TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asserts that packaged DNA fragments have been found en masse as vaccine contaminants. Once they reach the nucleus, short DNA sequences have an increased propensity to insert into chromosomal DNA. The possible consequences are unending, including disruption of the exquisitely tuned network that controls cell division and differentiation, which can lead to cancer and developmental defects. Mutations in sperm and fertilized egg cells could render altered traits inheritable. Speaker 0 further states that cost effective procedures to reliably separate mass produced RNA from plasmids do not exist, and therefore contamination of RNA vaccines with plasmid DNA must be expected to be the rule and not the exception. Whoever propagates RNA vaccines as being safe and effective, whoever claims that nothing can happen to your genome is either incredibly ignorant or endlessly evil. That person is turning his back on the horror scenario that is unfolding in front of our very eyes. Fellow citizens and physicians of the world are urged to turn away from the perpetrators of this monstrous crime against humanity. Speaker 0 concludes with admonitions to do this to save yourself, your descendants, and to rescue the name of your family or go down in history as one of the greatest criminals of all time. Speaker 1 responds: Thank you very much, professor Bhakti. You continue to be an inspiration both scientifically and ethically for all of us.

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.

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

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

DNA wrapped in a protective lipid nanoparticle is designed to enter cells and reach the nucleus quickly. However, this poses risks such as genome integration and cancer. The regulations for DNA contamination in vaccines are not suitable for this type of delivery system. Previously, contaminating DNA in vaccines came from cells used to grow them, which had less risk for integration. The ends of DNA are crucial for integration, and smaller fragments increase the risk. Linear fragments are even more dangerous than circular ones. The FDA acknowledges this and suggests that the current limit of 10 nanograms should be lower for circular plasmids, although achieving such low levels may be technically challenging.

Moderna holds a patent for using RNA in vaccines, acknowledging that RNA is superior to DNA due to concerns about DNA-related problems like insertional immunogenesis and genotoxicity. The FDA claims to be unaware of any issues, but Moderna's own patent raises the same concerns about DNA. It appears that DNA is present in the RNA preparation as a contaminant, as it is used in the process of making RNA. Recent findings by scientists revealed large numbers of DNA fragments in the RNA preparation, including sequences that are not normally allowed in human use, such as an antibiotic resistance gene and sequences from simian virus 40. These DNA fragments can potentially lead to DNA damage, birth defects, and cancer.

The FDA guidelines were derived from injecting naked DNA. The smaller the DNA, the more copies exist per nanogram. Ten nanograms of genomic DNA (3 billion bases long) equals about a thousand copies of the human genome. However, 10 nanograms of 200 bases of DNA equals 500 billion copies. Smaller DNA fragments act like buckshot against the genome, with more chemically active ends that facilitate integration. The FDA's literature indicates that if DNA reaches viral sizes like plasmids, limits should decrease to atograms or fentagrams. Current broken-up DNA has many active ends, leading to a high spontaneous integration rate when transfected or delivered via lipid nanoparticles. Studies show integration events in 7-10% of cells. This rate may be underestimated because many DNA fragments integrate without a reporter gene, making them undetectable. Therefore, this is not a low-frequency event.

Moderna holds a patent for using RNA in vaccines, acknowledging that RNA is better than DNA due to concerns about DNA-related problems like insertional immunogenesis and genotoxicity. The FDA claims to be unaware of these concerns, but Moderna's own patent highlights them. The presence of DNA in the vaccines is considered a contaminant, as it is used in the process of making RNA. Recent findings by scientists in the US and Canada revealed large amounts of DNA fragments in the RNA preparation, including sequences not allowed for human use, such as an antibiotic resistance gene and sequences from simian virus 40. These DNA fragments pose risks of DNA damage, including birth defects and cancer.

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.

Many labs, including Medicinal Genomics, found DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. Regulators like the FDA and EMA admitted to this, but downplayed its significance. The SP 40 sequences omitted by Pfizer are crucial. DNA contamination can cause insertional mutagenesis, as stated in Moderna's patents. Regulatory agencies were deceived and failed to properly address the issue. This poses a serious risk that cannot be ignored.

