TruthArchive.ai - 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.

Quan et al demonstrated that the introduction of DNA into a cell, even without integration, can trigger the oncogenic cGAS-STING pathway. The speaker claims that the presence of an SV40 origin of replication, a mammalian origin, in a vaccine grown in E. coli is reckless because it allows the plasmid DNA to replicate episomally in the host. The speaker alleges evidence suggests Pfizer, unlike Moderna, may have included this origin of replication due to carelessness. The speaker highlights concerns about nucleic acid persistence, noting that RT-PCR methods used in studies like Krausson and Rolchen may have amplified both DNA and RNA. The speaker suggests that prior studies assumed detected nucleic acids were RNA, but that further investigation using primers specific to the plasmid backbone might reveal the presence of residual plasmid DNA. The Krausson paper found nucleic acids present for thirty days in heart tissues, and the Rolchen paper found them for sixty days.

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 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."

The symposium revolves around the science and safety implications of Replicating/Replicon vaccines and broader RNA vaccine platforms, with a sequence of expert presentations and reactions from the panel. -荒川博 presents the central premise that Replicon vaccines (replicating or self-amplifying RNA vaccines) raise unique safety and biosafety concerns beyond traditional mRNA vaccines. He frames the discussion around the idea that these vaccines “increase and mutate” within the host, potentially evolving in ways that could affect humans and populations. He references specific real-world events and case observations, including severe vascular events and tissue damage in some vaccine recipients, as motivation to scrutinize this technology carefully. -荒川 emphasizes that Replicon vaccines differ from conventional mRNA vaccines by embedding replicative machinery so that the RNA self-amplifies inside cells. He explains that, unlike ordinary mRNA vaccines, replication can produce more copies of the RNA and additional viral proteins, potentially leading to unexpected immune and biological consequences. He notes that the Alpha virus replicase used in some designs is designed to enable replication and increased antigen production, but that high mutation and recombination potential could yield variants or new properties. -藤本、藤田（参加者は複数） and others discuss the science of replication in viruses, highlighting the Central Dogma nuances. They describe that normally DNA → RNA → protein is the standard flow, but some viruses (RNA viruses and certain retroviruses) can reverse or bypass parts of this flow (RNA to DNA in retroviruses; RNA to RNA replication in some RNA viruses). This provides a conceptual basis for why replicating vaccines could, in principle, generate abnormal replication dynamics or new variants. -コロナウイルスRNAワクチンの議論では、Repliconの増殖と変異率の高さ、組換えの可能性、体内拡散の可能性を挙げて、「増えると変わる」性質が人の体内でどう影響するかが核心テーマとして挙げられます。アルファウイルス由来のレプリカーゼを使う場合、修復機能が不完全なRNAの増殖過程で、予想外の抗原変異を引き起こすリスクがあるとの指摘が出てきます。 -リスクの具体例として、ウイルスの殻（エンベロープ）とエクソソームを介した分布、自己拡散型ワクチンによる体内の遺伝子素材の取り込み、さらには他の人へ感染・伝播するアウトブレークの可能性、という仮説的懸念が提示されます。レプリコンワクチンは「空の遺伝子を抗原遺伝子に置き換えた陰性空間を持つウイルス」という説明が繰り返され、組換え・遺伝子交換・逆転など、従来のDNA・RNA動態の外に出る事象が起こり得ると議論されます。 -一部のスピーカーは、日本での試験・臨床・規制の動きを取り上げ、FDA/国内基準値を超えるDNA混入、SV40プロモーター混入の報告など、製品レベルでの懸念を指摘します。ケビン・マッカーシー氏の分析紹介では、日本市場で使われているファイザー社のコロナワクチンにDNA混入の痕跡があったこと、SV40プロモーター混入の可能性が指摘され、脂質ナノ粒子を通じた細胞内へのDNA／エクソンの取り込みリスクが懸念事項として挙げられます。これにより、RNAワクチンのフォーマットが終わるのではなく、プラットフォーム自体が拡大・進化する過程で新たなリスクを生む可能性を示唆します。 -IGG4関連疾患の急増とコロナワクチンの関連を例示する報告を紹介。IGG-4抗体が高値となり、多様な臓器炎症を引き起こす病態が観察され、ウイルス感染・ワクチン接種と免疫抑制・過剰免疫の連携が臨床で見られるケースの存在が議論されました。これにより、免疫の過剰反応・異常免疫を招く可能性があるとの懸念が示唆されました。 -ウイルス学・免疫学の専門家は、Repliconワクチンの「増殖・変異・組換えの三拍子」が、長期的・広範な公衆衛生影響をもたらし得る点を強調します。従来のウイルスワクチンの枠組みを超え、自己拡散・他者伝播・遺伝子汚染の可能性を定量的に評価する必要があると主張します。 -議論は、Repliconの潜在的リスクと実利を天秤にかけるもので、現時点で「安全」と断定できないという結論に至る場面が多くありました。実臨床での結果を長期観察で検証し、エビデンスに基づく判断を求める声が複数の speaker から出ました。 -最後に、メディア・一般市民への啓蒙の喚起と、透明性の高い情報提供、そして次世代ワクチン開発の安全性を担保するための厳格な規制・評価の重要性が強調されました。現状の科学的理解には限界があり、今後も公衆衛生への影響を見据えた厳密な検証が不可欠であるとの結論が共有されました。 overall, the event centers on the scientific basis, potential risks, and regulatory considerations of Replicon vaccines, contrasted with traditional mRNA vaccines, with emphasis on mutation, recombination, potential horizontal spread, DNA contamination concerns, immune dysregulation (including IGG4-associated phenomena), and the need for rigorous, transparent evaluation before broad deployment.

