TruthArchive.ai - 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."

DNA wrapped in a protective lipid nanoparticle is designed to enter cells and reach the nucleus quickly. However, this poses risks such as genome integration and cancer. The regulations for DNA contamination in vaccines are not suitable for this type of delivery system. Previously, contaminating DNA in vaccines came from cells used to grow them, which had less risk for integration. The ends of DNA are crucial for integration, and smaller fragments increase the risk. Linear fragments are even more dangerous than circular ones. The FDA acknowledges this and suggests that the current limit of 10 nanograms should be lower for circular plasmids, although achieving such low levels may be technically challenging.

Moderna holds a patent for using RNA in vaccines, acknowledging that RNA is superior to DNA due to concerns about DNA-related problems like insertional immunogenesis and genotoxicity. The FDA claims to be unaware of any issues, but Moderna's own patent raises the same concerns about DNA. It appears that DNA is present in the RNA preparation as a contaminant, as it is used in the process of making RNA. Recent findings by scientists revealed large numbers of DNA fragments in the RNA preparation, including sequences that are not normally allowed in human use, such as an antibiotic resistance gene and sequences from simian virus 40. These DNA fragments can potentially lead to DNA damage, birth defects, and cancer.

The FDA guidelines were derived from injecting naked DNA. The smaller the DNA, the more copies exist per nanogram. Ten nanograms of genomic DNA (3 billion bases long) equals about a thousand copies of the human genome. However, 10 nanograms of 200 bases of DNA equals 500 billion copies. Smaller DNA fragments act like buckshot against the genome, with more chemically active ends that facilitate integration. The FDA's literature indicates that if DNA reaches viral sizes like plasmids, limits should decrease to atograms or fentagrams. Current broken-up DNA has many active ends, leading to a high spontaneous integration rate when transfected or delivered via lipid nanoparticles. Studies show integration events in 7-10% of cells. This rate may be underestimated because many DNA fragments integrate without a reporter gene, making them undetectable. Therefore, this is not a low-frequency event.

Moderna holds a patent for using RNA in vaccines, acknowledging that RNA is better than DNA due to concerns about DNA-related problems like insertional immunogenesis and genotoxicity. The FDA claims to be unaware of these concerns, but Moderna's own patent highlights them. The presence of DNA in the vaccines is considered a contaminant, as it is used in the process of making RNA. Recent findings by scientists in the US and Canada revealed large amounts of DNA fragments in the RNA preparation, including sequences not allowed for human use, such as an antibiotic resistance gene and sequences from simian virus 40. These DNA fragments pose risks of DNA damage, including birth defects and cancer.

Many labs, including Medicinal Genomics, found DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. Regulators like the FDA and EMA admitted to this, but downplayed its significance. The SP 40 sequences omitted by Pfizer are crucial. DNA contamination can cause insertional mutagenesis, as stated in Moderna's patents. Regulatory agencies were deceived and failed to properly address the issue. This poses a serious risk that cannot be ignored.

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.

- The mRNA on plasmids was produced, and after processing, much DNA from plasmids remained; Kevin MacKinnon found that vials were full of plasmid DNA, the whole plasmid and parts of it, and this was published. Authorities claimed it doesn’t matter and that vaccines have saved millions of lives, so why not have some DNA in them. - The DNA in the vaccine vials was packaged in lipid nanoparticles and was shown by colleagues last year (the INMODIA publication) to enter human cells in culture and remain stable in cells for days, as did the mRNA. Despite this, the message given was to poof, never mind, don’t worry, be happy. - A radical change occurred due to a discovery by Kevin MacKinnon three weeks ago: during transcription on the chromosome, byproducts are generated; some mRNA strands do not detach from the DNA where they’re formed, creating hybrids of DNA and RNA that come off together. These hybrids are dangerous. - In cells, an enzyme called RNase H takes care of these sparks and extinguishes them immediately; otherwise they can cause damage to the chromosome, potentially lighting “fires” on the chromosomes. If not extinguished, the fires can cause diverse damage depending on where they occur, potentially leading to illnesses described in medical textbooks, including tumors (neoplastic disease), autoimmune disease, developmental impairment, birth defects, or death. - The speaker asserts these hybrids and their mishandling could lead to a broad range of illnesses, and emphasizes that this situation is not limited to the COVID vaccine but applies to all Moderna RNA vaccines, including new Moderna RNA vaccines entering the market, such as a flu vaccine, and mentions veterinary RNA vaccines as well. - The claim is made that these vaccines will be heavily contaminated with deadly dangerous hybrids, and it is the duty of authorities and controlling authorities to stop proceeding and not turn away; otherwise they will face court for not fulfilling their duties. The speaker has been giving interviews and asserts this narrative is spreading worldwide, framing it as akin to attempted murder and urging physicians to refuse vaccination.

