You schedule for 16 minutes next is going on French British Italian Japanese television
People everywhere are starting to listen to him. It's embarrassing
And everybody knows when dry ice mixes with water it makes a real spooky fog show them Scooby
Scooby Lou
Good evening ladies and gentlemen this is legal and biological I resisted slow noise information brief brought to you by a biologist it is the 25th of October 2023. Thank you for joining me
As usual tonight we are trying to break this limited spectrum of debate and this brilliant discussion within it
And we're trying to turn it around a little bit I hope we're starting to become successful to a certain extent on that regard
And I hope I'm starting to arm you with some of the basic arguments that you can take to your Thanksgiving dinner table
It's it's going to be a long slog though we're not going to win this year or we're not going to win next year
This may be the battle of our lifetime
Because it is not a matter of what's true that counts but is what a matter is perceived to be true
And I'm afraid that there has been a very concerted effort over many years to make sure that what is perceived to be true is indeed not the case
It's not true at all
And so that's where this you know don't take the bait on social media comes from
They are they are controlling us by our urges and leading us by our noses
And we have been fooled into solving this mystery about a gain of function virus that escaped or was released from somewhere in Wuhan, China
And who's responsible for covering it up who funded it who lied about it
And this is all one great big hoax
But by accepting the challenge of solving it we have accepted its premises
codified in the many books that have been released and will continue to be released
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb
And transfection is not immunization
There is an illusion of consensus that has been created by people on the TV and behind the scenes people that purport to be
dissidents and purport to be mainstream
And I think the best way to describe what is being done to us at the moment
Is to describe it as a sort of faith, a faith that is being protected by all these people
It is a faith in a novel virus
It is a faith in that millions have died
And millions have been saved or could have been saved depending on which narrative you choose
They could be saved by different things
Gain of function is a real thing and a virus will come again
And that's basically although these people have this wonderful diverse opinion
And all these diverse opinions about what the most important thing to consider is
None of them will challenge the tenets of this faith, none of them
And when they are challenged to address any of the parts of the faith they walk around it
All of them
Because again it is not a matter of what it is true that counts
But a matter of what is perceived to be true and their spectacular commitment to lies makes it very hard to see through
Because it creates an illusion of consensus, a bunch of people
A bunch of people that all agree about this one thing right here
And if they all agree about this story and they all agree about this faith
Then even though they seem to argue with one another, the show goes on
And we are now about to move into a new phase of the show
Where another aspect of the bifurcation is going to be brought together
So first they split us up on pre-existing fault lines of political socio-economic division
Based on this lab leak or natural virus narrative
And now they are going to slowly bring us together
With regard to the conclusion that some of the things that people said about the shots might have been correct
I want to call your attention to the last couple of days of shows
Because there were some pretty good home run shows with regard to Zuckerberg and Chan
And the Huberman Show
Talking about really how, sorry, how we are at this stage in our timeline
When gathering the data now seems to be the imperative
And so you can hear it all around the world, you can hear it from all these people all the time
It is to get the data
And so that's what Zuckerberg and Chan were talking about
And what Huberman was seemed to be almost submitting to their superiority
In terms of their vision and foresight into what shall come in the transgenic and trans-human future
It was pretty disturbing but it's definitely worth watching
And the reason why it's worth watching is because remember that Huberman is now part of this
hierarchy of social media icons that includes Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman
And Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein and Sam Cedar and Tim Poole
And the list is endless basically
And I have the feeling that eventually this guy Kevin McCurnan is going to go into that ecosystem
And circulate this same claim
Maybe he'll go on Joe Rogan next
But a couple days ago he was on a CHD program with my colleague Brian Hooker and Mary Holland, the President
And so I thought it would be useful to listen to this just to see what he presents
And how he presents it
And then I have a couple alternative videos that I wanted to watch
Afterward from somebody else that you're kind of familiar with
We might only watch one depending on how it ends up panning out
So let's go into this first
You can hear that my voice still needs quite a bit of rest
There's still some what I would call loose material on my vocal cords or in my voice box
That occasionally get in the way of breathing
They also occasionally make my voice less projecting
So I am working on getting a doctor's appointment
Don't need to type or send a lot of emails or anything like that
I'm definitely going to take care of my voice as soon as I can
Because I think in the long term it might be good to have these vocal cords intact
So let's get out of here and let's play this one
I hope it's not too loud
We're going to go a little forward here
Oh, we're going to go a little forward here
Powerful speakers like Bearish Arab
Good morning children's health defense today is Tuesday October 24th
And we have a very exciting guest with us today
Kevin McCurnan, scientist who's going to be talking with us about the DNA contamination
That's been discovered in COVID-19 vaccines
Pfizer's but also others will be joined by our chief science officer Brian Hooker
And we will be talking with Kevin
Part of the context for this show is an article that defender published on Friday last week
Regarding the fact that Health Canada, the main health agency in that country
Has acknowledged the DNA contamination in Pfizer's COVID-19 shots
This is the first time that a government has acknowledged this research
This is very important because it suggests that now governments are on notice that they have to do something about this
What Canada has said so far is they've looked at this and believed that the benefits still outweigh the risk
But without any comprehension of the risks that seems rather specious
It's our privilege to have Kevin here with us to talk specifically about his research
Really one of the most dramatic elements of this is that inside this DNA plasmid contamination
Our sequences from Simeon virus 40
SB 40 was brought into the human population through the oral polio vaccine back in the 1950s
Ironically today is world polio day
And not in any way to diminish the significance of polio as a worldwide disease 50s
Ironically today is
World polio day
And not in any way to diminish the significance of polio as a worldwide disease
But the Simeon virus 40 now has robust science behind it
Since the 1970s
Proving that there's a very strong association between Simeon virus 40 and many forms of cancer and other diseases
So with that, I'm very happy to go over to our conversation with Kevin McCurnan and Dr. Brian Hooker
Welcome Dr. Kevin McCurnan and Dr. Brian Hooker
I'm really thrilled to have both of you here with us
So Brian, you're of course our science director here at Children's Health Defense
On Kevin, you have an incredibly impressive background in science
Would you just give us the quick highlights so that our viewers know how extensive your scientific credentials are?
Certainly, well, I guess I'll shoot myself in the foot and tell you I dropped up a PhD program
So I never got my doctorate
But I have been working in the genomics field for 25 years now
I started on the Human Genome Project down at with Eric Lander down at the White Institute at MIT
Was managing the research and development team there through the scale up of the Human Genome Project
And then after that spun a bunch of companies at least Adjunct Court is one company we spun out of MIT
That built magnetic DNA purification tools which are made to play role in the story
And we also built some PCR tests there and had a genome center
That company got acquired by Beckman Coulter
And then we spun another company out called Adjunct Court Personal Genomics
That built the solid sequencer and that one got acquired by Applied Biosystems
And I worked with Applied Biosystems for five years
Building various DNA sequencers including some semiconductor systems
So I'd have done some clinical sequencing
We did a, they had a clean lab for a while that was doing sequencing of epilepsy and mitochondrial disease kids
And that's kind of where I first ran into a lot of parents telling me about vaccine injuries
And then we went into the cannabis arena where we were sequencing cannabis genomes
Because many of the epileptic parents were looking for safe and effective cannabidiol
Which was helping with seizures
So we got interested in that field and somehow I ended up here sequencing a vaccine by mistake
And found something that people seemed to be interested in
So it's a long winding road to where I am now
So tell us about this study that you did
Where I think you were using these vials of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as controls
Is that right? And you've stumbled on an incredible important finding
Yeah, so we were doing, we're trying to sort out the pathology of a viroid
That's devastating the cannabis field
So we were doing RNA sequencing and the pipeline broke
So if I wrote is a naked piece of RNA that is infectious in itself, it doesn't have any protein code around it
So you can synthesize these and actually put them into plants and they create some RNA interference
And there's some pathology that results from this
So they don't affect mammals but they infect plants and they can be devastating
And it's probably knocking down the yields in plants like 40% in this industry
So everyone's trying to understand this 256 letter piece of sequence
That's a pathology in plants at least in the cannabis plant right now
So when we were sequencing the RNA of the cannabis genome to see what was happening when it got infected
We started getting all this sequencing data back that didn't look like it was concentrated on genes
And that's a sign that your RNA purification system might be broken
So the way to solve that and figure that out is to spike in a pharmaceutical grade RNA
To see if you find out where it's broken
And I figured, well, these are probably pharmaceutical grade
If they're injected into people, I'll use one of those
It has a poly-A tag on it that should stick to our magnetic beads
And it should tell us if we have an RNA problem or something else is wrong
But I didn't expect to get out of the experiment was the contaminant that I then was pregnant with
To tell the world about that, okay, it worked as a control
It taught us that we had a DNA problem in our RNA sequencing pipeline
But now I see there's a plasmid in here that I can't hide from
And I've got to put it public as quickly as I can, as responsibly as I can
And so we chose to do that by releasing all of these really rapid sub-stack articles
Because you just couldn't see this getting through the peer review process in a timely manner given the political nature of it right now
I'm ignorant, I'm not a scientist
Walk us back a little bit, explain to our viewers what is a plasmid
What did you find here, what does that mean for us?
So when the clinical trials, I want to be clear, this is mostly pertaining to Pfizer
We sequence Pfizer and Moderna, but there's different background to them
So Pfizer's trial started by generating, you need to make this RNA
In order to make this RNA, you need to feed a DNA template to read the RNA from
So it's called an in vitro transcription reaction
You present an RNA polymerase with a piece of DNA and it starts making RNA off of it
It's kind of like, you know, it's the ink for your Xerox machine, if you will
So they started the clinical trial with DNA that was amplified with PCR
Which is really clean DNA, because when you amplify it, it raises the amount of DNA from background, a million full
So there's no residual background, you get a really clean piece of DNA that you can make your RNA from
That was what the trial was run out, it's called process one
Resif Levy and Josh Goodscow have a good paper on this and the BMJ
Then after the trial was done, they did a debate and switch and they changed the manufacturing process for scale-up
By taking that piece of DNA that they use that they PCR'd and uses a template in process one
They plugged it into a bacterial clasmid with such a circular piece of DNA
That allows something that allows a bug like E. coli to replicate it every 30 minutes
That means they can have an infinite supply of their DNA
They just have to keep growing the E. coli day-to-day and they don't ever have to use PCR again
So it's a real massive cost reduction for them
But it comes with some additional risk is that you now have this DNA being replicated in the E. coli
And it's not good to inject people with E. coli, so you have to get the DNA out of E. coli
And the process of getting that DNA out of E. coli comes with inherent contaminants that weren't in the original trial
The plasmid DNA is one of them, which is a large 7,800 base pair piece of DNA
And there's also the potential for endotoxin to come through from the E. coli
So there's a material difference between the trial and what people actually got
And that's an important part of the story that everyone needs to know
Now what we're trying to do is figure out what is the consequence of this plasmid DNA being in there
They knew it was there, they tried to get rid of it by chewing it up with an enzyme
But they didn't get rid of it completely, they got it halfway chewed up
Why didn't they get rid of it completely?
I mean, they use an enzyme called DNase and DNase breaks down DNA
Why wouldn't that completely eliminate it? Two questions, why wouldn't that completely eliminate it?
And why didn't FDA approve both processes?
They're both a process for the proof of principle as well as the process for production
Or were they involved in the second part?
So I'll answer the second part first, which is that there was some discussion in the EMA
I don't know what's happened at the FDA because we have less authority there
There's some information at the EMA that I'm superimposing on the FDA in Health Canada
Because I think similar things may occur there
But at the EMA, they had an equivalency study that they were supposed to do
Measuring 252 patients done with process 1 and process 2
And as best we can tell that data was never matured and was never required for release
They asked of it, but when Pfizer couldn't produce it, they kind of looked the other way
So Josh has a good write up on that on Twitter
And I'll point you to his work and Retsus Levy's work on this
But your first question, which is why isn't the DNase killing this?
