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.

"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."

SV40 promoter sequences are still detectable 48 hours later, despite being wrapped in LNPs and using methods aimed at eliminating them. This raises urgent concerns about how long this DNA persists without DNA depletion protocols. The purification methods used to capture this DNA require thorough examination, as techniques like ethanol precipitation and mini DNA purification kits may not effectively eliminate small DNA fragments or could further degrade them.

The SB40 sequence was not declared to regulators and poses a potential cancer risk because any DNA that promotes cell growth can lead to unregulated cell growth, which is cancer. Concerns have been raised about the link between the vaccine and cancer. It is crucial to study and sequence cancers that have developed after vaccination to determine if there is a connection. This remains an important unknown that needs urgent investigation.

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 lipid nanoparticle in vaccines poses significant issues, particularly regarding cancer risks. While the spike protein is inflammatory, the real concern lies with the lipid nanoparticle's distribution. Instead of remaining localized at the injection site, these nanoparticles enter the bloodstream and spread throughout the body, leading to various health problems, including cardiac, neurological, and autoimmune issues. They can cross the blood-brain barrier and the placenta, causing complications in pregnant women and aggressive cancers in young adults, such as cholangiocarcinomas and breast cancers. The systemic distribution of these nanoparticles contributes to the delivery of genetic material to inappropriate sites in the body, exacerbating cancer risks and impacting the immune system.

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.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain fragments of DNA, which can integrate into the genomic DNA of cells and become a permanent part of the cell. This poses a potential risk of autoimmune attacks and future cancer. The DNA contamination occurred during the production process, where a plasmid vector was used to scale up the production of the RNA template. The regulatory threshold for DNA in vaccines is outdated and not suitable for this new type of vaccine. The speaker believes that DNA sequencing should be done on vaccinated individuals' stem cells to determine if this theoretical risk has occurred. Informed consent is necessary, and the lack of transparency regarding the DNA contamination is concerning.

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.

Mr. Kevin McKernan, a former leader at the Human Genome Project, discussed DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. He highlighted the risks of insertional mutagenesis and integration into the genome, contradicting regulators' claims of little consequence. The DNA, found in lipid nanoparticles, can enter cells and potentially contribute to cancer. McKernan emphasized the inadequacy of current monitoring methods and called for a review of regulatory practices. The presence of DNA in these vaccines challenges existing safety standards and raises concerns about long-term effects.

DNA fragments found in vaccines can contaminate and insert into chromosomal DNA, potentially causing disruptions in cell division, cancer, and developmental defects. Mutations in sperm and fertilized egg cells could lead to inheritable altered traits. Separating RNA from plasmids in a cost-effective manner is currently not possible. Contamination of RNA vaccines with plasmid DNA is expected to be common. Those who claim RNA vaccines are safe and deny any risks to the genome are either ignorant or evil. This situation is a monstrous crime against humanity, and we must turn away from the perpetrators to protect ourselves and future generations. Professor Bakhti is commended for his scientific and ethical inspiration.

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.

- 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.

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.

Moderna's patents acknowledge that DNA integration is a risk, necessitating the invention of new methods to remove DNA. According to the speaker, Moderna is approximately tenfold more effective than Pfizer at removing DNA. The speaker claims that the manufacturers' patents indicate that the vaccines pose an oncogenic risk. The speaker suggests that one need not consult external papers to recognize this risk, as it is evident from the manufacturers' own patents.

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.

The Pfizer vaccine may contain DNA in addition to mRNA, according to a scientist who sequenced the vaccine in his lab. He obtained empty vials from a colleague and found DNA in them. This DNA could potentially cause serious side effects and integrate into the genomic DNA of cells, leading to long-term effects. The scientist is concerned about the regulatory process that allowed this to happen and warns of the risks of genome modification and autoimmune attacks. While the risk of cancer is believed to be rare, it is not zero. Further investigation is needed to determine the extent of these risks.

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

The 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.

Philip Buchholz, a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology and cancer genomics researcher at the University of South Carolina, describes himself as an expert on how the human genome can be altered and which alterations cause cancer. He emphasizes his skill in DNA sequencing and detecting foreign DNA pieces at very low levels, noting that his lab used these abilities during the pandemic to invent the spit-based COVID test. He asserts that the Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA, not just mRNA, and that this DNA is the DNA vector used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when producing the mRNA. He claims to have proven this by sequencing in his own lab. Regarding evidence in Columbia, he says a colleague in the College of Pharmacy was in charge of the vaccination program and kept every vial, including empty ones with a small amount left at the bottom. He states he received these vials and examined two batches from Columbia by sequencing, sequencing all the DNA in the vaccine to determine its content, and notes it is surprising that any DNA is present at all. He asserts this DNA can be identified and the mechanism of its presence inferred, and that he is alarmed about the regulatory process that allowed it. He explains that this DNA could cause rare but serious side effects, including death from cardiac arrest, noting there are cases of suspicious death after vaccination and that DNA is a plausible mechanism. He argues that this DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that were transfected with the vaccine, describing it as a permanent fixture in the cell and in its progeny indefinitely. He says this makes the DNA different from RNA because it can be permanent, posing a real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells like stem cells, and potentially causing a sustained autoimmune attack toward that tissue. He adds that while autoimmunity is not his field, the cancer risk is within his purview and it is a possibility.