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 lays out a detailed critique of how the transition from process one to process two allegedly occurred, arguing that process one was deliberately structured to “cook the books” so that regulators would see nothing in their assays, while the real material of concern—DNA contaminants, including plasmids and RNA/DNA hybrids—would only be detectable in process two. Key points - The shift from process one to process two is alleged to be planned from the start. The assays used were designed “not to find things,” and the trial was set up in process one with the expectation that process two would ultimately be used, exposing a premeditated sequence of actions. - Ten nanogram limit and copy number. The ten nanogram figure is framed as a limited hangout: the real concern is molarity and copy number of DNA molecules, not weight. Naked-DNA half-lives are short, but lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) protect DNA, altering degradation and persistence. The origin of the 10 ng limit traces to Sheng Fowler and Keith Patten’s work, which emphasized copy number (molarity) rather than weight, particularly for small fragments and plasmids. The argument is that 10 ng can correspond to vastly different copy numbers depending on fragment size; smaller fragments dramatically increase copy number and potential integration ends. - Spike vs. CAN gene targeting. In process one, spike sequences are amplified, then RNA is generated via IVT, and residual DNA is monitored using a CAN gene target. The CAN assay is described as a decoy that would not detect post-amplification products; spike post-amplification would be abundant, but the CAN assay would show little or nothing. In process two, E. coli replication of the entire plasmid would introduce CAN sequences, yet regulators were still steered to look at CAN rather than spike, masking true residual DNA. - Assay design and regulatory deception. The EMA/EMAs documents and related papers show an RT-PCR setup that amplifies spike RNA to confirm expression while also using CAN primers that would not detect post-amplification plasmid content. A key accusation is that the regulators were given an assay that cannot detect the relevant post-amplification material, while an assay for spike exists but is not reported or used. - DNA vs. RNA measurement challenges. qPCR is argued to be ill-suited for this purpose due to fragmentation and the mismatch between input weight and actual molecule count. Fragmentation from DNase treatment is nonrandom: can (CAN) regions are hyper-fragmented, spike regions less so, causing disproportionate detectability depending on primer design and amplicon length. This yields underestimation of the true DNA content when relying on CAN-targeted PCR. - Enzymatic treatment and measurement implications. DNase I degrades CAN more efficiently than spike, particularly when DNA is in a DNA/RNA hybrid context post-IVT. Another enzyme (DNase XT) is claimed to better digest RNA-DNA hybrids, moving CT values for CAN and leaving spike detectable. This suggests the choice of enzymes was deliberate to obscure true residual DNA, while spike DNA remains more detectable under alternative assays. - Measurement methods and data interpretation. Fluorometry (e.g., PicoGreen or Ribogreen) is used to measure DNA or RNA doses, but crosstalk and fragmentation complicate interpretation. The speaker argues that fluorometry should be used in conjunction with RNase/DNase treatments and proper controls to distinguish DNA from RNA, and cautions that PCR-based extrapolations can massively overestimate or misrepresent actual DNA content due to fragmentation biases. - Consolidated claim. Across multiple studies and preparations, spike DNA is found at significantly higher levels than CAN DNA (e.g., a hundredfold difference in several datasets). The “can” assay is positioned as a decoy, while spike assays reveal the genuine DNA content and potential for integration, signaling intentional misdirection in regulator briefings. The speaker concludes that the “game of hide the ball” is ongoing: regulators have been misdirected to look for CAN DNA in process one, while the meaningful residual DNA relates to spike-containing sequences post-amplification—yet this is not consistently measured or reported. The overall thrust is that the design of assays and the choice of targets imply intentional deception to obscure true DNA contamination risks, particularly in the transition to process two.

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

Strayer et al. have papers showing that SV40 plasmids are known to integrate, which is why they are used in gene therapy. There is a lot of literature from this laboratory on SV40 plasmids and integration frequency. This raises concerns that residual DNA can find its way into the nucleus.

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.

Key points: "the vials that were in fact approved are not the vials that were given to the public." The clinical trial used "process one that used PCR to make the DNA that was going to then turn into the RNA to make the spike protein." After the trial, "they switched" to a production process that "manufactured this DNA in E. Coli," introducing endotoxin risk. "There are these plasmids that have additional DNA that were not present in the actual clinical trial." Sequencing found mixtures, including "expired" and samples that had "been tapped into." Regarding Pfizer, "the Pfizer vaccines actually had a component that was not disclosed to the regulators." "The plasmid map on the right is what was disclosed to the EMA" with "no mention of the SV40 components" now "inside this DNA sequence." "The plasma on the left is what we actually found," with components not disclosed to regulators nor to patients. Monovalent Pfizer; prior ones were the bivalent vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer.