It comes down to I think two reasons
One, the way that they're measuring what's there has some blind spots
And the second thing is they probably didn't anticipate that the modifications they made to the RNA
Inhibit the DNase from doing its job
So when they do this in vitro transcription reaction
And they make this RNA, they put in a different nucleotide
Notice N1 nucleosuduyridine
So this altered nucleotide is actually what really got the attention of the Nobel Prize
They put in a different nucleotide so that the RNA was less labile to an RNA's L that's in the human genome
So the human body makes RNases that destroy RNA
You know, the way RNA behaves is like your DNA, your DNA is like your hard drive
Your RNA is like the task manager of all the programs that are opening and closing off that hard drive
So the cell needs to have a system to not only turn a gene on, but to turn it off
If it can't turn it off, then you have a problem
So the way a lot of these get turned off is there are RNases that make sure that when a gene is expressed
It's only expressed for a certain period of time that gets decayed
But they put in this other base that stops that process from happening
So that the RNA doesn't degrade, it's red or yes
They put in something that turned off the off switch, is that correct?
Yes, the RNA is harder to degrade
And they wanted that so they ensured they got production of spike protein long enough to matter
And there's a big debate as to whether it's too long right now
Because we're finding this RNA stick around for way too long
They thought it was only 48 hours, people can sequence out of plasma 28 days later, it's in breast milk now
It's really a big train wreck in my opinion, they didn't need that
But because of that base, that base also is published to radically change the melting temperature of DNA
That means that it's much stickier, it's much harder to peel apart from DNA
I think Colin Parr has a paper on this showing, if you just put four of these nucleotides into 25
It raises the temperature 9C, the melting temperature, that's an enormous melting temperature
For four bases of these things, yeah
So that means that this RNA is extraordinarily sticky
And that means it's very likely that it's making RNA DNA hybrid
That when the RNA polymerase is copying the RNA off the DNA
What you end up with is a triple helix, you end up with RNA kind of tangled up with DNA
And a nucleus doesn't know how to get rid of the DNA in that context
And this is really evident actually in Moderna's process
Moderna, if you look at our paper, there's a hundredfold more spike DNA contamination than the plasma DNA
The backbone that doesn't have any RNA similarity
So that's a real clear set sign that the nucleus can destroy the DNA that doesn't have any complementary to RNA
But it can't destroy the DNA that has complementary to the RNA that they're making
So there's something I'd try to get rid of the DNA in that context
And this is really evident actually in Moderna's process
Moderna, if you look at our paper, there's a hundredfold more spike DNA contamination than the plasma DNA
The backbone that doesn't have any RNA similarity
So that's a real clear set sign that the nucleus can destroy the DNA that doesn't have any complementary
to RNA, but it can't destroy the DNA that has complementary to the RNA that they're making
So there's something I think they didn't see and anticipate because they changed this base
They didn't realize the enzymes they typically used to get rid of this contaminant are no longer functional
And so they now have to probably engineer different enzymes for this
And DNase XT is a good idea, maybe T5, there's a host of these nucleases that might do a better job at this
But I think with the Warp Speed program they didn't have time to really investigate this
So that's one reason why the DNA is still there, there's a second reason
The tools that you use to measure this differ based on the size of the DNA that's around
So if you use something like barometry, this is a tool that uses a dye that is an intercalating dye that binds to like the minor groove of DNA
These tools will measure DNA as small as like 5 to 10 bases
It just has to be complementary at room temperature, that can be a 10 base pair piece of DNA
You can get some cybergreen signal from it, a ribo green signal from
QPCR needs at least 100 bases to amplify
So all the DNA that's smaller than 100 bases, it can't see
So they're using QPCR to monitor the DNA, they're using forometry to measure the RNA
They're kind of playing some games there because they want to get really high RNA numbers and really low DNA numbers
The EMA regulations aren't really a fixed amount of DNA, they're a ratio of how much RNA you have to how much DNA
They're using two different processes to measure the DNA and the RNA
But if I understand you correctly, they could be using one process for both or they could use both processes for both
Absolutely, in fact
That's absolutely right and I think anyone who's familiar with these bench tools knows the fact that they're deviating this is a game
Because they had to make PCR primers to measure the spike DNA
And all they have to do is change the polymerase to measure the RNA
And they didn't do that, they opted to go get a whole other assay with a different instrument, with a different
Forometry based readout to measure the RNA, they bent over backwards to measure the RNA differently
They already had all the primers and tools, they needed to measure it with the PCR assay, they're using to measure the DNA
You just swap the polymerase out and you get the answer the same day
You did suggest gamesmanship, is that correct?
And tend to deceive
And tend to deceive, okay, got it
And this data that you uncovered has been replicated around the world, is that right?
Yes, many labs have now, so we put the primers public on our sub stack and in preprints
And now people can just order those from IDT and make their own primers
We have shipped Oslo primer lots that we have here when people didn't want to wait for IDT to remake these
It can take IDT maybe a couple weeks sometimes to make these, so when people urgently want them, we'll ship them vials of our primers
So Phillip Bockholz has confirmed this work by using our primers down in South Carolina
He also went on to do Oxford Nanopore sequencing to confirm our work
Just not to trust what we told him was working, he was doing what our primers were doing, he said alright
Your primers clearly give me signal on my vaccine lots
I'm now going to sequence them and make sure I can find the sequences of your primers inside my vials
And he went and did that and confirmed that the DNA that he actually has in his vials matches the primer sequences we gave him
Dr. Sin Lee did this at Milford molecular was saying our sequencing
And he was doing what we were doing, we were doing what we were doing, we were doing what we were doing
We were doing what we were doing, we were doing what we were doing, we were doing what we were doing
Your primers clearly give me signal on my vaccine lots
I'm now going to sequence them and make sure I can find the sequences of your primers inside my vials
And he went and did that and confirmed that the DNA that he actually has in his vials matches the primer sequences we gave him
I find that a very strange statement because why would you look for the primer sequences in the vial?
If you're using nanopore, why wouldn't you just get all the sequences out of the vial?
If you're using nanopore, I don't even know why you need to look what
I don't know, the primers are supposed to be a very tiny probe for a longer sequence
So I don't know how confirming that the primers are in the vial is any different than just confirming that there's DNA in the vial using nanopore without using his primers
Or does he just mean that like as an extra control the actual primer sequence is actually in the bottle along with all the extended sequence that comes along with it, I assume?
It seems like a weird statement, but you know, I'm not a molecular biologist. Maybe it makes more sense to somebody like Kevin
Dr. Lynn, Dr. Sin Lee did this at Milford Molecular with Sanger sequencing
He amplified, he made his own primers and he amplified, he emplied some large fragments to like 366 base pair of fragments to show that there's bigger fragments in there
And Sanger sequenced those to prove that it's in fact in the vials
And now the most recent study, I heard of one in Germany, I don't have a date of one in Germany, but Bridget Koenig claims to have found it in four vials out there as well
And so what I'm interested in is the argument that I see forming here is PCR can find in theory a single molecule of DNA
And so PCR may be able to find a very tiny amount of DNA which is lower than the agreement said
And if we are essentially just saying, yeah, there's DNA in the vial and Pfizer can say, well, yeah, I guess there is some DNA in the vial but it's not too much
Or they can say, well, yeah, but there's DNA in that stuff too and there's DNA in that stuff too
So what difference does it make if there's a little DNA in this stuff? I mean, I understand the argument here that this shouldn't be there but
We are being tempted to jump on this as if it's the magic answer to why everything went wrong and how we can now stick the knife in
And we're putting all of our eggs in the basket of Kevin McCurnan that he's right that his measurements of vials are right
And that nobody's gonna debunk this in a couple weeks by saying that, well, his primers weren't very specific or his PCR reaction doesn't isn't up to snuff because of this reason or because of that reason
We have to be very, very careful here because there's a million reasons not to think that regular old transfection
Regular old transfection was not a good idea now what
This is a compounding problem
And it's not being explained as a compounding problem although I did catch him a couple pages ago saying that the RNA stays around as a result of the
N1 methyl pseudo uridine whenever the chemical alteration is and that he said that's a big train wreck
Now I want you to think very carefully about this because
It should really be a sum total story about what's wrong with transfection in healthy humans but even the
Problem of the chemical alteration of the RNA which he came on my stream twice to talk about has almost completely been left out of this narrative
Except characterized as a pretty big train wreck and we'll move on
And there's a reason for that because this is a play
And we have to be very careful about what the play is and who the bad guys are or who the people who know what the you know
It could be that Kevin is just trying to do his best
You know he was just trying just needed a
Apolly a RNA
Control to troubleshoot his problem
And lucky for him somebody sent him a couple vials of
Vaccine without ice buckets
And he decided to use it as an RNA control which meant that it was going to get sequenced
And as a result he found the plasmid
And so he feels obligated to tell everybody I mean unfortunately you know he didn't mean to do it
He's not an anti-vaxxer he just happened to find the DNA there
So he feels the obligation to report it he did it pre-print because you know I mean how long is it going to take to go through peer review?
But the RNA was chemically altered and codon optimized and that's a complete train wreck by the way
I heard it
There's a group in Japan Hiroshi, Arkawa I think maybe from Lincoln's name
But they've been doing some work on this as well they've reassembled our data and been looking at some PCR protocols
But the most recent one is out of David Speakers work out in Ontario where he's got the largest study to date
He went through 27 vials and he even did some XBB 1.5s and those still have the DNA in them
Now there's two different methods that we used in the paper with David just to try to emulate what Pfizer's doing
As we measured it with QPCR in which case the DNA is under the limit on everything he looked at
A couple of them are getting really close to the line
That limit is somewhat arbitrary and we'll touch on that
Then he also measured it with fluorometry to show that they're like a hundred foot over the line if you pick a different tool
To really emphasize that this game of cherry picking different methods is a racket
And that you can get vastly different numbers if you measure this thing with different tools
But I think the interesting part of David's study is they took the vaccine lots sorted them based on DNA quantity
And then Jessica Rose dug in to VAERS and showed that there are higher adverse events reported in VAERS
The lots that have higher amounts of DNA
It's a small data set, there's a lot of confounders there
It's really just a hypothesis, we have to study more lots to make sure that there aren't other confounders that are skewing that association
But it does seem to line up with Philips data
He has numbers that are over the limit and have high adverse events
We had numbers over the limit that have high adverse events
And there's another lot that was recorded in some EMA documentation
FL 0007 that has really high adverse events and has really high DNA as well
So there's a couple other pieces of data that aren't in our paper because they were done at other laboratories
That reconfirm at least with Pfizer more DNA is trending with more adverse events
We're not seeing that with Moderna, which is interesting
The correlation seems to go the other direction there and they are doing a better job getting rid of it
They're probably at a log scale lower amounts of DNA
So they may be below the amount that matters and something else is driving their adverse events
We've found and confirmed in several different labs including Phil Buckholt's labs and Sinley's labs
You've confirmed the presence of double-stranded DNA
And sizable quantities, I mean we're talking about nanogram per milligram quantities
Or hundreds of nanogram per milligram quantities of DNA
First of all, what are the implications of just having double-stranded DNA in those vials
And medically and then second of all, what is in that DNA?
I mean, what is hiding in that DNA?
You know, what elements do we need to be concerned about?
Well, hiding is a good point because I do think there's been some intent to deceive here as well
So, particularly on Pfizer's behalf, if you were to take the DNA sequence
Which apparently they did give the sequence to regulators
But they only annotated certain pieces of it and not others
And that's very bizarre because if you take their sequence and plug it into a standard software tool like snap gene
It will annotate everything
So someone had to actually go and delete these annotations and then can something to the regulators
And the piece that they deleted, I think, is the most controversial piece
It's this SV40 promoter that is known to have a nuclear targeting sequence in this
This is a tandem repeat of 72 bases, about 144 bases in size
That binds transcription factors and drives any DNA attached to it into the nucleus
This is in the answer of the SV40 promoter
SV40 was used in the SV40 Ori, the promoter, and but they never reported the enhancer's presence, is that correct?