When COVID-19 vaccines were sequenced, commercial annotation software highlighted functional parts of the plasmids, including antibiotic resistance genes and SV40 components. The speaker claims that Pfizer had to manually remove these annotations before submitting the plasmid map to regulators. According to the speaker, regulators received the DNA sequence, but the sponsor is obligated to annotate every open reading frame and promoter, even if their function is unknown. The speaker alleges that Pfizer intentionally removed annotations, hiding them from the FDA, which the speaker believes is a violation of guidelines. The speaker suggests the reason for hiding SV40 components is due to SV40 virus contamination in polio vaccines and its debated link to cancer. The speaker asserts that while epidemiological data is confounded by vaccine shedding, laboratory studies show SV40 is a potent oncogenic virus. The speaker claims that the vaccines contain some of the more carcinogenic components of that virus, and that these sequences are functional and have consequences.

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

Speaker 0 outlines three reasons: - Endonucleases digest the RNA before it even has a chance to get in the cell; ribonucleases degrade the mRNA as soon as you inject it. - The process of endocytosis is proposed to bring it in, but there is no proof that this happens, and there is evidence of exocytosis, which would bring the RNA out of the cell rather than into it. - The assumption that some of this mRNA enters the cell is not proven; 98% or so is degraded by enzymes within the cell whose job it is to surveil and get rid of this foreign genetic material.

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.

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.

Speaker 0: We need to investigate irregularities in their menstrual cycle, that’s number one, because that’s a little concerning and the reaction shouldn’t be interfering with that. Speaker 1: You’re a urologist, you must understand what’s going on with it. Speaker 0: It’s weird. I hope we don’t find out that there’s somehow this mRNA losing the body, because it has to be impacting something hormonal. It can impact menstrual cycles. The entire next generation is, like, super fucked up. Speaker 1: So tell me more, what’s developing with the mutation process? Speaker 0: They’re still conducting experiments, they’re optimizing it slowly, they’re very cautious and don’t want to accelerate too much. They’re doing it as exploratory work so you don’t advertise future mutations. Speaker 1: How would the research study be delayed for COVID stuff? Speaker 0: Now we’re focusing on mRNA beyond COVID. Our forward-looking studies must stay on track. Speaker 1: What is RNA going to be used for in the future? Speaker 0: Lots of stuff. Not just for viruses—we’re applying it to oncology, gene editing, and more. The portfolio has moved beyond COVID. There’s a dedicated COVID environment team; the company is asking where they’ll use this technology in the future for investors. Speaker 1: Is Pfizer going to be held liable for vaccine injuries? Speaker 0: I don’t think so. Usually drugs have known side effects. There have been reports like Clozapine being illegal, and Biox with heart issues—though that wasn’t for us, it was another company. They told me to monitor over time. So far, nothing major; we’ll see if anything arises. Speaker 1: Hope nobody grows three legs or the entire next generation is fucked up. Right? Speaker 0: Yeah. Or that their menstrual cycles are investigated down the line because that’s concerning. If you think about the science, it shouldn’t interact with the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, which links hormones and menstrual cycles. It shouldn’t interfere—yet something might be happening. Speaker 1: The HPG axis. Speaker 0: It goes hypothalamus, pituitary, gonads—signal shingles. The HPG axis is tied to fertility problems. Speaker 1: They decide to pack these hormones somehow. But the signaling into the brain is tricky, and the vaccine doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. Speaker 0: If it does come down the line and something bad happens, there’d be substantial criticism given the social pressure and professional consequences. If downstream issues are really serious, the scale would be significant.

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.

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.

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.