TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Virologists talk about millions of viruses being produced, leading to the question of when the original virus sequence becomes irrelevant. The concept of a quasi species swarm, or mutant swarm, is used to explain this. The RNA dependent RNA polymerase copies the virus, introducing errors and creating new variations. As the replication continues, the mutant swarm is formed. This process is illustrated by a cartoon, which accurately represents the concept.

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.

The speaker criticizes the idea that the virus has the same sequence in different countries, calling it absurd. They suggest that those who understand this concept are happy to go along with it because it prevents others from figuring things out. The speaker mentions Gerrit van den Bosch as someone who could explain the randomness of the virus. They highlight that only a small fraction of the virus molecules make it to the end, with each having the same error rate. The speaker encourages using imagination to understand this biology and suggests that programmers could create a program to simulate the virus swarm. They believe that this knowledge could be taught if desired.

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.

We are developing non-scale machines that mimic bacteria and aim to enhance life longevity through genetic engineering. The concept is similar to the mRNA technology used in COVID vaccines. Our long-term goal is to create genetically engineered human cells, which is more challenging than manipulating bacterial cells. While some may view this as unethical, our focus is on the potential benefits. We utilize a lentiviral vector, a type of virus, to introduce new DNA into cardiac cells, enabling them to combat unhealthy cells. Welcome to this institute event; I’m Maurice Pomerantz, the Executive Director.

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

The 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: I read the sequence and it's high-resolution. Speaker 1: It may seem low at first, but it's understandable. Speaker 0: This is written in a loop. Speaker 1: This is the genetic sequence of the spike protein. The issue is that the model RNA has a sequence that surprised me. We need to design it a bit. It contains part of the sequence SB4T, which is necessary for gene expression. The problem is that it is found in a virus that has negative effects. Also, there is another problem with this sequence. The DNA that has been transferred so far becomes more susceptible to mutation. It's a problematic point. Speaker 1: So, this SB4T sequence is also included in the promoter of this SB method, which allows it to migrate to the nucleus. Speaker 0: This is quite famous. Speaker 1: Yes, it is. The issue is that it has no relation to the process of synthesizing the messenger RNA. Speaker 0: Why did they keep the promoter sequence in the SB4T that has nothing to do with the camera's perspective in the messenger RNA synthesis process?

The speaker explains the process of viral genome replication. They mention that the RNA dependent RNA polymerase copies the viral genome from one end to the other. However, there is a possibility for the polymerase to jump off the strand it is copying and start again. Additionally, there is an error rate of approximately one error per 10,000 bases. The speaker simplifies the process by stating that the RNA dependent RNA polymerase protein is successfully made, and now it is copying the genome. They express optimism that the process will work.

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

The speaker explains that due to errors in the genome, each copy of the coronavirus genome will have three errors. The RNA dependent RNA polymerase then chooses one of the copies to make another copy, which also contains three errors. This process continues, with the likelihood of choosing the original strand decreasing and the chance of selecting a strand with up to six or nine mutations increasing.

In this video, the speaker discusses the complexity of gene therapy systems. They explain that the translational kinetics, which were previously studied in HEK293 T cells, will now start from the liver in the gene therapy era. Different tissues will result in expression from different cells with varying coding usage in their transcriptome and tRNA levels. To address this, the speaker's team has created a tissue codon usage database, which contains data for 51 different tissues. They are working on expanding it further and plan to make it available online soon.

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.

mRNA, short for messenger RNA, plays a crucial role in our cells. When there is an injury or damage, DNA sends a message to the cell through mRNA to produce a specific protein that can fix the problem. This process happens constantly because it is essential for our well-being. However, there are concerns about the intentions behind mRNA. Some believe that external forces, like Bill Gates, want to manipulate our cells with harmful messages. Bill Gates has been associated with eugenics and population reduction, and now he has the means to carry out his depopulation agenda.

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 mRNA platform is effective but has a flaw: it can cause autoimmune disorders by producing foreign proteins in cells. The challenge is to target only specific cells and avoid damage to vital organs. The pandemic allowed the emergency use authorization of mRNA vaccines, bypassing safety measures. However, a large portion of the population has already accepted this technology. To address the issue, a solution could be to replace the spike protein with a different protein that doesn't have flaws. But if the problem lies in any foreign protein transcribed by cells, the immune system may still target vital organs.

We are in a digital and scientific revolution, hacking the software of life with mRNA. Our body is made of organs, organs of cells, and in each cell is messenger RNA transmitting DNA information to proteins. This "operating system" can be altered to impact diseases like the flu and cancer. For instance, instead of injecting virus proteins for a flu vaccine, mRNA instructions can teach the body to make its own protection. This mRNA technology has vast potential for disease prevention and treatment.

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.

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.

The speaker discusses claims about modified RNA (MOD RNA) vaccines and DNA contamination in plasmids. They state that after creating MOD RNA on plasmids, the plasmid DNA remained and much of it could not be destroyed. They reference Kevin MacKurn’s discovery three years ago that vials were full of plasmid DNA, the whole plasmid and parts of it, and note that authorities allegedly minimized the issue, arguing that it doesn’t matter and that vaccines have saved millions of lives. The speaker asserts that the DNA in the vaccine vials was packaged in lipid nanoparticles and that this DNA would enter human cells. They reference colleagues’ publication last year (the INMODEO publication) showing that the DNA in the vaccine vials entered cells in culture and remained stable in cells for days, just as the MOD RNA did. Despite this, they say authorities dismissed the concerns with reassurance that nothing would happen. A pivotal point is attributed to a recent discovery by Kevin MacKinnon, claimed to be three weeks old, about what happens during transcription in the chromosome. The speaker explains that during production, byproducts occur and some mRNA strands do not detach from the DNA where they are formed, resulting in hybrids of DNA and RNA that come off together. The hybrids are described as dangerous, akin to “sparks of a sparkler,” and the speaker emphasizes that RNase H is an enzyme in the cell that takes care of these sparks and extinguishes them immediately. The speaker states that normal physicians don’t know about this, and they had to read up on RNase H after Jessica urged them to. The claimed consequence of failing to extinguish these hybrids is damage to the chromosome, with the metaphor that fires could light up and damage where they occur. The speaker asserts this could lead to “any illness that you see in the textbooks of medicine,” including tumors, neoplastic disease, autoimmune disease, developmental impairment, and death. They warn that the book of life—the genes and chromosomes—could be set on fire if these hybrids are not neutralized. The speaker says they have given interviews weekly, including one with Gary Null, and allege that this information is spreading worldwide. They claim that this situation is akin to attempted murder and exhort physicians globally not to participate, promising that those who do will be charged. They claim this issue is not limited to COVID vaccines but applies to all MOD RNA vaccines, including a flu MOD RNA vaccine now in use, and possibly veterinary vaccines, which they claim will be heavily contaminated with deadly dangerous hybrids. They urge authorities and controlling bodies to act, warning that they will face court if they fail to address the issue.

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.