They didn't report any of the SV40 components
In fact, I can pull up what they did report here
What you see on the right is what they presented to the EMA
I suspect this is what went to Health Canada as well
And there's somewhat shocked by this from the most recent email I saw from them
But you'll notice it annotates the spike protein, the Ori, the kenamycin gene
It has this five base pair cut site down here that linearizes the plasma
A couple other small pieces
If you take their sequence and just shove it into something known as snap gene
It annotates all the stuff automatically over here
It's SV40 just pops out
I didn't find SV40, snap gene found it
I'm going to pull this back
So on the right, the Ori and the Kan are, and the S protein explained to us
What is that showing us on the right?
And then what did they have to take out to get to what you showed us through snap chain on the left?
Okay, so the bacterial origin of replication is here in blue
So when you put this in a coli, it will double with the coli
It probably runs the copy number to 50 to 100 copies in the cell
And then the cells double over 30 minutes
So it's a great Xerox machine for DNA
But to make that happen in a coli, you have to put a kenamycin resistance gene in there
So that only the coli cells that have the plasma survive
That way you knock out all the background
So this is the kenamycin gene
Now this kenamycin gene won't work on its own
It needs a promoter that they've materially omitted here
Oh, interesting
That's missing
The graph on the right seems very strange
Because that kenamycin wouldn't work without a promoter
Correct
The other thing about the SV40 promoter is it is active in mammalian cells
And you really don't want mammalian promoters in any injectable
They don't need this because they have
If you look very carefully here
There's also an AMP-R promoter that's kind of obscured over here in the left
That's what Moderna uses the drive to kenamycin gene
Pfizer has it too, they just happen to also have this mammalian promoter
That is superfluous and shouldn't be there
And they know it because they deleted it from the annotation
That's an intent to deceive, they actually
I believe so
Because any annotation tool that annotated this plasma
That got down to T7 promoters
It found the bacterial origin
It found, I think this F1 origin down here
It would have found the SV40 origin
So this was deleted, this was deleted
Let's just do a little background gentlemen on SV40
Maybe Brian, can you give us a little bit of background in the
Vaccine context of what SV40 really is
And Kevin, correct me if I'm wrong
But the SV40, Simeon Virus 40, was an artifact of the polio vaccine
The oral, the live polio vaccine
In the 1950s and 1960s
And it is oncogenic SV40 itself
As the virus is associated with certain tumors, certain forms of cancer
Certain aggressive forms of cancer
And that it was a contaminant in the oral polio vaccine
The live virus polio vaccine for many, many years
And so having these elements, including the SV40 promoter
Would in itself, I believe, would be oncogenic
And then that SV40 element, that 72 base pair element
Has been shown to tie with other oncogenes in vivo
And act as an enhancer, enhances its ability to form cancers
So I'm very new to SV40
I've been learning this just in this last year
So what's going on in the field
Now we don't have the whole SV40 virus, which is 5.2 kilobases
We have about 420 bases or so of it
Which consists of four pieces
We have the SV40 origin, the promoter, the enhancer and the polyase signal
That are in there
In SV40, I think, instructs it to put a polyase signal on a messenger RNA
For some reason, that's sitting in this vector as well
I haven't studied as much in what the polyase signal
Why they need the polyase signal in this vector, that seems to be
I think that's needed, if they want to express these plasmids of a million cells
It's good to have something that puts a polyase signal on it
And so they put that on the F1 origin for other reasons
So that being said, a lot of pushback is, hey, this doesn't have the T antigen
The tumor antigen is what is deemed to be the carcinogen in SV40
And so you guys are conflating SV40 with the virus
You're spreading fear porn and all that
I think an important thing to know is that a large portion of the population
Is SV40 positive from the polio vaccine?
So they presumably can make T antigen
And why is that important?
Well, T antigen is what actually initiates the DNA replication on the SV40 promoter that's in the vaccine
So if a certain part of the population makes T antigen
And you inject them with a lot of these promoters
They're going to have the machinery to turn that promoter on
Wherever it lands
So there's
I want other words
Right, in other words, if you've been vaccinated with the oral polio or the live virus polio vaccine
Then you could have the T antigen already in you
Right, and that's something that I can't really
I think right now we have data here that shows there's a legal problem here
More so than we have evidence of a clinical problem
The clinical problem we still need more data from
We need to find out if this DNA is actually in other people
Post vaccination and people who haven't been vaccinated to see
Is it associated with a lot of this adverse events?
Right now this is just hypothesis generation
We don't we have that. We have a lot of reasons to believe this is a bad idea
They don't need this DNA in there
They didn't tell the regulators about it
And it's inside of an LNP
And it's going to get to the nuclear space and the sequence that's in there
All right, so all of that is a train wreck
If you're putting in 200 billion of these molecules per shot
And you're doing them five times a year
I don't know how many times people are taking them
But if you think of your to schedule
You should be past your fifth by now, right?
So there's a cumulative dosing problem here
There's a high number of these fragments in there
Even though the nanograms might seem low
The fragmentation of them makes them like buckshot
And makes them much more potent as integration tools
Because you have more active ends of DNA
It's the ends of the DNA that have phosphates and hydroxyls
That make them sticky
Those are kind of like the Lego pieces of DNA, if you will
So you'll see an FDA documentation on guidance documents
So look at DNA that they base these nanogram limits
Based on genomic DNA
Ten nanograms of genomic DNA might be like twelve hundred copies of DNA
But we're dealing with really small pieces
Which means we have hundreds of billions of pieces
And they even allude to the fact that if you were dealing with not
The million cell contamination
Which would be three giga-based genomes
But you're dealing with viruses
Well then the copy number is so damn high
That you might need ventigram or adigram limits
On the amount of DNA that could be around
There's other guidance documents that also speak to the fact that
The two hundred base paired limit is
Maybe not really pertinent if you're dealing with promoters
Maybe it should be down at seven bases
Because seven bases could integrate and cause problems
Even in like in a VDJ circumstance with certain parts of the genome
So there are guidance documents
And they put out guidance documents before LNPs were around saying
We think there's going to be a million cell DNA
We can tolerate this much of it
Based on this copy number
Based on us not knowing much about it
But the moment you start getting into high copy number contaminants
That have bioactive elements to them
In their inside LNPs
The whole game changes
And it's really astounding
You know when you when you look at these numbers
It's really astounding
When you look at these genomic insertion events
And I've done genetic engineering before
Primarily in genetically modified plants and bacteria
It's like you're going to Vegas
You're looking for the one in the million event
But there are enough
Aaron strands of DNA around there
For that to actually happen, is that correct?
Yeah, I mean Philip Buckholt put up an interesting paper
And his Twitter recently about the rate
When you do the million transfection like this
The rate of integrative cells that's stabilized
It was down below seven percent
But seven percent is a huge number
When you're dealing with billions of LNPs
Right, right, so this is
LNP is lipid nanoparticle, is that right Kevin?
That's right, yeah, so these are
packaged in these LNPs, we know that
That was part of our most recent paper
If you use a nucleation on the vaccine
It won't get rid of the DNA that's there
Because it's protected, it's inside this
lipid nanoparticle
So the guidance documents the FDA have for DNA contamination
They are just ancient relics
They're outdated, they actually started before the NCBIA
Which is this National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
They were at ten p-grams back then
After that act, they went up a thousand fold
Over the course of ten years
So, we're now at this stage
We've tolerated a thousand times higher
Now we're switching to LNPs
That bring these things directly into cells
With nuclear targeting sequences
We were told that this would not target the nucleus
We were told that this would not enter into the nucleus
Is the nuclear targeting sequence
Is that the SV40 enhancer?
That is, it's actually
It's been published as a great gene therapy tool
Because it's so effective at bringing things to the nucleus in hours
David Dean has great work on this
Canada has just admitted that they found it
It's in the vaccine
So, all these arguments about our vials
Are from dumpsters and everything
Pfizer gave sequence to Health Canada
That has it in there
So, there's no more argument of it being in there
So, let's move to the legal issue
That you flagged for us Kevin
So, Health Canada has acknowledged
That this DNA contamination is in the vials
So, we now have a major government
Of the world acknowledging this
And we published Children's Health
Defense on Friday last week
Published a story quoting Health Canada
Is saying, Health Canada expects sponsors
To identify any biologically functional DNA
Sequences within a plasmid
Such as an SV40 enhancer
At the time of submission
But we know that that didn't happen
In our mind, as a scientist
Who's long been involved in this area
Should that be enough to now force
All of the governments around the world
To take these vials off the market
Until they've been investigated
I would think so if they don't do this
What are they there for?
I mean, this is like every time someone breaks a rule
They just change the rule
I mean, what do we need regulators for
If they're not going to stick to these rules
And guidelines they put forward
In the same breath of that e-mail
I think they reiterated the safe and effective
Psalm, like, okay, we need
But that's nonsense, as people say
They say the risk benefit profile
Continues to support the use
But if they don't know, if they didn't know this
And they don't acknowledge this
Then how could they assess the risk benefit
Profile? That seems just nonsensical
It's circular, it's very circular for them
To state that, you don't actually
I mean an important point to that risk
They waive the genotoxicity studies of the trial
Right, right, right, they don't know that
There's risk because the trials were never done
And how can you get away with it?
It seems like when you look at the
Plasmid submission to the FDA
There are unknown sequences
There are big black boxes
There's a big unknown where the SV40 promoter went
Why did they tolerate this in the first place?
You know, I don't know because there's other things in that sequence
There's other points in that sequence that should have
Wrong alarm bells
If you turn on any sort of ore finding tool
So to paint where the open reading frames are
You can identify where the spike is
But the thing that will blow your mind is that there's an
Orp on the reverse strand of the spike
That is 252 amino acids long
Like that should have been a red flag
So that tells me that no one opened this
In a tool, they got the sequence
And probably just said, pay your user fee
And we'll put it in the file and move on
What an Orp finder does is it looks for open reading frames
And so if you turn it on, it will look for
Star coat-ons and stop coat-ons
And it instantly finds the spike protein
If you ask this to look at
On both strands of the DNA, it will find another Orp
That runs the entire direction
On the other strand of the spike protein
For 1,252 amino acids long
I don't have it visualized here because I've picked up the wrong screen here
But I do have it on my sub-stack and people can see this
Now anyone who's regulating this
Would have, should have, put this into a
Tool-like snap gene to say
Show me what's in this plasma
And it annotates all these pieces for you
And it would have shown you that there is a mysterious
Orp of unknown origin that encodes the entire opposite strand
Of the spike protein
Moderna doesn't have it, the virus doesn't have it
It says Kevin, it's unknown, they don't know what it is
I've blasted this thing against NCBI
The only hits I can find in uniprot are to a gene that's
Or protein that's in silk and in collagen
And some other fibroin thing
I don't know
I guess I'm a little confused what he's saying
He's saying that the
On the complementary strand
To the spike protein
There is another open reading frame
And the AI tool
Recognizes that an open reading frame
Because it finds the start codons
My guess is
Is that he is like
Letting this software tool
Tell him that there's a
Origin of replication there
And it's an open reading frame
And then he's just saying, so I look and I try to find it
But I can't find it anywhere
Maybe because it isn't anything
And it just has a start codon or something in the front
That makes that automatic search system
Identify it as an open reading frame
I'm skeptical of that call right there
I'm skeptical of that that doesn't really
Sit right with me for some reason
Just because this AI program or this
This software tool
Locates what it says is an open reading frame within
With an origin of replication doesn't necessarily mean
That that's going to be functional
And in any other context
I mean it's
There's so much I've taken notes and I just want to keep it going
And then I'll go back all the way to the beginning
What this does
But I know that this is an artifact of our codon optimization
That should not be there and is a massive risk
And they should get rid of it
Because it's actually it's a massive
Sedoco puzzle for someone to actually figure this out
Like how do you get a 1,273 amino acid
Open reading frame in strand
And how do you get one on the other
That doesn't have a stop codon anywhere
That's scary
What are the implications of having that
And so the definition then it seems
Of an open reading frame is just a very long sequence
Without a stop codon
Okay, maybe that's extraordinary
Or maybe he's just making us ask the wrong question
Like where did this come from?
