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.

"Packaged DNA fragments have been found en masse as vaccine contaminants." "Once they reach the nucleus, short DNA sequences have an increased propensity to insert into chromosomal DNA." "The possible consequences are unending." "Disruption of the exquisitely tuned network that controls cell division and differentiation can lead to cancer and to developmental defects." "Mutations in sperm and fertilized egg cells could render altered traits inheritable." "Cost effective procedures to reliably separate mass produced RNA from plasmids do not exist." "Contamination of RNA vaccines with plasmid DNA must therefore be expected to be the rule and not the exception." "Whoever propagates RNA vaccines as being safe and effective, whoever claims that nothing can happen to your genome, is either incredibly ignorant or endlessly evil."

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

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.

We are currently injecting large amounts of DNA into billions of people, which may affect germ lines, stem cells, sperm, and eggs. The number of DNA injections is in the range of 50-100 billion, and if 1% reaches the ovaries, it could potentially impact around 40-400 million oocytes. This experimental use of poorly characterized tools with liability protection is a significant departure from previous biomedical ethics standards. These genomic changes in the germ line can be passed down to future generations, and if it affects stem cells, it may lead to cancer. This practice is concerning and needs to be questioned.

- The mRNA on plasmids was produced, and after processing, much DNA from plasmids remained; Kevin MacKinnon found that vials were full of plasmid DNA, the whole plasmid and parts of it, and this was published. Authorities claimed it doesn’t matter and that vaccines have saved millions of lives, so why not have some DNA in them. - The DNA in the vaccine vials was packaged in lipid nanoparticles and was shown by colleagues last year (the INMODIA publication) to enter human cells in culture and remain stable in cells for days, as did the mRNA. Despite this, the message given was to poof, never mind, don’t worry, be happy. - A radical change occurred due to a discovery by Kevin MacKinnon three weeks ago: during transcription on the chromosome, byproducts are generated; some mRNA strands do not detach from the DNA where they’re formed, creating hybrids of DNA and RNA that come off together. These hybrids are dangerous. - In cells, an enzyme called RNase H takes care of these sparks and extinguishes them immediately; otherwise they can cause damage to the chromosome, potentially lighting “fires” on the chromosomes. If not extinguished, the fires can cause diverse damage depending on where they occur, potentially leading to illnesses described in medical textbooks, including tumors (neoplastic disease), autoimmune disease, developmental impairment, birth defects, or death. - The speaker asserts these hybrids and their mishandling could lead to a broad range of illnesses, and emphasizes that this situation is not limited to the COVID vaccine but applies to all Moderna RNA vaccines, including new Moderna RNA vaccines entering the market, such as a flu vaccine, and mentions veterinary RNA vaccines as well. - The claim is made that these vaccines will be heavily contaminated with deadly dangerous hybrids, and it is the duty of authorities and controlling authorities to stop proceeding and not turn away; otherwise they will face court for not fulfilling their duties. The speaker has been giving interviews and asserts this narrative is spreading worldwide, framing it as akin to attempted murder and urging physicians to refuse vaccination.

