reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I am practicing my swipe technique. Opera maestro Lino can use the motor sequence in this scissor high to enhance gene expression and elevate event statements. However, there is a problem with the presence of a virus that surrounds potential possibilities. This virus serves a purpose and is being discussed for its excretion. Another issue is the ease of DNA migration with this sequence. The DNA becomes more mobile, which is why this sequence remains unexplained. The main concern is that it has no relation to messenger RNA synthesis and does not enter the promoter. This is why it is being tested in the experimental field.

I am practicing my swipe technique. Opera maestro Lino can use the motor sequence to increase gene expression in events. However, there is a problem with a virus that can surround potential possibilities. Another issue is that the DNA becomes more mobile at this stage, making it difficult to understand the sequence. The main concern is that messenger RNA has no relation to the promoter used in the synthesis test. It is unclear why this happens, but it requires experimentation.

モデルナの配列は大腸菌で利用するビクター配列だが、ファイザーの配列にはSV40の配列の一部が含まれている。SV40は遺伝子の発現を上昇させるプロモーターだが、発がん性を持つウイルスとしても知られている。mRNAワクチン製造には全く不要な配列であり、なぜこのような配列があるのかが問題である。この配列があるとDNAが移行しやすくなり、ゲノムに入りやすくなる。SV40のプロモーターの中には核に移行する配列も入っている。試験管内でmRNAを合成するプロセスに全く関係ないSV40のプロモーター配列がなぜ残されているのかが疑問視されている。実験室ではよく使われるSV40プロモーターが、なぜmRNAワクチンに入っているのかが問題である。 **Translation:** Moderna's sequence uses a vector sequence common in E. coli, but Pfizer's sequence contains a portion of the SV40 sequence. SV40 is a promoter that increases gene expression but is also known as a carcinogenic virus. This sequence is completely unnecessary for mRNA vaccine production, and the question is why such a sequence is present. This sequence makes DNA more likely to migrate and enter the genome. The SV40 promoter also contains a sequence that migrates to the nucleus. The question is why the SV40 promoter sequence, which is completely unrelated to the process of synthesizing mRNA in vitro, remains. The SV40 promoter, which is often used in laboratories, is questioned as to why it is included in the mRNA vaccine.