Or if you know that or if going into the opposite direction
You know and then and then injecting that into humans
I don't know if it's going to get expressed
That's the thing
Sure, yeah
A waste pair of answer is a bidirectional promoter
So presumably it makes our need both directions
If for some reason it spans this poly A region
In the plasmid it could go and start making RNA
Over that unknown, that mysterious orb
Good, good
I don't know what that's going to do in the cell
It could, there's a COSAC consensus sequence there
It's very difficult to informatically screen
For internal ribosomal entry sites
So I can't tell you that ribosomes
Definitely get to translate this thing
But I can certainly tell you that if I were a regulator
I would tell them to get rid of it
Because it's risk with no gain
Sorry
There's no way they did
If they looked at this, this would have run out to them
It's clear to me, they didn't look
I think they collected their user fee and put the thing in the file
So the regulators were asleep on the job
It sounds like what you're saying
Because they didn't catch SV40
That they could have easily caught through snap chain
And they also didn't tell us about this open reading frame
1220, 237 pair bases, base pairs
Is that right?
The open reading frame is 1273 for the spike
And on the reverse side, there's like a 1252 amino acid
Open reading frame
And I could see someone writing an off
Being like, oh, it's messenger RNA, it's going to be single stranded
The reverse strand won't be there, what it's an RNA form
But they didn't anticipate the DNA is going to come with it
And so now we have both strands there
And the other strand codes for something
So if any of this stuff integrates, it's likely to be an open reading frame
Of a foreign peptide that your immune system's not going to like
The point is, it's a very open reading frame rich plasmid
We've got millions and millions of lipid nanoparticles
That are floating around physiologically
And basically, and the lipid nanoparticles contain
What appears to be transfection soup
How do people not get transfected by this?
I think the numbers are probably in the billions of trillions
From what I've read on the L and P's
A large number, but
And yeah, they probably have the RNA and the DNA in them
From the measurements we've made, they're packaged
And they're the clearest resistant and they're ending up in cells
What a lot of people push back is like, okay, any cell that gets transfected
Is going to die, so who cares if this cargo's in there
It's true because we see the spike protein and the spike sequence
Persisting in least 28 days, people have sequenced
mRNA or DNA, we don't know which one it was
But they've got sequence of the vaccine 28 days later in plasmid
They have found it in breast milk five or seven days later
The protein itself, they have found Patterson
Founded four months later on exosomes, I think
Sorry, that was Bansal, Patterson found it like I think 200 days later in macrophages
So cool thing is persisting, and I don't think every cell that gets transformed
Is 100% killed instantly, there's something going on where people can't clear this
And maybe it's hitting immune-privileged cells
And that's why it sits around forever
So I think it is a risk, if there's DNA floating around
It's going to add to the persistence of this
Because it could integrate and continually express these other foreign peptides
Exactly, and what about, you know, what about the implications?
When I think of DNA disrepair, I think of cancer
And so, you know, I get very, very concerned about that
Just not, you know, not specifically on
Oh, we're making people into, you know,
Genomically stable spike protein production factories
But also just the other bits and pieces of DNA that are getting integrated into the genome
And, you know, what are they doing?
What are they enhancing, and what are they, you know, or what are they silencing?
Well, what made me nervous is when we saw, so Phillips' work, I think, showed a couple billion of the
Of the amplicons from just PCR, so PCR measures 100 base per amplicon
And we have one that actually targets CSV 40 promoter
So there's a billion copies of just that region in every injection
That's kind of, that's carbon bombing a genome with a billion promoters
Where are those lands, and what efficiency is an open debate
But wherever they land, they're going to be active promoters of a million cells
So I think that alone is an issue
Because you're just dropping these things that make RNA into the genome randomly
And if you happen to put one on a protoanco gene, or if, you know, right, right, a host of issues
Now, there's other areas that genes that if you hyper express them, they can drive to sell excess cell growth
They call them protoanco genes, and so it's an act of promoter for that
Turns out it's not good
The other thing that can happen is you can break a gene that slows down cancer, like P53
P53 and Braca are these DNA repair enzymes
And if you happen to put a different part of the plasma inside of those
It could, it could disable those genes
Then you don't have, you don't have this repair mechanism that you need
Now, most people have two copies of all these genes
So many people, you break one of them, maybe you're okay
But there are subsets of people that have Braca mutations and P53 mutations
And they're haploid, so they have like one bad copy and one good copy
You come in with this vaccine, you can knock out the only other good copy
And so this is a whole host of sort of rare genetics that you have
I'm not sure how it inserts specifically to knock out a single enzyme
So precisely among the entire human genome
Wherever this small fragment of DNA is going to integrate
If it's going to disrupt the Braca gene or disrupt the P53 gene
It's going to have to insert exactly there and whatever chromosome it's in
And then unless you have injected a pregnant woman
And it's inserting into a developing fetus, which would be devastating
Is it integrating into the genome of a liver cell that's going to die next week?
Is it integrating into the cells of your kidney wall or you know what what
And what happens if it does
Again, I am trying to be devil's advocate here and try to emphasize
That all these hypothetical scenarios where this DNA could in theory integrate
And disrupt a gene, cause cancer, do whatever
Are very low probability events
Whereas the destruction of tissues which are expressing foreign proteins driven by this chemically modified RNA
Not messenger RNA, but modified RNA
Those consequences are going to be devastating
Those consequences can include clotting and autoimmunity and the list is long
And so if we're going to focus on what this DNA could do
If it integrates and knocks out a cancer gene or the promoter integrates right next to an oncogene
We're talking about what happens if I put all of my chips on 30 black
And the ball hits 30 black, well then you're a millionaire
And if some of this DNA goes into your grandma's
You know already developing cancer and and juices it a little bit boy she could be dead
But that kind of glosses over the fact that well if you transfect your grandma
There's a million reasons why she might die
And it has nothing to do with what the DNA integrates
And it feels very much after he just you know casually went past the idea that the RNA is found everywhere
And the spike protein is found everywhere and it doesn't go away like we thought it was
And that's a train wreck
We're focusing off a lot on this DNA then aren't we
To consider this and perhaps why this may not be something you'd be seeing in all patients
And there's another dimension of like which vaccine lots have more of this versus less of this like the Schmeling paper you look at has
4% of the vaccine lots having a majority of the adverse events
So we have a lot of VED diagrams here of things to consider
There's a lot of people who probably took these and don't have any harm at all
There's maybe a subset of people that take these bad lots that in fact have some genetic reason why they're more susceptible to the harm than others
So you see there's a lot a little slippery language there
There's probably a lot of people who took these vaccines and didn't have any harm at all
There's probably a lot of people that took these vaccines and there's no harm at all
There's probably a lot of people who took these vaccines and didn't have any harm at all
And you mentioned, I think, to all of us.
And so this is a whole host of sort of rare genetics
that you have to consider in this.
And perhaps why this may not be something you'd
be seeing in all patients.
There's another dimension of which vaccine
lots have more of this versus less of this,
like the Schmeling paper you look at
has 4% of the vaccine lots having the majority
of the adverse events.
So we have a lot of VED diagrams here of things
to consider.
There's a lot of people who probably took these
and don't have any harm at all.
Maybe a subset of the people that take these bad lots
that, in fact, have some genetic reason why they're more
susceptible to the harm than others.
Oh, so then even some people are lucky and not genetically
susceptible to the DNA contamination,
and they didn't have any problems.
But then these other losers over there
who just happened to have the wrong genes,
they're extra susceptible, right?
Stop lying.
Others.
Kevin, you mentioned, I think, harm at all.
The majority of the adverse events.
So we have a lot of VED diagrams here of things to consider.
There's a lot of people who probably took these
and don't have any harm at all.
There's maybe a subset of people that take these bad lots
that, in fact, have some genetic reason
why they're more susceptible to the harm than others.
Kevin, you mentioned, I think, today and in the past
that this promoter, the SV40 promoter in particular,
is used in gene therapy.
And yet this was not reviewed as a gene therapy.
It was reviewed as a vaccine.
Is that an issue in your group?
Yeah, I think that is actually a very serious legal issue.
This here is the SV40 enhancer that
is published to bind all of these transcription factors
and drag this sequence into the nucleus.
There's two of these copies of these 72 base pair pieces
of DNA, and this is what they're putting
in plasmids to get them to do perform gene therapy.
So the sequence that they omitted
is a bioactive sequence according to Health Canada,
and it is used in gene therapy.
There's just no debate anymore.
The plasmids that are in there are gene therapy tools,
and they're injected into beings and people.
So not only was there no informed consent for anybody,
and this was emergency news authorization,
so they weren't by law.
The question becomes, again, am I cracking yours?
No, okay, it sounded like I was really loud.
I don't think I'm actually that loud.
The important thing to understand here is that
yeah.
I just, I, base pair pieces of DNA,
and this is what they're putting in plasmids
to get them to do perform gene therapy.
So the sequence that they omitted
is a bioactive sequence according to Health Canada,
and it is used in gene therapy.
There's just no debate anymore.
The plasmids that are in there are gene therapy tools.
And now the way that they assembled the plasmid
was to look at all the fragments
and then reassemble them into the plasma sequence.
They found very few really long sequences of DNA
because the DNA was digested.
And so the argument on the other side
is clearly going to be these fragments are tiny.
Kevin makes the argument that tiny fragments
have lots of active sticky ends,
and so they're more likely to integrate.
The regulators and other molecular biologists
will say that the shorter the pieces are,
the more likely that they won't integrate,
that they won't be dangerous,
that they will be cleaned up as noise.
And so that's how they're going to argue
that this is not really valid.
If you use fluorimetry,
you're finding these little tiny fragments
that are a few base pairs long.
I'm getting a GFP signal and claiming
that's double-stranded DNA,
but that's really not double-stranded DNA.
That's not going to make RNA.
It's not going to make protein.
And if it integrates, it will be integrating where?
Into the genome of a cell that's no longer using the genome,
like an endothelial cell,
or a liver cell,
or an already differentiated cell in the body
that really only uses a very sub-small subset
of the total genome and its nucleus.
And so if this small piece of DNA was
to magically integrate the chances
of it integrating somewhere
that will have any impact on that cell,
it seems to be quite vanishing.
Certainly not just going to happen
to stumble on Braco or stumble on P53
because it's like a magnet for it.
And so we seem to be creating these, you know,
worst-case scenario is that it,
your son drinks some whiskey,
gets in the car,
backs across the street,
crashes into the house across the street.
That's the worst-case scenario if you leave your son at home.
The best-case scenario is you watch some Netflix
and goes to bed on time.
The best-case scenario or other scenarios
that eats ice cream and you told him not to.
But the worst-case scenario is, yeah,
he drinks half a fifth of whiskey,
drives the car across the street,
crashes into the neighbor's house.
But it's not very likely.
In fact, I would argue it's vanishingly small,
the probability that that's going to happen,
even if I left a bottle of whiskey on the table
next to the car keys, my son wouldn't do it.
So it's a pretty bold statement to say
that all this double-stranded little pieces of DNA
and so it's highly likely because they were in lipid nanoparticles
that they'll get into that nucleus
and they'll interact with the two cancer-controlling enzymes
called P53 in Braca.
Why wouldn't they interact with one of the 100,000 other enzymes
that are present in our cells instead,
or one of the other 100,000 places
that it could integrate and do nothing,
or have no real effect,
whereas transfection,
expression of a foreign protein,
activation of the immune system
by the expression of a foreign protein,
and the challenge of the immune system to clear that
is obviously a non-physiological problem
that you would not want to challenge a healthy human with,
but let's focus on this DNA problem.
That's where we are, ladies and gentlemen.
That's where we are.
That is the bamboozlement that's being brought upon us right now.
Make no mistake about it.
So it's a very, very nuanced trap
that we are being lured into,
and if we're not explicit and very careful
about how we look at this,
from the outside,
from the perspective of people looking at us
from the outside,
it will be very easy for us to be brushed away,
and you'll see in a minute.
