reSee.it - 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.

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.

They tested many vials and found DNA in all of them, with “a lot of DNA” in all the vials and above alleged EMA limits. The claim is that these limits rely on “naked DNA” assessments rather than assessments for slip and nanoparticle encapsulated DNA. One DNA fragment identified is the “SV40 promoter enhancer,” described as a strong mammalian promoter. The speaker says that the presence of SV40 promoter enhancer, along with other DNA fragments, can induce problems that “basically all lead to cancer.” The speaker explains they considered gene mutations and looked for reports of specific gene mutations related to the situation. They say they expected to find nothing but did not find nothing. They also state they are not asserting a causal link, but are seeking evidence to generate hypotheses. They describe how SV40 in particular can cause genomic instability, insertions can occur, and gene defects could be anticipated when inserting cells with billions of fragments of foreign DNA. They also mention potential for epigenetic modifications, referring to methylation patterns discussed by Kevin in a preprint. The speaker’s bottom line is that there are questions “everybody kind of needs to answer,” and they direct viewers to read their Substack for those questions.

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.

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

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.

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 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 s v 40 sequences, they should not be there. They could have chosen another plasmid that did not have the s v 40 sequences. If these sequences sit above an oncogene and they're promiscuous, that means they are likely to integrate in places more likely than other genetic inserts. Insertional mutagenesis anyway causes cancer, and that's the risk. That's why gene therapies were not brought to market for so many years because there was a risk of causing cancer from insertional mutagenesis. We never needed these vaccines. Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, I can tell you as a toxicologist, they are not toxic. They're some of the safest drugs you can use. Endotoxin levels: they've got them all redacted. Why would you redact them if you were trying to be transparent? Why would you hold the data for seventy five years?

The speaker discusses the finding of plasmids in Pfizer vaccines, referencing a widely read paper that initiated inquiry into the consequences of this residual contaminant. David Speaker replicated this work in Canada, finding it in every one of over 30 vials. Philip Buchholz replicated this in South Carolina, and Dr. Sid Lee replicated the work using different primers and Sanger sequencing. Bridget Koning has replicated this in Germany, and several federal agencies have admitted the presence of DNA, though disagreeing on clinical implications. Ulrich Kammerer's lab replicated the work, transfecting plasmids from the vaccines into cell lines, where they persisted for several cycles of cell division. High schoolers interning at the FDA White Oak facility also measured it and found it to be significantly over the limit. Numerous studies have replicated these findings, with most finding levels over the limit. One individual with ties to Moderna claims it is not over the limit. Kaiser et al. claimed to have found it slightly over the limit but deemed it inconsequential; however, their DNA isolation method has been refuted by Kommer and Konig.

Speaker 0: They argue that because the vaccine is classified as such, they don’t have to worry about being sued. They claim immunity from liability is dependent on there being no fraud, and there clearly was fraud. Speaker 1: They say there is fraud. They note that immunity from liability depends on fraud, and in light of that, it matters. They explain that there was fraud. Speaker 0: Expresses surprise and asks for caveats about fraud. Acknowledges there were caveats. Speaker 1: Confirms there is fraud and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0: Asks how fraud is defined, noting that drugs were sold with multiple studies and only one was good. Speaker 1: Responds with a point about safety testing for the mRNA vaccines. States that the insufficient safety testing was done before release, and that the product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids. There is massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter from simian virus 40. The point is that safety testing for one drug was completed, but people were injected with something different that had other components that were not tested, which is described as fraudulent. Speaker 0: Requests an explanation of the SV40 issue for the audience. Speaker 1: Describes production techniques used to generate the product. Explains that a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, was used to produce the product in vats, with bacteria performing the production, later coated in lipid nanoparticle. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for DNA contamination, with limits that cannot be exceeded. In this case, the problem isn’t only poor quality control but that there was a more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. Consequently, leftover material in vials injected into people contained DNA contamination across the board. Kevin McKernan tested vials, finding DNA contamination in the samples. Speaker 1: Explains that the DNA left over includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is known to be carcinogenic. Since this promoter is left in the vials from injections given to people, it challenges the claim that the mRNA shots could not integrate into the genome. While acknowledging that there are cellular processes such as reverse transcription, the speaker asserts that even the claim of “no DNA” is false because there is DNA in the vials, specifically DNA with the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. The speaker concludes that this appears to be fraud: injecting a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was conducted with a product produced by a different process. Speaker 0: Reiterates the conclusion: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.

