reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In April 2020, BioNTech and Moderna called mRNA injections experimental gene therapy. Publicly traded pharmaceutical executives admit they deceived the public by labeling them as vaccines to increase acceptance. They suggest these injections turn people into bioweapons factories and could lead to addiction to gene editing technologies. Pseudouridine, a cancer promoter, was added to shots, potentially increasing cancer risk by 400%. The pharmaceutical industry may have a financial interest in promoting these injections. This could make people customers of an industry with a history of harming citizens since 1604.

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

The video discusses the different processes used to create COVID-19 vaccines, specifically the mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer. The first process, called Process 1, involved a synthetic PCR method and was tested on 40,000 people. However, a second process, tested on only 252 people, was used to produce vaccines for billions of people. This second process involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the mRNA. It is revealed that this process was not properly tested and resulted in bacterial plasmid DNA contamination in the vaccines. The presence of this contamination raises concerns about potential long-term effects, such as autoimmune diseases and cancers. The video criticizes the fact that contaminated products are still being distributed despite the risks involved.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a deliberately engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were conducted using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines administered to billions of people used a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

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

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a precise mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were done using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines given to billions of people were made using a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

Many are surprised to learn that the vaccines did not undergo traditional clinical trials. Initially, they were manufactured using PCR for 44,000 people, but when scaling up, the process was deemed too costly and was replaced with DNA from E. Coli, which also introduced endotoxins. In pharmaceutical manufacturing, the process is crucial; changing it typically requires new trials. The EMA requested a new trial with 252 patients, but the data was never provided, and it was considered too late since vaccinations had already begun. Thus, the rationale for conducting the trial became irrelevant.

Pfizer conducted trials using a synthetic PCR process called Process 1, which involved giving 40,000 people a deliberately engineered mRNA sequence for the shots. However, for mass production, a second process was used, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the body produce the spike protein. Essentially, the trials were conducted using a controlled synthetic process, but the majority of the vaccines administered to billions of people used a less tested method. This can be seen as a bait and switch.

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

For Pfizer's trials, a synthetic PCR-type process was used to create the mRNA sequence for the shots, administered to 40,000 people. This was called process one. To manufacture the shots for billions, a second process was implemented, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make mRNA, which would then cause the body to produce the spike protein. The speaker claims the trials used a controlled synthetic process, but the actual rollout employed a barely tested method. The speaker characterizes this as a bait and switch.

Speaker argues that after trials the vaccine process was changed and a “bait and switch” occurred, stating the EMA asked for another 250-person trial and that data was never delivered, making trial data seem irrelevant to real-world outcomes. They claim Pfizer quickly acquired cancer companies—$43B into C Gen and $2.26B into Trillium Therapeutics—because Trillium focused on blood cancers with a CD one forty seven marker on them, implying beneficiaries from the situation. They assert the Pfizer vaccines on the market are not the same formulation as tested, calling it a fraud and noting efficacy numbers decay. They report significant DNA contamination found in 10 of 11 studies, with five peer-reviewed studies confirming contamination. They mention rising cancer rates and several papers reporting cancer post-vaccination, including neoplasms at the injection site, labeling this as a liability-free, often mandated issue, potentially the largest carcinogenic hit to the population, including children and pregnant women.

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.

The amount of DNA allowed in vaccines was loosened a thousandfold after liability waivers were granted. These limits assumed naked DNA injection, which degrades quickly. However, mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that also coat contaminating DNA, invalidating the old limits. Studies show DNA levels in the shots are 10 to 100 times higher than the already obsolete limits. The LNPs deliver this DNA directly into cells, changing its persistence and biological impact. Pfizer used a different, more purified product in its trials than what was injected into billions of people. The initial process included a PCR amplification step to reduce DNA background, but this was dropped for mass production due to cost. This resulted in higher levels of background plasmid DNA and potentially E. coli components like endotoxin in the shots, possibly causing anaphylactic reactions. The presence of plasmids has been confirmed, and this process change, documented in the BMJ, is a major violation of manufacturing standards. The EMA requested a new trial after the process change, but the data was never delivered, rendering the original trial data irrelevant.

Der Erfolg der klinischen Zulassungsstudie ist von Betrug und Täuschung geprägt. Die Herstellung von Impfstoffen für Milliarden Menschen war nicht möglich, daher griffen die Hersteller auf Bakterien zurück. Es gibt zwei Produktionswege: künstliche, computerbasierte Methoden und die Nutzung von Bakterien. Diese Bakterien-DNA wird leicht manipuliert, um verschiedene Gene einzufügen. Nach der Vermehrung der Bakterien werden Plasmide extrahiert, um mRNA-Kopien herzustellen. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob die Sicherheit dieser Bakterienchromosomen für die Impfstoffherstellung geprüft wurde. Laut aktuellen Büchern wurden sie nie auf Inhalt oder Sicherheit getestet, und die Zulassungsbehörden haben dies einfach genehmigt, wodurch sie zu Komplizen wurden. --- The success of the clinical approval study is marked by fraud and deception. The production of vaccines for billions was not feasible, leading manufacturers to turn to bacteria. There are two production methods: artificial, computer-based methods and the use of bacteria. This bacterial DNA is easily manipulated to insert various genes. After breeding the bacteria, plasmids are extracted to create mRNA copies. The question arises whether the safety of these bacterial chromosomes for vaccine production was tested. According to recent books, they were never tested for content or safety, and the approval authorities simply approved this, making them complicit.