We'll watch the rest of this,
then we're going to watch some debunk the funk,
and they're injected into billions of people.
So not only was there no informed consent for anybody,
and this was emergency use authorization,
so they weren't, by law,
they weren't able to give truly informed consent,
but it looks like this was a gene therapy,
and people were not told that this was a gene therapy.
Is that right?
That's right, and now they may not have meant for it to be this,
but they certainly, in my opinion, hit it.
The fact that that SV-3 region is the only origin missing
on the vector means whoever ran the annotation program there
probably had three origins show up,
the F1, the bacterial, and the SV-40
and decided to remove the SV-40
because it was an unpopular name,
and they knew it was controversial.
Incredible.
There's a long literature in mainstream scientific
journals about SV-40.
Isn't that right, Brian?
Absolutely.
You know, it's such a strong promoter,
and it's a mammalian active promoter,
and so you would expect if you put that promoter,
and especially if you have that 72 base pair
enhancer region, that you're basically,
you know, you've got a nuclear localization signal,
and so that is its job.
It basically will take a DNA sequence
behind it, and it will deliver it into the nucleus.
This is, it's absolutely incredible that this is there.
It's absolutely incredible that this whole thing
was hidden from view.
Wouldn't that raise, you know, again,
maybe I'm beating a dead horse,
but just the absence of that information,
wouldn't that raise some type of red flag
with the EMA and the FDA?
You would hope so, that they would feel deceived by this.
Yeah.
That this is something that is clearly in the rules
that you need to declare these things,
and now they find out, you know,
years later that they weren't sure this information.
So I don't know where it leads to.
Right, right.
You've been looking at this for quite a while now, Kevin,
and so, you know, if you don't like the message,
you shoot the messenger.
So what's happening with you?
Oh, well, I've already been character assassinated
for my choice to get it into the cannabis field,
so I'm kind of bulletproof from that standpoint.
It's almost as bad as, you know, looking at vaccines.
So his skin in the game is that he already threw away
his career going into the cannabis industry, you know, so,
I mean,
he can't lose any.
He can't be canceled anymore than that.
In general.
So yes.
Yeah.
Exactly.
In the past, I want to point out that Kevin generously
gave us a declaration in the case that we filed against
coercive PCR testing of children in New York City schools,
and we're very grateful for that.
So, yeah.
So, so you're not worried about the character assassination
that goes along with this, Kevin?
No, they already assassinated my character a decade ago
when I decided to start studying cannabis.
So they'll continue on that front.
And yeah, we get harassed on Twitter and all the usual social media
nonsense, but I don't think this is, I don't think it's very
effective.
And oftentimes, I think as a reverse effect,
as people see who they're attacking.
And I mean, you can see our preprint on Thursday.
It's got like 72,000 downloads now,
probably because a Streisand effect of everyone who's hating on us
on Twitter.
So.
What's your sub stack so that we can have everybody follow?
It's, it's a named after the count,
the active compound and catnip.
I'm a cat person.
So it's, uh, it's a petalactone.
Uh, so it's unfortunately really horrible to tell somebody in her
to spell, but lactone is the last word, but a petalactone.
If you ever get confused, just look up the active ingredient
and catnip and it will give you that long winded name.
I taught people how to take the Pfizer sequence as if they were
given it as if they worked at the EMA or the health Canada.
This is the tool that you would probably use to open it up and look
at it.
This is called snap gene.
It's a free tool downloaded, opened the file,
and it will instantly paint you the SV 40 regions.
So this shows you that that someone had to go in and actively
delete this because the standard tools in the industry paint this
thing.
So I don't get credit for finding SV 40 snap gene found it.
It painted it the first time I loaded the sequence in,
which is why I was really confused to see that it was not in
Pfizer's plasma map because that told me somebody had to go
and erase it.
That's not an oops, I forgot it.
That's a, I clearly wanted to deceive you type of move.
Right.
And this is just a picture of that second origin.
Oh, I'm sorry, that second open reading.
It's going in the opposite direction and teaches people how to go
and look for these yourselves and some of the genes that that
thing hits.
They're not really strong hits, but I'm like, this is really weird.
It says silk protein and silk.
I'm not really strong hits.
Stop saying that.
And, um, and these not a very strong.
Intervening sequences is SV 40 sequences.
It's not just you.
It's health Canada now, right?
Yeah, they, they, they confirmed in that email that yes,
we were given the sequence from the plasma, but we were not,
we're not specifically annotated the SV 40 that was in that sequence.
They, they annotated all those other pieces and just decided to not tell them
about the SV 40 in the sequence.
But they have some sequence to tell.
A huge focus being a page in there and not telling them that he slips it in there.
So they have the sequence themselves.
They could have done it.
They, they, they can, they can run snap gene just like anybody else.
In theory, I suspect that they did until we published our work.
Right.
Oopsy.
You've identified for us, Kevin, that, um, that the FDA and, and health Canada
and the EMA potentially could allege that they were deceived.
And perhaps they were deceived and that perhaps opens the door for them right now
to take much more dramatic action.
I think that's fair because if you look through the volume of data that
Pfizer's handing over, it is, it's almost this drowned the regulator in materials
so they can't possibly read it all.
And that's really easy to do with sequence information.
You hand them a file of 7,800 bases and unless they have the time that sets
on a side and say, annotate this and look at this and tell me if there's
something weird in it.
They're, they're then also buried in all the PCR data, all the LPS data.
They, they, they, you know, Pfizer even went out and engineered a new mass spec
method of DNA sequencing to try to show them that their polyA signals were in,
in the, in the vaccine were the right length.
I mean, they did all of this work that I thought was fairly unnecessary and looked
like a tactic of, of drowning regulators and data.
That, that's probably what we're hearing here.
They snowed them.
Well, this is incredibly enlightening.
Kevin, thank you so much for taking the time to explain this to us.
I certainly have a much clearer picture and we can send people to your catnip,
the pedal act tone.
Is that right?
New letter to get all the latest and look at it in greater detail again.
Thank you both so much.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Kevin.
And, and we look forward to your further research.
Thank you for having us.
Okay.
So let me just summarize this really quickly and then let me give you my one minute
summary about why I think we need to be careful about this.
That was a lot of notes while he really went nuts there.
So the big thing that seems to really impress Mary and, and Brian is that health
Canada has decided to acknowledge that the SV40 enhancer and promoter sequences
are there as evidence of double stranded DNA originating from the plasmid,
which was used in process two manufacturing.
Now, I find it a little interesting that Josh Getsko is the guy who kind of led
the charge on the story of process one versus process two.
He has been outspoken before about VAERS and other things.
He seems to have auditioned quite early for participation in this on the team.
And so being a part of that could mean that he's just a good guy who's been
vigilant and working hard and pick this ball up and ran with it.
And I hope that's the case.
The Vyroid reference was interesting.
That's naked RNA, which can infect plants.
He was looking at trying to sequence Vyroids, and he needed an RNA polyA RNA control.
And as he told me the story or told us the story on John Bodeman's St. Patrick's Day stream,
he said that he sent out an all call to his network saying,
hey guys, I need some polyA RNA for a control.
Can anybody help me out?
And then some random person sent him a box with three vials of the vaccine in it.
That's the story that I remember.
And so these were RNA samples that were not stored at the right temperature, shipped to him.
And he was able to use them as controls, which also allowed them to get sequenced.
And that's why we're here because then he found the plasmid DNA there.
And remember that he would have assembled all kinds of little tiny fragments
and then figured out that if you lined them up correctly,
they reassembled into the original plasmid process, too.
In case you're wondering, that's death on a unicorn there.
It's for my daughter, kind of. She really likes unicorns.
So he talked about PCR being used to produce the DNA for process one versus DNA plasmids
plus bacteria to be used in process two.
He did mention that the RNA being codon optimized
and pseudoyuridine chemically altered made it stay around longer,
was found in breast milk. He dropped a kind of all kinds of anecdotes there
to finally say that it was a big train wreck.
But that was about a 30 second, 15 second blip about the fact that the RNA is also bad.
The RNA is also bad.
Was briefly there, even though Kevin came on my stream twice in 2021 and 22
to say many things about why the RNA itself was bad.
And we know that the RNA could be reverse transcribed to DNA in theory.
And so then you have DNA anyway.
So again, we had that report earlier that there are places like in the liver
where the line one enzyme is present and we can go backwards to DNA.
And so then where are we? We're kind of in the same place again, right?
So he talks about fluorometry versus PCR and using that to find double stranded DNA
versus RNA. Many labs have now used his primers to find SV40 in these shots.
Buck halter also used nanopore sequencing, but then only to look for his primer
sequences, at least that's how he said it can't be true, but maybe it is.
And then Sin Lee also used sanger sequencing to find, I don't think he went
to look for the whole plasmid, but just for his little promoter sequences again, I think.
So it's under the QPCR limit, which technically means then again that he didn't find a lot.
And if you use fluorometry, then you're finding little tiny pieces
and then you could call that being above the limit, but as he said, they're only concerned
about longer pieces of DNA, and there's a reason for that.
So him and Buck halter are making the argument that small pieces of DNA
all have legatable ends, and so that makes them more dangerous.
It's like a shotgun or a carpet bombing with the enhancer.
But technically that's not true, I don't think, unless he's really found the enhancer
intact, which I'm not really convinced that that's exactly what they found.
They found lots of fragments that when you use an assembly program, you can find these things again,
but I don't know how many intact segments of these enhancers and promoters are present.
And I think that's part of the gray area there that's on purpose.
And so then he talked a lot about the fact that the guidance documents surrounding these kinds of
biologics are not up to date, and that the regulators therefore didn't really know how to regulate these things
because they weren't up to date.
So on top of the fact that the manufacturers tried to obfuscate what was there and how to look for it
and whether they looked for it, the regulators themselves were also held back
by their own out of date guidance documents.
The genotoxicity studies were waived.
He says, you know, it's pretty difficult to screen informatically for ribosome initiation sites.
That's an interesting little slip there.
And then the actual question is then, are these double-stranded DNA pieces actually integrating or not?
Where are they integrating, how often, what are the odds, et cetera?
And he zeroed in on one particular instance.
And I noticed that this entire talk, this entire talk, this entire line, this entire talk, what did they not mention?
When is the time when you would be most concerned about integration of genes, integration, or disruption of genes?
When is the time when you would be most concerned about that?
Would that be in an old person?
Would that be in an adult?
Would that be in a great big giant fat adult?
Would that be in a teenager?
What about a person who's already been through puberty?
What about a pregnant woman with a fetus inside of her?
Oh!
So you don't want to mention that?
You don't want to talk about that at all because gene integration into the fat cells of a 400 pound man who can't walk down the street and is 65 years old is not that dangerous.
But injecting live-ended DNA with active mammalian promoters into pregnant women, now that might be a problem, ladies and gentlemen, we might need to back the truck up here.
But of course we haven't mentioned that at all because we don't want to emphasize the part of the narrative which is about the malfeasance, the coercion.
We want to emphasize the narrative about this ultra-complicated biology stuff.
Not the really simple stuff.
Like we didn't need to do this because people were not dying from a spreading respiratory disease.
They were dying from ventilators and from remdesivir.
You see where this went? How quickly this went off the rails?
And it's because it's such a damn shiny object that nobody can stop looking at it.
But if you understood the biology, it's actually not that shiny, okay?
It's really not. I've got to get a new notebook here.
I think that's number six.
So look, here's the deal. Okay, I'm just going to make a list.
This work.
Okay, so first just understand this. Very simple fact, okay?
Transfection is RNA. Transformation is DNA. If you use these processes to make proteins, you are transfecting or you are transforming your target.
If you use an adenovirus carrying DNA to express the spike protein in a human, like in the J&J shot, you are transforming human cells.
If you are using a lipid nanoparticle carrying an RNA to express spike protein in human cells, you are transfecting those cells.
These two things have been products for sale as various methodologies for decades.
And in the pandemic, we called these investigative vaccines.