Speaker 0 lays out a detailed critique of how the transition from process one to process two allegedly occurred, arguing that process one was deliberately structured to “cook the books” so that regulators would see nothing in their assays, while the real material of concern—DNA contaminants, including plasmids and RNA/DNA hybrids—would only be detectable in process two. Key points - The shift from process one to process two is alleged to be planned from the start. The assays used were designed “not to find things,” and the trial was set up in process one with the expectation that process two would ultimately be used, exposing a premeditated sequence of actions. - Ten nanogram limit and copy number. The ten nanogram figure is framed as a limited hangout: the real concern is molarity and copy number of DNA molecules, not weight. Naked-DNA half-lives are short, but lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) protect DNA, altering degradation and persistence. The origin of the 10 ng limit traces to Sheng Fowler and Keith Patten’s work, which emphasized copy number (molarity) rather than weight, particularly for small fragments and plasmids. The argument is that 10 ng can correspond to vastly different copy numbers depending on fragment size; smaller fragments dramatically increase copy number and potential integration ends. - Spike vs. CAN gene targeting. In process one, spike sequences are amplified, then RNA is generated via IVT, and residual DNA is monitored using a CAN gene target. The CAN assay is described as a decoy that would not detect post-amplification products; spike post-amplification would be abundant, but the CAN assay would show little or nothing. In process two, E. coli replication of the entire plasmid would introduce CAN sequences, yet regulators were still steered to look at CAN rather than spike, masking true residual DNA. - Assay design and regulatory deception. The EMA/EMAs documents and related papers show an RT-PCR setup that amplifies spike RNA to confirm expression while also using CAN primers that would not detect post-amplification plasmid content. A key accusation is that the regulators were given an assay that cannot detect the relevant post-amplification material, while an assay for spike exists but is not reported or used. - DNA vs. RNA measurement challenges. qPCR is argued to be ill-suited for this purpose due to fragmentation and the mismatch between input weight and actual molecule count. Fragmentation from DNase treatment is nonrandom: can (CAN) regions are hyper-fragmented, spike regions less so, causing disproportionate detectability depending on primer design and amplicon length. This yields underestimation of the true DNA content when relying on CAN-targeted PCR. - Enzymatic treatment and measurement implications. DNase I degrades CAN more efficiently than spike, particularly when DNA is in a DNA/RNA hybrid context post-IVT. Another enzyme (DNase XT) is claimed to better digest RNA-DNA hybrids, moving CT values for CAN and leaving spike detectable. This suggests the choice of enzymes was deliberate to obscure true residual DNA, while spike DNA remains more detectable under alternative assays. - Measurement methods and data interpretation. Fluorometry (e.g., PicoGreen or Ribogreen) is used to measure DNA or RNA doses, but crosstalk and fragmentation complicate interpretation. The speaker argues that fluorometry should be used in conjunction with RNase/DNase treatments and proper controls to distinguish DNA from RNA, and cautions that PCR-based extrapolations can massively overestimate or misrepresent actual DNA content due to fragmentation biases. - Consolidated claim. Across multiple studies and preparations, spike DNA is found at significantly higher levels than CAN DNA (e.g., a hundredfold difference in several datasets). The “can” assay is positioned as a decoy, while spike assays reveal the genuine DNA content and potential for integration, signaling intentional misdirection in regulator briefings. The speaker concludes that the “game of hide the ball” is ongoing: regulators have been misdirected to look for CAN DNA in process one, while the meaningful residual DNA relates to spike-containing sequences post-amplification—yet this is not consistently measured or reported. The overall thrust is that the design of assays and the choice of targets imply intentional deception to obscure true DNA contamination risks, particularly in the transition to process two.

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

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.

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.

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

The initial regulatory response claimed the DNA fragment was too small to matter, but this was based on an assumption without measurement. The quantity of DNA is now shown to be over the limit, especially considering lipid nanoparticles, even if the limit were justifiable. Claims that the DNA is non-functional are also incorrect. The DNA sequence includes the SV40 promoter and enhancer region, as well as an SV40 origin of replication.

"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."

Human cells immersed in vaccines immediately took up the vaccines, DNA, and bacterial chromosomes, and started producing spike protein in large quantities. The spike protein is stable, shed into the blood, and measurable. Plasmid and spike production continues for many days. Uptake of a foreign chromosome equates to genetic modification, and an instant moratorium on vaccines is demanded until manufacturers and regulatory authorities can guarantee they will not genetically modify people. Modified RNAs and plasmids don't need to integrate into human chromosomes to genetically modify cells; functioning within the cell for extended periods is sufficient. Chromosomal integration of fragments into the "book of life" can smear pages, preventing them from being read, which could explain the worldwide explosion of tumors. Human cells transfected were sent to Kevin McKernan, who found chromosomal integration of bacterial DNA in the human cells' chromosomes. This information can be used to demand action, including from governments.

We have sequenced samples from a colon biopsy of a patient who was vaccinated four times and developed colon cancer a year later. The sequencing revealed plasmids, with about 100 copies per cell, which differ from Pfizer's. This raises questions about potential variations in manufacturing or contamination. Preliminary data suggests these plasmids may integrate into the genome, with one integration observed on chromosome 21 affecting a cancer-related gene. The high copy number indicates replication, as the expected dilution from vaccination would not account for such levels. The formalin-fixed tissue confirms these plasmids were present while the patient was alive, but the source remains unknown.

