0 replies, “different so types that they didn't have to contend with the fact that it wasn't the same technology.” Speaker 1 acknowledges that “There are different types of,” and that “There are different technologies. Fine. The mRNA is a type of vaccine.” Speaker 0 firmly rejects that, saying, “Now this is No. It was,” indicating a disagreement about the classification. Speaker 1 clarifies that “like this, and now it's like this,” implying a progression from one form to another. Speaker 0 insists, “No. No. No. It was like this, and now it's like this. The m n r mRNA technology was a radical, qualitative leap forward in technology.” He asserts that mRNA technology represents a significant advancement compared to what existed before. Speaker 1 suggests naming it differently or acknowledging changes, but Speaker 0 continues that “You can call it if you want to, but it bears very little resemblance to anything that went before that.” The final point is that “The reason it was called a scene was because was a brand name that had a track record of safety, and shoehorning it in that was one of the ways to make sure that people weren't terrified of the technology.”

The speaker asserts that COVID-19 shots do more than affect the immune system; they can damage the brain and worsen mental health. They claim a wave of studies shows sharp increases in various strokes: ischemic strokes up to 44%, hemorrhagic strokes up to 50%, and transient ischemic attacks (mini strokes) up to 67%. They also report increases in neurological and autoimmune conditions, including myasthenia gravis up 71% and Alzheimer’s disease up 22%. Cognitive impairment is claimed to have risen by nearly 138%, while depression is up 68%, anxiety disorders up 44%, and sleep disorders up 93%. The speaker links all of these increases to “toxic spike protein accumulation and persistence in the brain.” The speaker states this is not a conspiracy theory and cites what they describe as documented peer‑reviewed research and studies by experts. They name epidemiologist Nicholas Holcher, who allegedly says that using mRNA to hijack cells in various organ systems to produce a highly toxic spike protein that persists in the body for months or years was “one of the worst ideas in medical history.” The speaker then asks, “So what can you do?” as a transition to presumably recommendations or actions, though no specific actions are listed in the provided segment.

The speaker cautions that we don’t know the long-term side effects of modifying people’s DNA and RNA to directly encode the ability to produce antibodies, and whether that causes other mutations or downstream risks.

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.

Speaker 0 cautions about the long-term side effects of directly modifying a person’s DNA and RNA to encode antibodies. They raise concerns that such genetic or molecular modifications could lead to unforeseen consequences over time, including potential mutations or other risks that might arise downstream as a result of encoding these antibodies.

- Speaker 0 describes a doctrine where an agent or pathogen works best as a binary weapon if followed by mass exposure with vaccines, noting the insistence on gene transfection technologies to create a peptide with a prion-catalyzing epitope and pointing out that lipid nanoparticles are highly labile and inflammatory, constituting a combination of chemical and biological warfare. - Speaker 0 adds that if this was a weapon release, it may be done and now data will reveal its effects, and expresses doubt about how much trust can be placed in normal scientific methods and institutions to relay data to the public, inviting Speaker 1’s thoughts. - Speaker 1 (Stephanie) says the discussion has been an incredible and difficult ride since things began unfolding, with questions about natural versus lab-based origins, vaccine development versus biowarfare, and concerns about funding by China for bioweapons, acknowledging the impossibility of definitively answering many questions. - Speaker 0 agrees that ambiguity is the point and calls it the strength of the weapon. - Speaker 1 asks why someone would inject something to inflict a bioweapon on the entire population, suggesting population control as a possible motivation. - Speaker 0 notes the need to consider literature from top transnational power structures and corporations, asserting that it is not hidden. - Speaker 1 recalls prior concerns about population-control vaccines, referencing reports about vaccines used in Argentina and Africa that allegedly caused infertility, describing an example where a vaccine given to teenage girls could lead to antibody development to a fetus, making infertility less detectable over time. She mentions a memory of a “benign disease” vaccination program in Argentina that led people to suspect infertility, and notes that it could be a stealth method. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the idea that vaccines may have had effects on fertility and reference terms like human chorionic something, with Speaker 1 acknowledging possible occurrences in India as well as Africa and Argentina. - Speaker 0 refers to bioaccumulation seen in reproductive organs and cites pharmacokinetic studies beginning in Japan, noting the vaccine’s presence in the placenta and testes and recalling reports of harmful effects on male reproductive organs. - Speaker 0 mentions Anna Burkhart’s data as dark regarding spike protein expression in reproductive organs found in autopsies, while acknowledging uncertainty about how much weight to attribute to that data, but maintaining that biowarfare cannot be dismissed. - The discussion returns to the mechanism of biowarfare being distinct from a pathogen, describing a scenario where exposure leads to effects years later due to the disease mechanism being induced, rather than immediate pathogen-driven illness.