This is the story so far, okay? We know that transfection is RNA and transformation is DNA used to make proteins.
And we know that we change the name of these processes, these methodologies without really significantly changing how they work and called them investigative vaccines.
How do we know that's true? Because Peter Kullis told us that Peter Kullis, the great inventor of the LNP that was used to carry these transfections to our body's cells,
told us that he burned five postdocs trying to learn how to target the LNP somewhere, and they failed.
There's no more discussion. What do you need to talk about anymore? You don't need to burn biorum bridles, career anymore, you don't need to cite the Japanese paper, you don't need to cite the Japanese leak document.
You can just cite the creator of the lipid nanoparticle who got screwed out of the Nobel Prize, who admitted it on camera in 2022.
Almost in the same presentation that he said when I heard that the Pfizer data came out and was 95% effective, I opened a Scotch.
Even though I knew in my head the lipid nanoparticle was going all over people's body and we couldn't control where it went and it maybe even went to their brain. But I had a Scotch anyway.
The transfection in its purest form, so that would be best RNA, super pure, best top shelf LNP.
And transfection in its purest form, it still doesn't work. It's a bad idea for healthy animals. That's the deal.
Transfection in its purest form. But this wasn't transfection in its purest form.
This was transfection with a foreign immunogen with human homology.
Number one, number two, it was impure RNA that had been codon optimized.
So that's misfolding.
And it was also pseudoyuridine, which is premature stop.
Plus, it's a wobble base, right? So it can be lots of different amino acids that it can code for when it goes through.
It goes through the ribosome. And the LNP is a question for toxicity.
And let's see, foreign immunogen, impure RNA, codon optimized, pseudoyuridine, LNP toxicity, protein fragments then, right?
Because of these two things down here.
And so even if transfection was in its purest form, super best RNA, super top shelf LNP, you'd still have the problem of you challenging your immune system to tell the difference between self and non-self when there are no signals related to viral infection.
But then on top of that, you decided to use a foreign immunogen with human homologies.
You decided to use an impure RNA rather than pure RNA. You decided to codon optimize it, which makes it misfold more.
You decided to use pseudoyuridine to make it last longer, which also results in a wobble base and also results in premature stop codons, which results in protein fragments with unknown immunogenic quantity qualities.
Plus the LNP toxicity is a big variable.
And now on top of all of this, you have cDNA and endotoxin.
And so the idea is, and I apologize, that my handwriting is very bad when I'm actually looking at the camera in here and I'm not really writing like I am on the other, I mean, just when I take notes, it looks really nice.
But when you're watching me right, I don't write so well.
The point is, again, I'm trying to make is that by focusing on the cDNA down here, we are ignoring that transfection in its purest form would suck.
We're ignoring that the immunogen sucks. We're ignoring that the RNA sucked.
We're ignoring that the codon optimization sucks. We're ignoring that the pseudoyuridine sucks, and we're ignoring that the LNP probably sucks.
We're ignoring that these protein fragments make it suck even worse, and we're focused on this cDNA because we have this idea that maybe the regulators will finally act.
And it's okay to think that way as long as we don't throw this list away.
Because if we focus on the cDNA and put all of our eggs in the basket of Kevin McCurnan's observations, this is what's going to happen.
Anti-vaxxers pretty much never come up with anything new.
And recently, in dark, stinky corners of the internet, there have been claims about DNA contamination in COVID vaccines.
This, again, is nothing new.
It is recycled anti-vaccine garbage that has always been around for as long as vaccines have.
Hey, I'm Dr. Wilson, I'm a PhD molecular biologist, and welcome to another COVID-demunking video.
So, yeah, today I'm going to be tackling this claim that there is DNA contamination in COVID vaccines.
But first, I want to cover some background on this topic.
What you need to understand before learning why these claims are wrong is a little bit about how vaccines and other biologic drugs are made.
All biological drugs, including vaccines, have a step in their manufacturing that uses cells.
These can be mammalian cells, these can be bacterial cells, depends on the product, and what is needed.
For example, to make insulin, which is needed to keep diabetics all over the world alive, you need bacterial cells that are genetically engineered to produce human insulin.
Once the human insulin is made, all the bacteria and all the parts of the bacteria are separated away from the insulin, and the insulin is the drug product.
Another example are polio vaccines. In order to get a polio vaccine, you need a virus, and the virus is grown in cells.
But just like the insulin, the virus needs to be taken away from the cells and all the cells parts in order to make the actual vaccine product.
Whatever the case may be, there are a slew of long-established tests that are done to ensure that your drug product has actually been removed from the cell's parts.
There are tests that are designed to look for how much host cell DNA is left in the drug product after you have finished making it,
same with host cell proteins, more bacterial endotoxin, and several other things.
All of these tests are required by regulatory laws to be done on each and every lot of biological drug that goes out onto the market.
And there are set limits as to how much residual material can be found in those drug products.
These are very strict guidelines that pharmaceutical companies have to abide by.
In addition to good manufacturing procedure, which is abbreviated GMP, we also have good documentation procedure and good lab procedures.
All of this can be summarized as just GXP.
So moving forward, I'll be referring to all of these guidelines as GXP.
If any of those GXP guidelines are not met or there are deviations from their protocols, then that is a huge no-no,
and it would result in a lot not even going out in the first place, or being recalled, or a number of other things, including fines and disciplinary actions against those responsible.
So it's kind of a big deal, which is why there are many layers to these regulations.
The pharmaceutical company itself is required to do in-house testing to show that their product meets all of these regulations,
and the regulatory body, in this case for the US being the FDA, will double check those results,
meaning that they can perform their own testing in their own labs, and furthermore, when those drugs go out to other countries,
those other countries' own regulatory bodies will also do in-house testing on the products that they receive.
Again, by the end of it, the levels of residual host cell protein, DNA, whatever, have to be below a certain set limit.
Anything below that certain set limit is considered to be trace amounts.
And in those trace amounts, these materials will not have a biological effect on whoever receives the drug.
So in other words, if there is no biological effect being exerted by these materials in these trace amounts,
then for all intents and purposes, they might as well not be there.
So that's what we mean when we say, no, there is no contamination in these materials.
So do you see how easy it would be for CHD to tie their ropes to Kevin McCurnan and start to fight on his behalf,
maybe even give him a T-shirt?
And then because we have put all of our eggs in the CDNA contamination basket,
even if a very small fraction of what Dan Wilson says in this video is really dead on balls accurate,
it's still going to be sufficient for the vast majority of his viewership to discard Kevin McCurnan as an anti-vaxxer.
And as we watch this, you're going to see that a lot of the objections that he brings up are the same kind of objections
that somebody sitting on the FDA board would bring up, same kind of objections that other people on Twitter bring up.
And so unless we're really ready to go toe to toe with these people on the molecular biology, or Kevin is willing to do it,
then we're setting ourselves up essentially to substitute and jump into the ring instead of Kevin.
And instead of Kevin's co-authors, CHD is about to jump in front and say, well,
health Canada says, and Kevin McCurnan says, so children's health defense says,
and now debunk the funk, and a bunch of other people can accuse us of being completely wrong.
Whereas if I think we stuck to this list I just put up, starting with the fact that
transfection in its purest form is still a stupid idea in healthy people,
we would have a lot stronger, solid ground to stand on,
and by the time we got to complaining about the CDNA contamination,
we would have already hit a home run or a grand slam.
A couple people would have already crossed the plate, you know what I mean?
And I'm very worried about this idea that we are being baited into accepting this as a whoa, this is great.
And now the regulators will call it off the market for a few months,
and then when a new one comes on the market and the regulators have really cracked down,
and there's no more DNA in these shots,
then everybody will be bamboozled again.
Because transfection has been given a pass because of the CDNA contamination.
He already believes transfection works great.
Don't forget that half of the country doesn't know that transfection is a terrible idea.
So it's not really a good idea to bring those people to the truth by first telling them an anecdote
that, yeah, there's some contamination in there, and that might integrate into your genome.
We've got to be very, very careful.
Listen to the rest of this video just so you can see what I'm talking about.
This is not funny.
He's got a team of people, you know, he didn't do this all by himself.
Other people seem to think that they've found differently, and it's quite a funny story, so let's get into it.
So when it comes to COVID mRNA vaccines, some people who have a history of subscribing to anti-vaccine
kind of deranged conspiracy theories claim to have found plasmid DNA in the mRNA vaccines.
What is plasmid DNA, you might ask?
Well, it comes from the manufacturing process used in making mRNA vaccines.
A plasmid is a circular piece of DNA that can be taken up.
You know what's most frustrating about this for me?
That this whole story of using plasmid DNA in process two is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that they make infectious clones to study RNA viruses.
It is exactly this process, and it is exactly as Kevin McCurnan said in that stream.
They can make as much as they want.
There's no limit. They have an infinite amount of plasmid. All they have to do is keep feeding the bacteria.
That's why infectious clones can be used to create a pandemic, because you're not relying on some kind of magical RNA to be ridiculously high fidelity for three years and circulate the globe in a cartoon-like fashion.
You're relying on brute force.
RNA is a bit like paint. It doesn't replicate itself very well. It dilutes.
So if I go outside of my garage and spill a bucket of paint on the ground, the only way it's going to spread is if people walk through it.
And maybe if you were really careful, you could scoop up enough paint so that you could get some paint on the house next door.
And you could argue that, wow, the blue paint is spreading everywhere.
But to say that all the houses in Pittsburgh are because I dump paint in the backyard would be ridiculous.
But if I had a giant truck full of blue paint, I could drive all around Pittsburgh and spread it all over the place and make it look like my paint had spread all over.
But anybody who knows how paint works would be like, well, it couldn't have been Jay's fault for spilling it in his backyard that it got all over Squirrel Hill in Pittsburgh.
That's impossible. Paint doesn't work like that.
And there should be lots of biologists that are saying that RNA viruses don't pandemic.
But infectious clones could be used to make it look like they was a pandemic.
There should be hundreds, if not thousands, of biologists saying this just from a rudimentary understanding of the difference between double-stranded DNA and its copying versus single-stranded RNA and its copying.
But instead, the moment I started talking about infectious clones as the ubiquitous way with which we study at RNA virology, Kevin McCernan himself got so tired of arguing about it
that he blocked me on Twitter.
This is not insignificant, ladies and gentlemen, that for process two and for making of the spike protein for all these different vaccines, it's fine to talk about recombinant DNA being replicated in a bacterial culture.
But if I talk about how they do that with all coronaviruses all the time, and that barracks the guy who invented it and made it ubiquitous for everybody,
and that's how they share these things, they send these clones around, all the stored viruses at the CDC are actually clones, and everybody got mad.
Oh, no, you're an idiot. Don't listen to him.
He's compromised.
It is the standard technique by which they make all biologics. Do you hear it? It's the standard technique by which they make all biologics.
That is the reason why the clone story is the answer.
You can't make a little bit of an RNA virus and then let it loose and have it go change the world. That's not how RNA works.
And these people all know it. They have to.
Or they're participating in kind of a I don't want to know kind of thing.
Because all you got to do is let your brain work. And this becomes basic biology.
By things like bacteria and then expressed, meaning that the DNA can be read by cellular machinery and made into mRNA.
Once the mRNA is made, the DNA is chopped up and the pieces are mostly removed from the final drug product.
But this guy, a Mr Kevin McKernan, claims that he has gotten some vials of COVID mRNA vaccine and has found contamination of plasma DNA in the vaccine vials at levels orders of magnitude higher and the regulated limit.
Wow, this should be good. He has written up his results and posted them on this regulation free preprint server, meaning that there's no safeguard, no peer review.
We already go back to Kevin's talk and already preview what's going to happen here, right?
The orders of magnitude statement comes from the fluorometry versus the QPCR.
And in the discussion with Mary and Brian, Kevin was very clear.
Using QPCR, they found levels of DNA lower than the minimum required or minimum allowed.
But with using fluorometry, they found several orders of magnitude more than that.