Speaker 0 lays out a detailed critique of how the transition from process one to process two allegedly occurred, arguing that process one was deliberately structured to “cook the books” so that regulators would see nothing in their assays, while the real material of concern—DNA contaminants, including plasmids and RNA/DNA hybrids—would only be detectable in process two. Key points - The shift from process one to process two is alleged to be planned from the start. The assays used were designed “not to find things,” and the trial was set up in process one with the expectation that process two would ultimately be used, exposing a premeditated sequence of actions. - Ten nanogram limit and copy number. The ten nanogram figure is framed as a limited hangout: the real concern is molarity and copy number of DNA molecules, not weight. Naked-DNA half-lives are short, but lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) protect DNA, altering degradation and persistence. The origin of the 10 ng limit traces to Sheng Fowler and Keith Patten’s work, which emphasized copy number (molarity) rather than weight, particularly for small fragments and plasmids. The argument is that 10 ng can correspond to vastly different copy numbers depending on fragment size; smaller fragments dramatically increase copy number and potential integration ends. - Spike vs. CAN gene targeting. In process one, spike sequences are amplified, then RNA is generated via IVT, and residual DNA is monitored using a CAN gene target. The CAN assay is described as a decoy that would not detect post-amplification products; spike post-amplification would be abundant, but the CAN assay would show little or nothing. In process two, E. coli replication of the entire plasmid would introduce CAN sequences, yet regulators were still steered to look at CAN rather than spike, masking true residual DNA. - Assay design and regulatory deception. The EMA/EMAs documents and related papers show an RT-PCR setup that amplifies spike RNA to confirm expression while also using CAN primers that would not detect post-amplification plasmid content. A key accusation is that the regulators were given an assay that cannot detect the relevant post-amplification material, while an assay for spike exists but is not reported or used. - DNA vs. RNA measurement challenges. qPCR is argued to be ill-suited for this purpose due to fragmentation and the mismatch between input weight and actual molecule count. Fragmentation from DNase treatment is nonrandom: can (CAN) regions are hyper-fragmented, spike regions less so, causing disproportionate detectability depending on primer design and amplicon length. This yields underestimation of the true DNA content when relying on CAN-targeted PCR. - Enzymatic treatment and measurement implications. DNase I degrades CAN more efficiently than spike, particularly when DNA is in a DNA/RNA hybrid context post-IVT. Another enzyme (DNase XT) is claimed to better digest RNA-DNA hybrids, moving CT values for CAN and leaving spike detectable. This suggests the choice of enzymes was deliberate to obscure true residual DNA, while spike DNA remains more detectable under alternative assays. - Measurement methods and data interpretation. Fluorometry (e.g., PicoGreen or Ribogreen) is used to measure DNA or RNA doses, but crosstalk and fragmentation complicate interpretation. The speaker argues that fluorometry should be used in conjunction with RNase/DNase treatments and proper controls to distinguish DNA from RNA, and cautions that PCR-based extrapolations can massively overestimate or misrepresent actual DNA content due to fragmentation biases. - Consolidated claim. Across multiple studies and preparations, spike DNA is found at significantly higher levels than CAN DNA (e.g., a hundredfold difference in several datasets). The “can” assay is positioned as a decoy, while spike assays reveal the genuine DNA content and potential for integration, signaling intentional misdirection in regulator briefings. The speaker concludes that the “game of hide the ball” is ongoing: regulators have been misdirected to look for CAN DNA in process one, while the meaningful residual DNA relates to spike-containing sequences post-amplification—yet this is not consistently measured or reported. The overall thrust is that the design of assays and the choice of targets imply intentional deception to obscure true DNA contamination risks, particularly in the transition to process two.

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.

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.

Pfizer's use of the RiboGreen technique to measure DNA in their vaccines has raised concerns about deceptive practices. The presence of billions of DNA fragments in each dose, some of which are small and more likely to integrate into the genome, is worrying. Preliminary data suggests a correlation between adverse events and contaminated Pfizer vaccines, but more research is needed. The DNA in the vaccines is different from previous contamination and carries a higher risk of integration. The FDA acknowledges the integration risk and the need for lower limits on DNA when copy numbers are high. The DNA is encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles, making it prothrombotic and potentially oncogenic. The presence of endotoxin and the spike protein in the vaccines further complicates the situation. The vaccines have been found in various tissues and can lead to prolonged expression of the spike protein. Insertional mutagenesis and cancer risk are concerns, especially for individuals with weakened immune systems. Regulatory bodies have confirmed the presence of the SV40 sequence in the vaccines, but the clinical implications are still unclear.