The symposium covers the potential safety and threat of “replicating” vaccines, especially LepriCon (leprecon) vaccines, in the context of Covid-19 vaccines and genome‑editing concepts. The speakers present a chain of claims and concerns, some drawing on reports and others presenting theories about how these next‑generation vaccines could behave in humans and populations. Key points and claims presented - Emerging mechanisms and risks: The panel notes that blood vessel inflammation and thrombosis mechanisms are increasingly observed, including in vaccine contexts, with examples from individuals who needed limb amputation and others who developed severe vascular events after vaccination. One case involved a 70‑year‑old man who, after a third dose, developed embolic events necessitating shoulder joint surgery, and another where a 60‑year‑old man developed acute limb ischemia and died; both are presented as suggesting a serious vascular mechanism linked to vaccination, though causal connections are not established. - Replicating/vector vaccines and their concerns:荒川博士 and others discuss LepiCon vaccines as vaccines that replicate inside the body. The concept involves “replicating viral vectors” where the genome can mutate and evolve during replication. The green‑highlighted segment in a slide (the antigen gene) plus a blue/orange segment (replicating gene cassette) is used to describe how LepriCon vaccines are designed to carry viral genes and replicate, with the assertion that replication, mutation, and recombination can occur, potentially generating new variants inside the host. - Differences from conventional vaccines: The discussion contrasts LepriCon vaccines with standard mRNA vaccines. In conventional mRNA vaccines, messenger RNA is delivered and translated into antigen proteins, then degraded; in LepriCon vaccines, replicating RNA/DNA can persist and continue producing antigen, with mutation and recombination possible. The panel emphasizes that LepriCon vaccines use replicating/copying mechanisms and that the genetic material can be copied in ways that differ from natural human biology, potentially creating unpredictable variants. - Central dogma and exceptions: The speakers reference the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) but note exceptions in viruses, including RNA viruses that can reverse‑transcribe to DNA (retroviruses) and RNA viruses that replicate RNA directly. They discuss how LepriCon vaccines would rely on replicative processes that do not follow the usual linear flow and why this could complicate predictions about safety and behavior in humans. - Potential for unintended spread and environmental impact: A major concern raised is that self‑replicating vectors could spread beyond the vaccinated individual, via exosomes or other intercellular transport, creating secondary infections or non‑target spread. Exosomes could ferry replicating genetic material, raising fears of new infection chains or “outbreaks” stemming from the vaccine itself, and even suggesting the possibility of vaccination‑induced spread akin to an attenuated or modified pathogen. - Safety signals and immunology concerns: The discussion touches on immune system risks, including immune dysregulation, autoimmune phenomena, and unexpected inflammatory responses. IGG4‑related disease is highlighted as a potential adverse outcome post‑vaccination, with descriptions of glandular and systemic involvement and the idea that high IGG4 levels could have immunosuppressive effects that alter responses to infection or vaccination. The panel notes observed increases in certain immunoglobulin subclasses after multiple LepriCon doses and discusses the possibility of immune tolerance or enhanced immune responses that could be harmful. - Historical and theoretical context: References are made to past epidemics and speculative pandemics caused by misused or dangerous vaccine platforms, drawing on central molecular biology concepts and historical anecdotes about how vaccines can be designed and misused. The discussion frames LepriCon vaccines as a high‑risk platform that could, in theory, generate recombinants, escape mutations, or cause unintended immune and inflammatory consequences. - Clinical and regulatory implications: The speakers call for caution, arguing that more evidence is needed before approving or widespread use of LepriCon vaccines. They emphasize the need for long‑term observation and transparent communication about risks, and criticize the potential for insufficient understanding among healthcare workers and the public. They also urge that any future vaccine development should consider the possibility of genome editing, recombination, and exosome‑mediated spread, and stress the importance of not underestimating possible adverse effects. - Real‑world observations and skepticism about hype: Several speakers underscore that the danger is not merely hypothetical; there are reports of adverse events, including stroke‑like conditions, inflammatory diseases, and immune dysregulation in vaccinated individuals. They stress that the evolution and mutation of replicating vaccines could outpace current surveillance methods, and that “information manipulation” or lack of transparent reporting could mislead the public about risks. - Final reflections and call to action: The concluding messages advocate recognizing the potential failures of messenger RNA vaccines and acknowledging that both conventional and replicating platforms may carry risks. The speakers urge ongoing critical analysis, cautious progression, and robust verification of claims through transparent, independent investigation. They close with thanks to the organizers and a hope that the discussion may contribute to broader public awareness and informed decision‑making. Notable emphasis and unique considerations - The core concern centers on LepriCon vaccines’ replication, mutation, and potential to spread beyond the vaccinated person; exosome transport and genomic/cellular integration are highlighted as mechanisms that could generate new risks not present with non‑replicating vaccines. - The discussion stresses that IGG4 responses could become alarmingly high after certain doses, potentially leading to immunosuppressive effects or autoimmune phenomena, and presents IGG4‑related disease as a potential complication to monitor. - The speakers insist that safety and transparency are paramount, and that misinformation or optimistic narratives about rapid vaccine development could lead to harm if new platforms are adopted without comprehensive evaluation. Overall, the symposium foregrounds cautious scrutiny of replicating vaccine platforms, frames potential biological and regulatory risks, and calls for careful, evidence‑based assessment before broader deployment.

Speaker 0 argues that because it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued. Speaker 1 counters that there is immunity from liability dependent on there having been no fraud, and asserts that there clearly was fraud, so in light of that... Speaker 0 expresses surprise at known caveats to liability. Speaker 1 confirms the caveats and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0 asks how fraud is defined in this context, noting that drugs were sold with many studies but only one was good. Speaker 1 responds, “Let's try this one,” and discusses safety testing: the insufficient amount of safety testing before release was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA. The product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, with massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter (simian virus 40). The point is that safety testing was performed on one process, but people were injected with something different that had other components not tested, which Speaker 1 calls fraudulent. Speaker 0 asks for an explanation of the SV40 issue. Speaker 1 explains production methods: techniques to generate product using a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, allowing vats to grow the product before coating in lipid nanoparticle, with bacteria doing the work. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for residual DNA contamination. In this case, not only was quality control poor, but there was a much more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. As a result, vials given to Kevin McKernan, containing material actually injected into people, showed DNA contamination across the board. Speaker 1 states that leftover DNA includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is carcinogenic. This promoter is left over in vials from shots actually injected into people, implying that the claims about the potential for mRNA shots to integrate into the genome were incorrect. Speaker 1 asserts that there is DNA in the vials, not just some old DNA, and that it includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. Therefore, Speaker 1 concludes, this seems to be clear fraud: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing conducted with a product produced by a different process.

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

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

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.