And so the argument that Dan is going to make is that fluorometry isn't an accurate representation of dangerous DNA because it's picking up all kinds of tiny little fragments.
That's the exact argument that's going to happen here. Now, who wins that argument?
What's the right answer there? Do you know?
I thought this was just a home run.
That even goes into what people can post on it, so it's not peer reviewed and it's not checked by anybody before it goes up.
But that really doesn't even begin to describe the many problems with what he has presented here.
So let's start with this. He writes that the COVID mRNA vaccine vials were sent to him anonymously in the mail without cold packs.
Oh, wait, you serious? Let me laugh even harder.
I could honestly end the video right here. That is really bad.
This already violates the good documentation procedure of GXP guidelines.
Not only do you have no idea who handled those vials before you receive them.
Now, remember the story that he told Mary was that he didn't really mean to sequence the vials. It wasn't his intention.
He just wanted a standard polyA RNA to control the experiment that he was doing.
But look how inconvenient that aspect of the experiment is if someone from the other side can completely make fun of it.
And it's not really that bad of a critique, right? I mean, it is.
You should really probably start with a fresh vial, right? You should at least know where it was or how long it wasn't chilled like.
But they're clearly not stored properly if they're not even sent on cold packs.
Any self-respecting scientist would immediately recognize that this is not the right way to do this experiment.
A competent and self-respecting scientist would make sure that they do the experiment right and actually have vials that have documentation
so that they can show who handled them before they received them, but they were stored properly and make sure that there's no funny business going on with whatever you're testing.
But we're not dealing with one of those people here and I'm not ending the video here.
I'm going to be thorough and look at the results that they actually obtained with these mystery garbage vials.
Let's go back to what I said earlier about there being tests to determine whether or not residual materials in your drug product are actually below the regulated acceptable limit.
In order to demonstrate that tests are done to quantify the levels of residual materials in the drug product.
So the obvious question is, I mean, you could even make the argument that the FDA would say the same thing, right?
We don't know where these vials were. You got them in the mail, they were garbage.
We're not going to take your word for these.
They might even say to you that that was illegal.
There's a law that these are the property of the government.
You're not allowed to do anything with them except to inject them in people's arms or it's against the law.
It's a federal law.
They could even say that.
That's where we are right now.
Is CHD going to put their name on this and then get accused of doing something illegal or supporting the illegal something something?
I don't know. I don't know that that's going to happen.
I'm not a lawyer.
I'm just saying it ain't so cut and dry as let's give Kevin McCurn in a sweatshirt and hat and get him on the team and give him a baseball bat and get him up to the plate.
Here is did have here actually quantify the levels of plasma DNA in the vials.
Well, he tried, but he didn't really.
The key figure here in his blog post is this one.
This is where he tried to make a standard curve.
If you want to have a standard curve made up of known values so that you can compare your unknown samples against it and actually quantify a value.
So this is his attempted standard curve where he just ran some known amounts of DNA on a PCR and then on a seemingly separate PCR assay ran his material from the vaccine vials and just compared the two separate assays, which not good.
You don't want to do that.
You ideally want to compare them within the same assay, but there's a lot more wrong here.
So let's go right to the meat of what is wrong.
There's a lot of analysis missing from this standard curve.
He just reports that this certain value came up around cycle 20 and seems to be fine with just mentioning that.
So I analyze the data for him.
Whenever you make a standard curve in a quantitative PCR experiment, there are several basic things that you really should do.
Two of those basic things is calculating the linearity and efficiency of your reaction.
Again, he didn't do that here.
So I did it for him.
The linearity of his standard curve looks fine, but the efficiency of the reaction is where he run into a problem.
In any PCR, the number of molecules present should double with each cycle.
And the efficiency of a quantitative PCR reaction is measuring that.
It's measuring how efficient the reaction was.
Usually in GXP world and just across the board, a range of 90 to 110 percent efficiency is considered acceptable.
Kev's efficiency here was around 70 percent.
There could be many reasons that a PCR's efficiency would be low like this, but normally those reasons will be ironed out when you're actually qualifying your standard operating procedure for your assay, which Kev didn't do.
Now, because he didn't actually post his mean cycle threshold values, I didn't have precise numbers to plug into this calculator, but I judged as best as I could, and I was even as generous as possible with the decimal points.
But no matter how much I played with it, I couldn't get the efficiency above 75 percent.
So let's be generous and say that the efficiency of the reaction was 75 percent.
In a GXP experiment, that would invalidate the entire experiment.
So essentially his assay failed, and his results are unusable.
And there's good reason for this.
If the efficiency is low, that means that the curves on this graph here are artificially shifted to the right, which means that you're not really making a difference.
You're not really measuring accurate numbers at all.
Just for comparison, here are data that I pulled from one of my experiments.
You can see that the efficiency is well within range, and when the arity is pretty good.
This is a passing assay.
This is a failing assay.
Kev is trying to criticize pharmaceutical companies' manufacturing processes while not being able to meet the standards of good manufacturing procedures himself.
The theme from earlier when I talked about where the samples came from of just not taking the time to do this experiment the right way is very consistent throughout this whole thing.
And yeah, there's more, it gets worse.
So already he's failed the good documentation procedures, and now he has failed his actual assay, his experiment.
But let's forgive that and move on and analyze the data further for tending like it's valid.
Because remember, he claims to have found DNA in amounts that are orders of magnitude higher than what the regulatory limits set.
So did he actually find that much DNA?
Well, no, he didn't care ready for this one.
In order to calculate how much DNA you actually have in your drug product, you have to do a few things.
Once you have your standard curve and you're unknown plotted against it, it depends whether or not your standard curve is measuring copies or gram amounts.
Kev's standard curve here is in gram amounts, and that's fine.
We can work with that.
And so I did, I put all the math involved here into a Google Excel sheet that you can access and look at yourself.
It's in the description below.
So go check that out.
You want to check my math?
But to make this as simple as possible, if I am as generous as possible, and I assume that all of the DNA copies that he has measured in this experiment are representing full-length intact plasmid, the total gram amount in a single dose of COVID vaccine would be 81 nanograms.
So that's not orders of magnitude higher than regulatory limits.
But we're not dealing with full-length intact plasmid here.
Again, remember what I said about the manufacturing process, where after the mRNA is made, the DNA gets chopped up and mostly removed from the drug product.
The DNA is going to be in pieces.
So normally what people would do is look at the average length size of DNA in the final product.
This can be done by doing what's called an electroph diagram.
Kev actually did one.
And he shows that most of the DNA in the vial is fragmented.
In fact, it's very short.
About 100 base pairs is the biggest peak that he gets.
The full-length plasmid is going to be on the order of 15,000 bases.
Okay, so this is a false argument, right?
We also said this earlier.
The idea that you need the whole plasmid is not the deal.
The deal is that you need a meaningful size of DNA that's not supposed to be there, that it gives a potential for this integration or potential for mRNA production or potential for translocation to the nucleus.
Some additional problem because of the DNA being there.
So he's kind of, you know, making a crappy argument here that we can't find any full plasmid so it's no big deal.
And this is kind of in parallel, but the flip side to Kevin and Buckhalter's argument that the smaller these pieces are, the more active ends there are, and that's kind of like carpet bombing the genome.
Now, let's just listen.
So while Kev's own results show that most of the DNA is fragmented, he doesn't show an average base pair length, which is what you would use to calculate how much DNA you actually have.
So I looked at some historical data for similar biological products and similar electropharium curves, and I think 800 to 1,000 base pairs is a good average to estimate for average base pair length in this sample.
I'll be generous and say 1,000 base pairs is the average length, so knowing that and knowing how many...
That we know is wrong from Buckhalter's estimation. The smallest... the pieces are really much tinier than that, so this is wrong.
This is definitely, at least from the perspective of trying to debunk Kevin and Buckhalter's work, this is wrong.
And so you shouldn't be surprised. I'm not surprised that the debunk and his team or his helpers are going to get some of this incorrect, or at least represented disingenuously by saying that the average length of the double stranded plasma is 1,000 base pairs.
I'm pretty sure Kevin didn't say that, and I'm pretty sure that Buckhalter actually measured them with the nanopore sequencing, and we could probably go back and look.
But I think that I think that was also, they were much, much tinier, and that was Buckhalter's full argument was that they were so small, and that's what makes them not work.
It's going to take me a while to find that. I'll just keep it plain.
Because you measured in the actual QPCR reaction, you can calculate the nanogram amount of DNA, which comes out to five nanograms.
That's about how much DNA Kev actually measured in this experiment.
He keeps calling him Kev.
He keeps calling him Kev. That to me is a little weird.
I've never called him Kev, and I've actually had him on my stream.
I had a good friend when I was a kid, though, Kevin. I used to call Kev a lot, but...
On multiple levels, and was done on mystery vials with no documentation history, and he thought that this was a big find.
Okay, so moving on a little bit, that five nanogram amount?
Remember, that is me being as generous as possible with the numbers, and also ignoring the fact that his QPCR efficiency failed, which means that his standard curve is...
Actually shifted to the left, which means that his samples are going to be an even lower gram amount on that standard curve.
So, if this experiment was done the right way, you would probably get an even lower gram amount than what is shown here.
So how do we know that Kev is wrong without even doing any of this analysis of his garbage data?
We know because, again, regulatory bodies do this for us, and we've seen the results.
For example, here's a summary of COVID vaccine batch release information from Australia.
These vials were made by Pfizer, tested in-house by them, released by the regulatory body, and then went to Australia.
And their regulatory body tested it themselves, and found that it passed all of the criteria.
That means that all of the residual plasmid, the hostel DNA, the hostel proteins, the endotoxin, everything was below the acceptable limit, meaning that it was in trace amounts.
In other words, practically nothing there.
So either there's a global conspiracy among pharmaceutical companies and regulatory bodies all over the world, everyone's lying, or Kev just has no idea what he's doing.
I think it's the latter.
So you might think that that's the end of this video, but, oh no, there's more, it gets worse.
So after blogging about these findings, Kev went on to say that these findings have health implications.
He went on to claim that a promoter, which is a DNA sequence that sits in front of a gene on DNA and helps the DNA actually get read by cellular machinery, is somehow going to cause cancer.
Yeah, he thinks that a promoter is somehow going to get into your cell nucleus and integrate itself into your DNA and just happen to integrate in front of a gene that, if misregulated, would contribute to cancer.
And this is exactly what I just said.
So parts he gets right, parts he gets wrong, parts he gets right again.
It's exactly the bamboozlement.
It's exactly how it always happens with Rogan, with Weinstein, with with Robert Malone and Steven Hadfield, with Rick Bright, with Tony Fauci, with EcoHealth Alliance, with Bobby Kennedy, with everyone.
It's extraordinary how nobody can seem to get it straight.
And they all make catastrophic errors when it comes to the faith.
The faith in a novel virus, the faith in a million people dying and a million people could have been saved.
The faith in the RNA and that it did something, the faith in gain of function and that a virus will come again.
So let's argue about contamination of the shot with CDNA derived from the process to that they lied about.
You know, this would be a pretty stupid idea if there were no evidence of random external promoters integrating themselves into your DNA.
There isn't.
It would be doubly stupid if we weren't regularly exposed to DNA viruses that have promoters in their genomes.
We are just like anti-vaxxers who have come before him, who have tried to fear monger to the public about imaginary contaminations in vaccines.
He's doing it again.
And in a really bad way.
So in summary, the experiments that claim to show DNA contamination in COVID vaccines are very sloppily done.
Because they're so poorly done, they're not even considered valid by regulatory standards.
And we actually analyze the invalid data.
We see that it's actually consistent with the levels being below regulatory limits.
And on top of all that, what Kev has done might be illegal.
According to federal law, COVID vaccines are the property of the federal government and can only be used, administered, or handled by approved bodies.
I don't think that Kev's lab is an approved body for handling federal property.
So, yeah, it might be illegal.
More on that later, maybe.
Anyway, that's going to do it for this week's video.
That was pretty fun for me.
And thank you so much for watching.
I really do appreciate it.