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.

"Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA. It's not just mRNA." "This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the mRNA." "I sequenced it in my own lab." "The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Colombia, one of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy." "And for reasons that I still don't understand, he kept every single vial." "So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials." "And I checked these two batches, and I checked them by sequencing." "It's surprising that there's any DNA in there." "This DNA, in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest."

Health Canada initially claimed the Pfizer vaccine did not contain SV40, but later acknowledged its presence, stating it has no functional role. Despite this, they sought clarification from Pfizer about the residual fragments. When asked for information, Health Canada provided redacted documents, raising questions about transparency. A technique called fluorometry, which labels DNA with fluorescent markers, revealed that some RNA vaccines, particularly Moderna's, could contain up to 10 trillion copies of DNA fragments per dose. This is concerning because just 3 to 10 copies can facilitate the incorporation of SV40 DNA into a cell's nuclear genome, potentially leading to mutations associated with cancer.

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.

Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) can deliver mRNA and DNA to various cells, potentially leading to cancer by promoting the spread of existing cancer cells and possibly having oncogenic effects. The SV40 promoter in plasmids can amplify cancer genes, and the spike protein may inhibit tumor suppressor p53. Insertional mutagenesis can create aberrant proteins linked to cancer. mRNA can reverse transcribe to DNA and integrate into the genome, especially in ovaries and testes. Immunosuppression of T cells can allow cancer expansion. Genetic vaccines might be passed to offspring through sperm or ova, raising concerns about contaminating the gene pool. There is a lack of investigation into whether these genetic elements integrate into germ cells, which could lead to cancer through genomic integration rather than functional integration.

The Pfizer vaccine contains not only mRNA but also plasma DNA from the vector used in its production. I sequenced samples from two batches of the vaccine in Colombia and found this DNA, which raises concerns about potential health risks. This DNA could integrate into the genomic DNA of cells, leading to permanent changes. Such integration poses theoretical risks, including autoimmune responses and cancer, depending on where the DNA inserts itself in the genome. While these risks may be rare, they warrant investigation to understand their implications better.

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 contains DNA contamination in addition to mRNA. The DNA comes from the DNA vector used as a template for making the mRNA. Sequencing analysis of the vaccine revealed the presence of DNA, which could potentially cause serious side effects and integrate into the genomic DNA of cells. This poses risks such as autoimmune attacks and potential future cancer. The DNA contamination likely occurred during the production process. It is important to investigate if this DNA has integrated into the genomes of vaccinated individuals. The FDA should require Pfizer to remove the DNA from future versions of the vaccine. The regulatory limit for DNA in vaccines is outdated and not suitable for this type of vaccine. It is necessary to address this oversight and ensure the safety of the vaccine.

RNA sequencing of the Moderna vaccine's three prime ends suggests a possible mechanism for RNA persistence: in vivo re-adenylation. The data indicates plasmid DNA contamination despite efforts to reduce it. The data also reveals contamination from other mRNA vaccines in Moderna's pipeline. The speaker suggests that with widespread DNA sequencing capabilities, tolerating incorrect RNA sizes in vaccines is irresponsible. Sequencing before approval would have allowed for a better understanding of low RNA scores before global administration.

Tokyo Institute of Technology Professor Emeritus Mr. Murakami and I would like to share some information. In March, it was discovered that there is a significant amount of DM mixed in with the RNA, which was supposed to only contain RNA. Multiple researchers have confirmed this. One issue is that some LANWELISH, specifically SV4, promoter sequences are mixed in with the virus genes, which are necessary for gene expression. This can activate the immune system and cause various problems. DNA can induce mutations and easily enter cells, potentially disrupting important genes. The presence of LANWELISH promoter sequences in the virus can increase the risk of cancer. Vaccines that suppress the immune system can further increase the risk of cancer. It is important to minimize impurities in DNA, as they can cause inflammation and immune reactions. Different batches of vaccines may contain different impurities, such as DNA. DNA should not be introduced into cells.

Kevin discovered that the vials used for vaccines are contaminated with bacterial DNA. This is concerning because the modified RNA used in these vaccines creates unusual genetic structures that don't occur naturally. Normally, DNA is in a double helix form, but with modified RNA, it forms triple strands that can't be easily removed with DNase. This contamination is a result of corners being cut during the manufacturing process. Enzymes that could have eliminated the DNA were not used. This shows that assumptions cannot be made when working with new, unnatural products. The DNA contamination comes from using it to manufacture the modified RNAs.