"So here we see the syringe needle going in and the lipid nanoparticles coming out." "Probably three to 6,000 per injection." "These are completely new to the human body, and they circulate around in the blood." "They're supposed to stay in the deltoid muscle, but they don't." "They circulate everywhere around the body." "Then when they come to a cell, they'll go inside the cell, this process called endocytosis." "Any contaminating DNA will be carried very, very efficiently by the lipid nanoparticles into cells, coming into contact with the walls of the vascular endothelium, the lining of the blood vessels." "If the lipid nanoparticles are 80 nanometers each, it would be 87 of them to fit across the diameter of a red blood cell." "So 5,000,000,000 of these red blood cells in one milliliter of blood, and yet this is the size of the lipid nanoparticles." "Until these problems are resolved there should be a moratorium on mRNA vaccines." "In my view let me know what you think."

Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) can deliver mRNA and DNA to various cells, potentially leading to cancer by promoting the spread of existing cancer cells and possibly having oncogenic effects. The SV40 promoter in plasmids can amplify cancer genes, and the spike protein may inhibit tumor suppressor p53. Insertional mutagenesis can create aberrant proteins linked to cancer. mRNA can reverse transcribe to DNA and integrate into the genome, especially in ovaries and testes. Immunosuppression of T cells can allow cancer expansion. Genetic vaccines might be passed to offspring through sperm or ova, raising concerns about contaminating the gene pool. There is a lack of investigation into whether these genetic elements integrate into germ cells, which could lead to cancer through genomic integration rather than functional integration.

Pfizer and Moderna used two processes to create their vaccines. Initially, they used PCR to amplify and create the DNA for clinical trials. However, when they received approval, they needed to produce billions of copies, so they used circular bacterial DNA plasmids. Unfortunately, this led to contamination with junk DNA. Researchers in Ontario, Canada tested 27 mRNA vials from 12 different lots and found billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose, exceeding FDA and WHO guidelines by 188 to 509 times. This is a significant amount, far beyond what is considered acceptable.

Alden and colleagues found that Pfizer's genetic code can be integrated into the human genome within an hour in a cancerous cell line. This suggests that Pfizer and Moderna's genetic material might become a permanent part of human DNA. There is no study confirming or denying this possibility. The concern is that if eggs or sperm incorporate this genetic code, it could be passed on to future generations. This lack of research is seen as reckless and worrisome.

The Pfizer vaccine contains not only mRNA but also plasma DNA from the vector used in its production. I sequenced samples from two batches of the vaccine in Colombia and found this DNA, which raises concerns about potential health risks. This DNA could integrate into the genomic DNA of cells, leading to permanent changes. Such integration poses theoretical risks, including autoimmune responses and cancer, depending on where the DNA inserts itself in the genome. While these risks may be rare, they warrant investigation to understand their implications better.

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

Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use two processes. The first process involves using PCR to amplify and create DNA for clinical trials. Once approved, they use circular bacterial DNA plasmid to replicate billions of mRNA DNA sample copies. However, this resulted in contaminated vaccines with junk DNA. A study found DNA fragments in Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in Ontario, Canada. Researchers tested 27 mRNA vials from 12 different lots and discovered billions to 100 billions of DNA molecules per dose, exceeding FDA and WHO guidelines by 188 to 509 times. This is a significant amount, far beyond what is acceptable.

I did this myself. And lo and behold, I discovered a bunch of DNA pieces, in the mRNA vaccines. The public deserves to know what they're taking. If it's a vaccine or anything else, the public deserves to know what's in it. Molecular biology tools can do this for you. But we can quantify down to the molecule number. We did an experiment to prove it. And it's the exact same frequency that I predicted about a year ago, about one in a thousand to one in ten thousand cells have taken up different pieces of this vaccine and it's a permanent fixture of their genomes now. This proves that it happens with this contaminating DNA, which is why I was so weirded out about this stuff when I first discovered it.