If you've enjoyed this video, then don't forget to like it and subscribe so that you can catch me next week, where I'll be debunking some more.
So, don't forget, there's another one because, of course, that was the first preprint.
And now this is the second preprint.
And he did it again.
Yes, he did it again.
Support what the author was claiming in the slightest.
Now, there's another preprint by the same author claiming the same thing, that there's DNA contamination.
And now he's got a Carnegie Mellon sweater.
Are far above the allowable FDA limits.
And it's just as wrong and sloppy as the first one.
But a lot of you have been asking me to debunk it, so here we go.
I will tell you exactly how this paper is so sloppy that it is practically useless, again.
And I will tell you everything you need to know to understand why this story is wrong to begin with.
Just for those who don't know, this is a preprint.
That means it has not been peer reviewed.
But that's not why it's wrong.
So, let's get into what makes it wrong.
Before we get to the data, I'm just going to jump the gun a little bit and tell you why this whole idea was wrong to begin with.
Every single biologic or drug that uses biological materials in the manufacturing process needs to go through certain quality control standards in order to get FDA approval.
And each subsequent batch that goes out to the public also needs to pass those same quality control standards.
This is a whole regulatory area called good manufacturing practice, and it is global.
Flashing across your screen right now are just some of the tests that each and every COVID mRNA vaccine batch had to pass before it went out to the public.
This includes quantifying residual DNA left by the plasmid. That is used in the manufacturing process to make the mRNA.
These tests are done both by the manufacturers and also by...
That's funny. That's what you call contract research.
That's funny.
The results are then reviewed by regulatory bodies before the loss.
The title of that one was proposed testing for prasmin DNA prior to release.
It says proposed testing.
So he's kind of misrepresenting this.
Flying residual DNA left by the plasmid. That is used in the manufacturing process to make the mRNA.
These tests are done both by the manufacturers and also by third parties, which are called contract research organizations.
The results are then reviewed by regulatory bodies before the loss can go out to the public.
Each test is qualified...
There's an Australian...
Is qualified in...
Not sure that happened in America.
The assay itself and the reagents take significant effort to demonstrate that they are actually measuring what the test is designed to measure and that it can demonstrate purity or contamination or lack thereof in whatever the context may be.
The point is there is a lot of work that goes into this.
A lot of people do these tests and a lot of regulatory bodies all over the world.
Look at the results.
So if these results are going to be overturned, then you need something of equal rigor to overturn them.
And these preprints are nowhere near that level of rigor.
It does really seem like the only thing he has to stand on is the idea that the SV40 promoter was removed from the EMA document that was submitted to Canada and to the European Union.
And this allows them to title that video intent to deceive.
Other than that, it doesn't seem as though there's a tremendous amount of evidence.
They said that they were trying to correlate the amount of DNA in different lots to the outcomes, the VAERS outcomes.
But we didn't see any of that data.
We didn't hear any about that data.
We didn't see how they quantified the difference between different lots.
And how those quantifications were done.
We didn't see that at all.
He just mentioned that it happened that Jessica Rose did it.
But that's a whole nother ball game quantifying the contamination across lots is very different.
Apparently they had like 25 vials or something like that, right?
I'm not sure they've been qualified as being of the quality of like an undergraduate project, to be honest.
Anyway, let's now look at the preprints and what they show or what they claim to show.
In this new preprint, again, what they're looking at are what they claim to be COVID mRNA vaccine vials, and they are testing the liquid inside of them for residual DNA contamination.
They're doing this by using QPCR, which is the gold standard by which DNA and other nucleic acids are quantified in this context.
But like the first preprint, there are still significant issues.
If you haven't watched my previous video on this topic, I highly recommend you go check that out because I explain it all in much more detail.
But in their first preprint, their QPCR reaction failed efficiency, which off the bat means it is totally invalid.
And by the way, anybody who publishes QPCR reaction or tries to publish one, that failed efficiency is doing incredibly sloppy work.
I can't stress that enough. It's a huge mistake that an undergraduate shouldn't make, let alone someone trying to publish a preprint that is trying to take down all of the pharmaceutical and regulatory industries.
In any case, in this new preprint, their efficiency was much better. Very glad they learned that part.
However, just like the first preprint, they are miscalculating the amount of DNA in their sample, and as a result, hugely overestimating how much DNA is there.
Funnily enough, this overestimation still puts them below the FDA regulatory limit.
Yeah, they admit and fully show that their measurements were below FDA regulatory limit.
Anyway, the correct way to calculate how much DNA you have in your samples in this context is to use QPCR to get a copy number.
Once you have a copy number of how many copies of DNA you have in your sample, you can then use that copy number to calculate a gram amount.
But remember, as I explained in my previous video, any trace amounts of DNA that are going to be in the COVID mRNA vaccines are going to be in fragments.
That's because the plasmid used for manufacturing is digested by enzymes called DNases, and then most of those fragments are removed away from the mRNA before it's made into the drug product.
Because you have the copy number...
How are they removed away? See, that's the argument that Buck Halter and McCurnan are making is that you can't remove them.
They're just fragmented, and then they stay there. He's just hand-waving here, which is very interesting.
But what I'm trying to set up for you is the idea that this is already ready to go, like within days.
And so there is something happening here besides a sudden finding of DNA.
It's possible that this DNA is harmless.
It's possible that this DNA is meaningless.
It's possible that it's just another piece of the nasty puzzle that is transfection is not a product that we can make suitable for healthy humans.
And this is just one of the many details of that story.
That when we emphasize it as the detail, when we emphasize it as the camels, you know, the straw that breaks the camel's back, we are actually overemphasizing its real significance, I think.
And giving the door an opening to people like this who can kind of pounce on it and exaggerate that to the point where all of the other legitimate concerns get lost in this.
It's 10.35. It's been two hours and ten minutes. I'm going to put this in the chat for you to watch if you want to.
I'm not going to watch any more of this guy because I've already watched one and you get the idea of what he was doing.
You get the idea of what he was trying to do.
And I just want to finish up with a little summary really quick as long as my voice is still working.
So thanks for watching that. This is a group of people that has been manipulating us.
A couple of days ago, I watched a stream of somebody that I used to really enjoy named Huberman, who is a professor at Stanford, a neurobiologist, only to find out through my own loving wife that actually he's part of the intellectual dark web to and I was a dork for not knowing it.
So they misled us about the potential for pandemics to be in the laboratory and that was that noise.
That was on my microphone outside. It sounded like somebody jumped on it.
And also the fact that we could stitch things together.
But the illusion of consensus with regard to this, I hope you understand is very specific.
The illusion of consensus is that the worst case scenario now or in the future is a gain of function laboratory bio weapon release leak.
Accident.
And so it's not only the illusion of consensus isn't that gain of function is real.
The illusion of consensus is that gain of function is a potential source of a disaster.
And that inside of that potential source of disaster are people who actually want to create the potential for that disaster.
And there is a consensus across left and right.
High in government secret meetings everywhere that this is the truth.
And people like Kevin McCann and George Webb and Paul Cottrell were involved intimately in ceding this narrative in 2020 when it wasn't yet right to put it on television.
When it wasn't yet right to put it on the intellectual dark web, there were people way, way out in the fringes that were already driven, promoted and encouraged to talk about the worst case scenario of 1 billion dead because of the release of a bio weapon.
And that consensus was used as a seed to terrify people and to try and solve this mystery of where is the mystery virus.
And the people on television and the people in social media and these people creating this illusion of consensus about the faith wants you to believe that excess death is the mystery virus.
I mean a million 200,000 people so far have been killed in America by COVID means that all the excess deaths were due to COVID.
And the magic trick, the enchantment that they are pulling there is that they are not doing the math correctly because if you want to know who the mystery virus killed, you've got to take the excess deaths.
And then you've got to subtract the people that we didn't resuscitate in New York and elsewhere to prevent spread.
You've got to subtract all the people that we ventilated to prevent spread.
You've got to subtract all the people that we didn't give antibiotics to because antibiotics don't work on a viral pneumonia.
You've got to subtract all the people that we didn't give steroids at the right time to because steroids are inappropriate for COVID.
You've got to subtract all the people that got remdesivir, deteriorated and died from it.
You've got to subtract all the opioid deaths that were extra because they were also roped in as part of the excess deaths.
And you've got to subtract all the death certificate fraud that was driven by the PCR and driven by the financial incentives.
And when you do that, there's nothing left.
And that's why all the people that are preserving the faith don't do that math.
That's why all the people who are preserving the faith don't talk about the PCR fraud, the lateral flow fraud, the variants and all the other crap about the virus because then you have to do the math.
And if you do the math, you dispel this faith, the faith of a novel virus that millions died and were saved.
The gain of function is real and a virus will come again.
And that narrative is really, that's how they did it. That's what this faith is codified.
The UN codified the faith of a novel virus in a PCR test with financial incentive in the US was ready to act on this plan.
The only way that the molecular biology could be reels if they used an infectious clone.
And the goal is the total surrender of individual sovereignty and enforcement of a global fundamental inversion from basic human rights to basic granted permissions.
It's an illusion of consensus about this faith.
An illusion of consensus that was started in 2019 with the intellectual dark web, including Brett Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, the whole nine yards.
And then it was ceded with Rand Paul and Tony Fauci lying and fighting and that was ceded by the narratives and ceded by the proximal origin paper and the big dispute about what language they used and how dismissive they were.
And then by the the Shenxi Lee science paper and then Omicron came out in South America and everybody thought it was a white hat and now we're here.
And for three years, all the people that have been promoted on social media have never questioned the faith.
Elon Musk has never questioned the faith.
Peter Teals never questioned the faith. The Weinstein brothers have never questioned the faith. Sam Harris loves the faith.
Tony Fauci is the priest. It's all people keeping us in this illusion of consensus of a mystery to solve.
And by accepting the mystery and trying to solve it, you accept its premises.
Once you've accepted its premises, then they can change your mind and give you an illusion of consensus that we don't know what's going on and then doctors behave stupid for three years.
And now we have the excess deaths that we can invert and call a disease.
That's what this was.
We were solved into salt. We were fooled into solving the mystery and this mystery is really just a conflated background signal they lied.
The faith is a lie. The diagnostics are lies. Their fidelity is a lie because it was an endemic background and it doesn't really matter what it was.
But I think the best explanation is probably an infectious clone because the protocols were murder and transfection is not medicine.
They might have transfected some people with something that wasn't an infectious clone, maybe just a spike protein or, you know, I don't know, anthrax or something like whatever you want to make up.
But there are definitely, this is not the solution. It was a conflated background signal because the faith is a lie.
That's kind of, that's kind of where I'm at. It's kind of how I feel.
And I think that the players don't address the PCR fraud and all of the fraud about the virus and about replication competence and about transfection in general as we talk today specifically, and they never talk about natural immunity.
I'm the only person, I don't want to toot my own horn, but I'm the only person who spent hours and hours talking about immunology.
I'm the only person who has at least three five hour immunology streams under his belt in the last three years. Nobody else. Nobody else. Nobody else. Not one of these people. None of them.
And that's because we are at a time point where they want your data. So they don't, there's no incentive to teach you this biology so that you understand its sacredness.
The incentive is for you to think that it's just not even worth protecting or not even worth respecting. We're on the verge of cracking it.
Ladies and gentlemen, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb, transfection is not immunization.
Thank you guys for joining me.
It has been a pleasure to be here tonight. My voice held out pretty well. It feels pretty good. I guess I'm going to get a good night's sleep tonight.
I don't know. It's been 50 in a row. If I make it to the doctor and the doctor says I can't talk for a while, then it's just going to stop.
But the worst case scenario starting on November 2nd through November 5th, I will be off and back on November 6th.
Just so you know, there is going to be a break to this 50. We're not going to get to 400 just yet, but the streak is alive and I will see you tomorrow. Thanks guys.
Thank you so much for joining me.
I'm going to have you on soon, Albert. I promise I'm going to have you on soon. Things are really busy behind the scenes, so I'm having no guests right now. It's nothing to do with you. I just need to clear my schedule.