At the outset, a process was approved by the FDA for emergency use authorization. However, it was later discovered that the approved process was swapped out for one containing contaminants like DNA and a cancer-causing substance. Pfizer redacted 800 pages of the manufacturing process, hiding the fact that a carcinogen was included. This lack of transparency led to no informed consent and potential harm to individuals. The vaccine rollout included a trial with a 2.4 times higher adverse event rate, including the presence of a carcinogen.

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.

For Pfizer's trials, a synthetic PCR-type process was used to create the mRNA sequence for the shots, administered to 40,000 people. This was called process one. To manufacture the shots for billions, a second process was implemented, tested on only 252 people. This involved using a complementary DNA sequence to produce mRNA, prompting the body to create the spike protein. The claim is that the initial trials used a controlled synthetic process, but mass production shifted to a barely tested method. This second process was then administered to billions of people. It is described as a bait and switch.

On August 7th, the speaker wrote to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with evidence from Dr. Josh Gochko indicating that Pfizer, enabled by the MHRA, carried out a bait and switch operation with their vaccine. The speaker claims the Pfizer vaccine tested on 22,000 individuals was not the same vaccine rolled out in the UK and worldwide. Evidence for this is allegedly the MHRA changing guidelines on the second day of mass vaccination, requiring people to stay at the vaccination center for 15 minutes due to the risk of anaphylactic shock. The speaker asserts the MHRA hadn't expected anaphylactic shock because it wasn't shown in the Pfizer trials. Anaphylactic shock occurs when there are endotoxins in vaccines, which are present when vaccines are cultured in bacteria like E. coli. The speaker claims this demonstrates the vaccine rolled out was not manufactured the same way or to the same standards as the vaccine that received medical approval, meaning informed consent was impossible. They state people were told the vaccines were safe, effective, and tested, but they were taking a completely untested vaccine from Pfizer. The speaker is still awaiting a response from the prime minister regarding the 44 pages of evidence supplied.

This is not conspiracy theory. Published in the BMJ by Retzaf Levy, it describes altering the vaccine trial process. The EMA asked for another trial of 250 people after the change, but data was never delivered. This bait and switch is a key reason trial data seems irrelevant to field results. Pfizer had the data early and rapidly acquired cancer companies: $43,000,000,000 for C Gen and $2,260,000,000 for Trillium Therapeutics. Trillium focused on blood cancers with a cd one forty seven marker. Pfizer vaccines on the market are not the same formulation as what was tested; this is a fraud. Cancer post vaccination is reported, including neoplasms at the injection site and DNA contamination found in studies.

Pfizer and Moderna used two processes to create their vaccines. Initially, they used PCR to amplify and create the DNA for clinical trials. However, when they received approval, they needed to produce billions of copies, so they used circular bacterial DNA plasmids. Unfortunately, this led to contamination with junk DNA. Researchers in Ontario, Canada tested 27 mRNA vials from 12 different lots and found billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose, exceeding FDA and WHO guidelines by 188 to 509 times. This is a significant amount, far beyond what is considered acceptable.

Pfizer's claim of 96% efficacy for their vaccine was questioned. The study and data were not independently verified, and Pfizer wanted to keep the data hidden for 75 years. The true effectiveness of the vaccine, based on absolute risk reduction, is less than 1%. More people died and were harmed in their trials compared to the placebo group. The vaccine's safety was questionable from the start, and it is not effective. Additionally, appropriate studies were not conducted for new variants.

Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use two processes. The first process involves using PCR to amplify and create DNA for clinical trials. Once approved, they use circular bacterial DNA plasmid to replicate billions of mRNA DNA sample copies. However, this resulted in contaminated vaccines with junk DNA. A study found DNA fragments in Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in Ontario, Canada. Researchers tested 27 mRNA vials from 12 different lots and discovered billions to 100 billions of DNA molecules per dose, exceeding FDA and WHO guidelines by 188 to 509 times. This is a significant amount, far beyond what is acceptable.

The trial data for the process 2 vaccine was limited, with only 252 people tested. Independent researchers confirmed this. The study was added during the phase three trials and was not intended to be meaningful. The comparison study between process 1 and process 2 doses was never conducted, despite initial plans. Only 4 people were tested for antibody response, and they were all under 23 years old. The study lacked clinical data and was approved for emergency use without sufficient evidence. The use of live cells in the manufacturing process added complexity and risk. Similar issues occurred with the swine flu vaccine in 2009. There was no public notification about the changes made to the vaccine.

Pfizer knew their failed coronavirus modifications were dangerous, causing heart issues and death in animals. There is extensive literature, including patents and scientific publications, showing that they knew the heart was the target. The mRNA shots using pseudo uridine were known to generate tumors and rapid cancers. Remdesivir, with a 53% mortality rate, was chosen by the FDA as a COVID treatment, despite being deemed unethical by the World Health Organization due to its high death rate. The definition of adverse events was changed to exclude any causal link, allowing them to deny any negative effects. Data on these injections won't be published for another four and a half years.

Pfizer has been forced to release previously secret documents, including FDA approval packages, due to court orders and successful FOIA requests. These documents reveal that Pfizer tested different versions of their vaccine during preclinical and clinical trials, which goes against FDA guidance. The different versions included modified RNA, unmodified RNA, self-amplifying RNA, and Spike protein alone. Surprisingly, all these versions were tested under the same investigational new drug number, despite FDA guidance stating that multiple versions should have their own individual numbers. Additionally, the toxicity of the mRNA active ingredient in the COVID-19 vaccines was never studied. This raises concerns about the regulatory process and the lack of safety testing.