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.

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: 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?

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.

Chakrabarty reviewed the Ryan et al and Odek studies, mapping reads to plasmids and finding significant spike sequence from RNA, and less from plasmid DNA, which is expected. RNA sequencing protocols suppress DNA, yet DNA is still present. The Odek study shows the entire vector backbone covered with sequencing reads, indicating heavy contamination and the presence of SV40 promoters in patients. This is evidenced across multiple studies. The Novel study had a lighter density of reads, but some plasmid DNA was detectable. The Lee et al study also showed some SV40 reads. These are more apparent in samples taken closer to vaccination, despite DNA suppression methods. A mice study on vaccine redentilation showed poly A tails regenerate, potentially lengthening RNA lifespan, but DNA contamination was also present.

Kevin McKernan, an experienced genomic expert, discusses his findings regarding mRNA vaccines. He discovered that the expression vectors for the vaccines, which are used to produce the spike protein, are still present in the vials. These vectors exceed the guidelines set by the EMA and FDA. McKernan explains the two different processes used in the clinical trials and how residual plasmids from E. coli amplification remain in the vaccines. He specifically highlights the presence of the SV40 promoter in Pfizer vaccines, which was not disclosed to the regulatory agencies. McKernan's team conducted quantitative PCR assays and found high levels of vector DNA in the vials. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the potential risks associated with this contamination and encourages others to replicate his work.

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.

Strayer et al. have papers showing that SV40 plasmids are known to integrate, which is why they are used in gene therapy. There is a lot of literature from this laboratory on SV40 plasmids and integration frequency. This raises concerns that residual DNA can find its way into the nucleus.

In this video, the speakers discuss the omission of the SV40 promoter sequence in the plasmid used in vaccines. They highlight that the plasmid was annotated with various details except for the SV40 region, which is active in a million cells. Health Canada stated that sponsors should identify any biologically functional DNA, such as the SV40 enhancer, during submission. However, Pfizer did not specifically identify the SV40 sequence. The speakers explain that the plasmid map provided by Pfizer did not include annotations for the SV40 region or the F1 origin. They speculate that this omission was intentional and not a simple oversight. The speakers also mention the use of SnapGene software for plasmid annotation.

The DNA sequence in gene therapy plasmids contains the SV40 promoter and enhancer region, an SV40 origin of replication, and an SV40 poly A signal. The SV40 enhancers are nuclear targeting sequences, ensuring the DNA enters the cell nucleus, especially during cell division when the nuclear envelope dissolves. Claims that it doesn't reach the nucleus are misleading. This plasmid was sourced from Pfizer's gene therapy department. The SV40 promoter and enhancer bind to the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor, which is concerning given that the spike protein also inhibits p53 expression. Literature indicates this sequence is a hypermutability element, inducing mutations in nearby DNA, suggesting potential tumorigenic activity. These findings contradict claims that this DNA has no function.

Key points: "the vials that were in fact approved are not the vials that were given to the public." The clinical trial used "process one that used PCR to make the DNA that was going to then turn into the RNA to make the spike protein." After the trial, "they switched" to a production process that "manufactured this DNA in E. Coli," introducing endotoxin risk. "There are these plasmids that have additional DNA that were not present in the actual clinical trial." Sequencing found mixtures, including "expired" and samples that had "been tapped into." Regarding Pfizer, "the Pfizer vaccines actually had a component that was not disclosed to the regulators." "The plasmid map on the right is what was disclosed to the EMA" with "no mention of the SV40 components" now "inside this DNA sequence." "The plasma on the left is what we actually found," with components not disclosed to regulators nor to patients. Monovalent Pfizer; prior ones were the bivalent vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer.

The s v 40 sequences, they should not be there. They could have chosen another plasmid that did not have the s v 40 sequences. If these sequences sit above an oncogene and they're promiscuous, that means they are likely to integrate in places more likely than other genetic inserts. Insertional mutagenesis anyway causes cancer, and that's the risk. That's why gene therapies were not brought to market for so many years because there was a risk of causing cancer from insertional mutagenesis. We never needed these vaccines. Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, I can tell you as a toxicologist, they are not toxic. They're some of the safest drugs you can use. Endotoxin levels: they've got them all redacted. Why would you redact them if you were trying to be transparent? Why would you hold the data for seventy five years?

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.

We were surprised by the findings from a patient vaccinated four times with Pfizer. A year post-vaccination, tumors developed, and the patient died within a month. Biopsies revealed SV40 in the vaccine's origin of replication. Preliminary sequencing confirmed the presence of the Pfizer vaccine's DNA, including sequences from Spike protein. Unexpectedly, the DNA copy number in the tumors exceeded that of the human genome, indicating a significant insertional mutagenesis event. Instead of the anticipated lower mutation rates, our PCR results showed signals as strong as the original vaccine vial, suggesting the DNA is replicating within the patient. This indicates that the mammalian origin of replication in Pfizer's vaccine is active in human tumors.

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 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 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.

The SV40 sequence in the vaccine was undeclared and raises cancer concerns because any DNA sequence that instructs cells to replicate carries a hypothetical risk of causing unregulated cell growth, which is cancer. It is claimed that cancers appearing post-vaccination should be sequenced and studied to determine if the SV40 sequence is causing them. This sequencing and study has not yet occurred, and is a critical step in understanding the potential link between the vaccine and cancer.

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.