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.

Speaker 0 raises a concern about the vaccine, asking why every new paper or study seems to claim the vaccine is responsible for a new problem. The question posed is whether the vaccine is really responsible for every negative outcome discussed in the literature, noting rises in cancers and cognitive decline. The speaker questions the blanket attribution of all adverse effects to the vaccine. Speaker 1 responds by suggesting that the world’s population has been poisoned, stating that the protein was devised in the Chinese security lab in Wuhan, China. The speaker claims it is not a natural protein and is not supposed to be in the body. They assert that one can obtain spike protein from having the infection, which almost everyone has had, and from taking the vaccine. The speaker contends that “it’s almost as if we’ve all been poisoned.” They further claim that the spike protein stays in the body and causes disease, listing several specific adverse outcomes: heart disease, neurologic disease, autoimmunity, blood clots, and maybe even cancer.

The speaker discusses claims about modified RNA (MOD RNA) vaccines and DNA contamination in plasmids. They state that after creating MOD RNA on plasmids, the plasmid DNA remained and much of it could not be destroyed. They reference Kevin MacKurn’s discovery three years ago that vials were full of plasmid DNA, the whole plasmid and parts of it, and note that authorities allegedly minimized the issue, arguing that it doesn’t matter and that vaccines have saved millions of lives. The speaker asserts that the DNA in the vaccine vials was packaged in lipid nanoparticles and that this DNA would enter human cells. They reference colleagues’ publication last year (the INMODEO publication) showing that the DNA in the vaccine vials entered cells in culture and remained stable in cells for days, just as the MOD RNA did. Despite this, they say authorities dismissed the concerns with reassurance that nothing would happen. A pivotal point is attributed to a recent discovery by Kevin MacKinnon, claimed to be three weeks old, about what happens during transcription in the chromosome. The speaker explains that during production, byproducts occur and some mRNA strands do not detach from the DNA where they are formed, resulting in hybrids of DNA and RNA that come off together. The hybrids are described as dangerous, akin to “sparks of a sparkler,” and the speaker emphasizes that RNase H is an enzyme in the cell that takes care of these sparks and extinguishes them immediately. The speaker states that normal physicians don’t know about this, and they had to read up on RNase H after Jessica urged them to. The claimed consequence of failing to extinguish these hybrids is damage to the chromosome, with the metaphor that fires could light up and damage where they occur. The speaker asserts this could lead to “any illness that you see in the textbooks of medicine,” including tumors, neoplastic disease, autoimmune disease, developmental impairment, and death. They warn that the book of life—the genes and chromosomes—could be set on fire if these hybrids are not neutralized. The speaker says they have given interviews weekly, including one with Gary Null, and allege that this information is spreading worldwide. They claim that this situation is akin to attempted murder and exhort physicians globally not to participate, promising that those who do will be charged. They claim this issue is not limited to COVID vaccines but applies to all MOD RNA vaccines, including a flu MOD RNA vaccine now in use, and possibly veterinary vaccines, which they claim will be heavily contaminated with deadly dangerous hybrids. They urge authorities and controlling bodies to act, warning that they will face court if they fail to address the issue.