In the conversation, Speaker 0 discusses conclusions about a potential manipulation of the SARS-like virus. He states that there is a model based on the classic virus, but with modifications: the model is mainly derived from a bat coronavirus, to which sequences from HIV have been added. He clarifies that he does not know who added these HIV sequences, and he emphasizes that it is not natural, describing the work as done by a professional molecular biologist, a precise and meticulous process akin to an horologist working at the level of genetic sequences. Speaker 0 further explains that the purpose of such modifications is not clear to him. His goal is to present the facts without accusing anyone or identifying who did it or why. He posits a possibility that the aim could have been to develop a vaccine against AIDS, suggesting that small HIV sequences were inserted into the larger coronavirus sequence. He elaborates that in this virus, HIV genetic material is present as a long RNA strand, and at a certain position, small HIV sequences have been fixed into it. He stresses that these small sequences are meaningful, not trivial, because they could modify, for example, antigenic sites, thereby altering the protein exposed to a vaccine through a small sequence derived from another virus. Speaker 1 interjects, noting that there has been talk of a human origin for the virus, which has been refuted by most scientific authorities. Speaker 1 highlights that despite such refutations, there is still a perceived attempt to silence the research. He mentions that another group of highly regarded Indian researchers published something similar and were forced to retract their work. Overall, the dialogue centers on the possibility of engineered modifications to a coronavirus by inserting HIV sequences into its genome, the potential purpose behind such modifications (including the idea of vaccine development against AIDS), and the broader discussion about alleged suppression or censorship of related research, alongside mentions of scientific authorities denying a human-origin claim and the retraction of parallel work by Indian researchers.

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.

There is no question that the inclusion of DNA was not an accident, and the 1/3 DNA, 2/3 RNA ratio was intentional. The long-term effects of both DNA and RNA are influencing the ability to fight cancer. The key question is what effect the DNA has on the cell nucleus, and how to differentiate its damage from that of mRNA. mRNA is connected to ACE 2 receptors and causes damage throughout the reproductive and cardio systems. mRNA creates a spike protein flag, which the immune system attacks, leading to organ damage. The presence of DNA makes the process last longer. While mRNA would create spike for 8-12 months, DNA can influence the nucleus for years, producing mRNA near the nucleus. This extends the process from months to 8-10 years due to the decision to include DNA.

This complex diagram highlights the presence of HIV in the spike protein, as identified by Luc Montagnier, a renowned virologist and Nobel Prize winner for discovering HIV. Montagnier found 18 RNA fragments that match HIV and Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV). Notably, the PRRA sequence consists of four amino acids, requiring 12 nucleotides, indicating an insert rather than a mutation, which typically occurs one nucleotide at a time. Additionally, an HIV insert of 590 amino acids corresponds to 1,770 nucleotide bases that match HIV-1. This raises questions about the nature of these changes, as they cannot be explained as simple mutations. The evidence presented underscores significant findings related to HIV's presence in the spike protein.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

The speaker discusses the Furin cleavage site found on the surface of the virus and its spike proteins. They explain that two enzymes, Furin and TMPRSS2, play a role in cutting the spike protein. The speaker mentions that the Spike protein is abundantly expressed in the respiratory tract, which is relevant to the virus's impact on the respiratory system. They also highlight the presence of a unique insert called PRRA in the virus, which is not found in similar viruses. The speaker questions the origin of this insert and mentions a patent from Moderna that includes a similar sequence. They find this odd and intriguing.

Moderna has a patent on the use of RNA for vaccines (patent number 2019-024-0317-A1). In that patent, Moderna explicitly acknowledges that RNA is superior to DNA for vaccine purposes because of “problems” including the possibility of insertional immunogenesis, which could lead to the activation of oncogenes or the integration of tumor suppressor genes. The transcript says that while the FDA says it is not aware of any concerns, Moderna’s own patent lays out the same concerns about DNA and insertional immunogenesis and genotoxicity, and that Moderna “knows it.” The discussion then turns to DNA as a contaminant. The transcript says DNA is left in because, in “process two,” circular DNA is purified from bacteria to make RNA; RNA makes protein; then the DNA is degraded and must be purified away from the RNA. It says the process is apparently not very good, and that DNA fragments were detected after some scientists in the U.S. and Canada obtained unopened vials with clear chain of custody, sampled them, and performed deep sequencing to reconstruct what circular plasmid DNA looked like in the RNA preparation. The transcript claims that these DNA fragments were not disclosed to the public. It adds that the reconstructed sequences include sequences “normally not allowed” in anything going into humans, including an antibiotic resistance gene for kanamycin or neomycin. It also says sequences from simian virus 40 (SV40) are present, specifically highly active promoter sequences. The transcript states that FDA older regulations said these must be avoided because they confer additional risk for insertional mutagenesis. The transcript further claims that when Pfizer provided documents to the FDA, EMA, and Health Canada, Pfizer took standard plasmid maps generated by publicly accessible programs and deleted the notation indicating SV40 sequences. It then says that the FDA did not reconstruct raw DNA sequences to check these maps and instead relied on Pfizer’s submissions. The transcript attributes the emergence of these findings to researchers performing work “akin to the lot release testing that is not happening.” When asked about downstream bad outcomes, the transcript says the outcomes associated with DNA damage include birth defects and cancer.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

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

In the lab, it's easy to manipulate spike proteins, which play a significant role in the zoonotic risk of coronaviruses. By obtaining the sequence and constructing the protein, we collaborated with Ralph Barrick at UNC to insert it into another virus. This allows us to conduct experiments and enhance our ability to predict outcomes based on specific sequences.

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.