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

"Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA. It's not just mRNA." "This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the mRNA." "I sequenced it in my own lab." "The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Colombia, one of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy." "And for reasons that I still don't understand, he kept every single vial." "So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials." "And I checked these two batches, and I checked them by sequencing." "It's surprising that there's any DNA in there." "This DNA, in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest."

We were surprised by the findings from a patient vaccinated four times with Pfizer. A year post-vaccination, tumors developed, and the patient died within a month. Biopsies revealed SV40 in the vaccine's origin of replication. Preliminary sequencing confirmed the presence of the Pfizer vaccine's DNA, including sequences from Spike protein. Unexpectedly, the DNA copy number in the tumors exceeded that of the human genome, indicating a significant insertional mutagenesis event. Instead of the anticipated lower mutation rates, our PCR results showed signals as strong as the original vaccine vial, suggesting the DNA is replicating within the patient. This indicates that the mammalian origin of replication in Pfizer's vaccine is active in human tumors.

A colon biopsy from a Pfizer-vaccinated individual who died a month after tumor emergence revealed SV40 in the origin of replication from the Pfizer vaccine. Preliminary sequencing suggests the presence of Pfizer's vaccine. The vaccine DNA copy number was greater than the human genome, indicating replication. PCR signals suggest the vaccine concentration is similar to or higher than the original vial, despite dilution in the body. This indicates the mammalian origin of replication in Pfizer's vaccine is active in human tumors. This finding may explain shedding, which is not supposed to occur because the COVID vaccine is not intended to alter DNA. However, evidence suggests that the vaccine may be altering DNA, making it a VGBT (genome altering) product. This could mean that spike proteins are continually created, and shedding is real.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The speaker reports that they tested many vials and found DNA in all of them, with “a lot of DNA” in all vials and levels over the alleged EMA limits. They state these EMA limits are “too high” because they rely on “naked” DNA assessments rather than slip and nanoparticle encapsulated DNA assessment. They say the reason for highlighting these findings is the identification of a DNA fragment called the SV40 promoter enhancer, described as a strong mammalian promoter. They add that the presence of SV40 and the other DNA fragments can induce problems “that basically all lead to cancer,” and they summarize this as a connection between foreign DNA fragments and cancer-related outcomes. The speaker then shifts to gene mutations and describes investigating whether there are reports of specific gene mutations in the relevant context. They say they did not find the expected evidence—“I didn’t find nothing”—and clarify that they are not claiming a causal link. They describe their goal as generating hypotheses based on evidence. They state that the presence of SV40 in particular can cause genomic instability, including insertions and gene defects. They connect this to the idea of inserting cells containing billions of fragments of foreign DNA, which they say raises the potential for epigenetic modifications. They mention that Kevin discussed epigenetic methylation patterns in a preprint and that those methylation patterns are described there. They conclude that there are “questions that everybody kind of needs to answer,” which they say they asked in a Substack and invite readers to read it, referring to the Substack as containing the questions they want addressed.

The SV40 sequence in the vaccine was undeclared and raises cancer concerns because any DNA sequence that instructs cells to replicate carries a hypothetical risk of causing unregulated cell growth, which is cancer. It is claimed that cancers appearing post-vaccination should be sequenced and studied to determine if the SV40 sequence is causing them. This sequencing and study has not yet occurred, and is a critical step in understanding the potential link between the vaccine and cancer.