Pfizer's use of the RiboGreen technique to measure DNA in their vaccines has raised concerns about deceptive practices. The presence of billions of DNA fragments in each dose, some of which are small and more likely to integrate into the genome, is worrying. Preliminary data suggests a correlation between adverse events and contaminated Pfizer vaccines, but more research is needed. The DNA in the vaccines is different from previous contamination and carries a higher risk of integration. The FDA acknowledges the integration risk and the need for lower limits on DNA when copy numbers are high. The DNA is encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles, making it prothrombotic and potentially oncogenic. The presence of endotoxin and the spike protein in the vaccines further complicates the situation. The vaccines have been found in various tissues and can lead to prolonged expression of the spike protein. Insertional mutagenesis and cancer risk are concerns, especially for individuals with weakened immune systems. Regulatory bodies have confirmed the presence of the SV40 sequence in the vaccines, but the clinical implications are still unclear.

"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."

Health Canada initially claimed the Pfizer vaccine did not contain SV40, but later acknowledged its presence, stating it has no functional role. Despite this, they sought clarification from Pfizer about the residual fragments. When asked for information, Health Canada provided redacted documents, raising questions about transparency. A technique called fluorometry, which labels DNA with fluorescent markers, revealed that some RNA vaccines, particularly Moderna's, could contain up to 10 trillion copies of DNA fragments per dose. This is concerning because just 3 to 10 copies can facilitate the incorporation of SV40 DNA into a cell's nuclear genome, potentially leading to mutations associated with cancer.

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.

A peer-reviewed paper confirms Pfizer's mRNA vaccine is contaminated with dangerous DNA and SV40 enhancers. During production, bacterial plasmid DNA led to contamination with spike protein genes, antibiotic resistance markers, and SV40 enhancers. Researchers found four to five times more DNA than the safe limit; these DNA fragments could integrate into the human genome due to the SV40 enhancer. Experiments showed the vaccines were toxic to cells, causing pathological changes and spike protein production, potentially spreading body-wide via exosomes. The DNA contamination, tucked into lipid nanoparticles, could lead to unintended gene therapy. The SV40 enhancer, deliberately added but removed from regulatory paperwork, raises questions about Pfizer's intentions. Experts theorize this contamination could be linked to an increase in "turbo cancers," coinciding with Pfizer's acquisition of a cancer drugmaker. An epidemiologist noted the study found DNA from the manufacturing process way over regulatory limits, including the cancer-promoting SV40 promoter enhancer and spike-producing DNA. A separate study found vaccine spike protein expressed in cerebral arteries of stroke patients for up to seventeen months, potentially contributing to autoimmune responses. There are now 11 independent reports that have found, DNA contamination within these shots of up to 60000% above regulatory limits.

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

The Pfizer vaccine contains DNA contamination in addition to mRNA. The DNA comes from the DNA vector used as a template for making the mRNA. Sequencing analysis of the vaccine revealed the presence of DNA, which could potentially cause serious side effects and integrate into the genomic DNA of cells. This poses risks such as autoimmune attacks and potential future cancer. The DNA contamination likely occurred during the production process. It is important to investigate if this DNA has integrated into the genomes of vaccinated individuals. The FDA should require Pfizer to remove the DNA from future versions of the vaccine. The regulatory limit for DNA in vaccines is outdated and not suitable for this type of vaccine. It is necessary to address this oversight and ensure the safety of the vaccine.

The video discusses the presence of SV40 (simian virus 40) in COVID genetic vaccines and its potential link to cancer. The speaker clarifies that while the vaccines do not contain the entire virus, they do contain the promoter and enhancer from SV40, which could increase the risk of DNA integration and potential oncogenesis. The speaker also mentions the role of lipid nanoparticles in vaccine delivery and the need for further research on their toxicity. Additionally, concerns are raised about the biodistribution of the vaccines and their potential impact on the germline. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding these risks and considering alternative approaches to respiratory virus vaccination.