thank you Rebekah,

.. a few points

your bullet point 7 in the opening - there is no evidence the risk of various disease including cancers occurring from this synthetic DNA will be 'rare'

.. there is in fact an absence of evidence on the rates we should expect to see of various disease from this DNA, because to date no one has performed the proper genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies

.. both Pfizer and Moderna were given free passes on these tests, tests we now desperately need

what is very definitely known is residual DNA after entering the nucleus, does cause innumerable genetic disorders, which is why there have been legal limits placed on the stuff dating back to the 1970s

you do not place industry limits on contamination and publish regulatory guidance if a risk is 'theroretical'

.. the rules have been in place because interefering with natural DNA with exogenous or synthetic DNA kills people, where no death or disease from DNA contamination is 'rare' when it should never have been there, nor is it rare to the person suffering the disease or death .. that disease or death is 100% real to them, not rare

some recent FDA guidance is here (the word 'plasmid' appears 68 times): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2847045/

as for integration of this stuff

Buckhaults himself acknowledged in his South Carolina testimony the danger is very real because most of this DNA is linearised and as small fragments

.. so the whole plasmids (circular) DNA have been busted up into many many many smaller pieces .. 'truncated' is the science term

resulting in, as Buckhaults said, even greater chances of genomic integration, because there are many many more pieces floating around

McKernan and others are talking in terms of billions and possibly trillions of pieces of synthetic DNA in each shot being delivered right into cells, with a high number being attached to SV40 enhancer sequences, thereby ensuring they are shuttled directly into the nucleus within hours

this SV40 enhancer shuttling of genetic material into the nucleus of cells has been ongoing research dating back over 40 years

.. if you want to see some of the research, go to the following link, and towards the end of the page are Letters of Demand to the TGA and OGTR, and Pfizer and Moderna .. the Letters of Demand are almost identical .. download one and go to Schedule 1 in the letter which contains a bunch of science papers .. a very small collections of the 1,000 on the science of targeting cellular DNA - transfection/gene therapy:


'gene therapy' and 'transfection' drugs research has been targeting the nucleus for decades, in order to insert new genes into genomes, or alter the expression of natural genomes

.. it is particularly nasty science that has had an equally long history of failure, particularly countless side-effects with cancer creation being right on top of the list

for those who do not know, until Covid-19 that was almost entirely the history behind Moderna - year after year of failed drug trials using LNPs and modRNAs, typically announcing yet more cancer as serious 'side-effects' or adverse events

basically, Moderna has been unsuccessfully at this technology for about a decade

as to that issue of integration .. the linear DNA in the products of Pfizer and Moderna is the same type studied in this paper:


in short, 7-10% gets integrated with natural DNA, making that DNA no longer natural, but Transgenically modified .. never to be natural again

carpet bomb as McKernan says, a human with billions (possibly trillions) of pieces of this synthetic DNA, and you can bet your bottom dollar integration follows

.. not a 'risk' of integration .. just integration

that integration has been happening and has happened now in millions if not billions of humans since these Covid drugs were rolled out

this DNA has entered the nucleus of millions if not billions of humans

these humans are now different .. they have undergone Transgenesis

these humans have had their natural DNA interfered with, with untold numbers of genetic disorders and disease flowing from this fact

when this is occurring in millions if not billions of people, respectfully, the word 'rare' is inappropriate and wrong .. particularly to those millions (or billions) of people

after a global poisoning by contamination, we have entered a new and not-so-happy age of Transgenesis

.. and wait for the kids of parents coming in the nearby next generation, from parents whose sperm DNA is no longer natural, and whose eggs (Oocytes) are no longer natural

every integration and change to natural DNA will be different

.. so expect to see some wildly different outcomes

some wildly different kids, if they survive

this story has only just begun

Julian Gillespie

Expand full comment

Good grief mate, that is terrifying. Have you any further work to read regarding what problems are expected in the next gens? Purely for morbid curiosity.

Expand full comment

George, yes

but you need google translate or a browser that does it automatically, for this highly credentialed Japanese scientist Hiroshi Arakawa:


this inheritance map also helps explain what is on the horizon:


Expand full comment

Thank you kindly.

Expand full comment

with respect to effects on offspring

some further information from Dr Janci Lindsay, PhD in toxicology and molecular biology .. where you see 'mutagenesis' you can also read 'transgenesis'

.. to quote:

The potential consequences of the contamination of the plasmid DNA in the mRNA vaccines through expected insertional mutagenesis events can lead to the following consequences in our children, notwithstanding sperm-mediated gene transfer which carries the risk of transfer full translation into f the spike protein in progeny.

Genius Chat AI input: The consequences of insertional mutagenesis on progeny can vary depending on several factors, including the specific genes or regulatory elements affected, the location of the insertion, and the type of DNA being inserted. Here are a few potential consequences:

1. Inheritable genetic changes: If the inserted DNA becomes integrated into the germ cells (sperm or egg cells) of an organism, the genetic changes resulting from insertional mutagenesis can be passed on to the progeny. This can lead to the transmission of altered traits or an increased risk of genetic disorders in future generations.

2. Developmental abnormalities: Insertional mutagenesis can disrupt normal gene function, leading to developmental abnormalities in the progeny. This can result in a range of effects, from mild to severe, depending on the specific genes affected and their roles in development.

3. Altered gene expression: The inserted DNA may activate or disrupt the expression of nearby genes in the progeny. This can lead to changes in cellular processes and potentially cause abnormal phenotypes or disease susceptibility.

4. Genetic instability: Insertional mutagenesis can induce chromosomal rearrangements or other genetic changes that may increase the risk of genetic instability in the progeny. This can lead to a higher likelihood of further mutations or genetic abnormalities in subsequent generations.

It's important to note that the consequences of insertional mutagenesis on progeny are generally associated with experimental or accidental situations, such as in gene therapy or transgenic studies. In these cases, extensive safety measures and ethical considerations are taken to minimize the risk of harmful effects on future generations.


Expand full comment

right on Geoff,

-- recommended reading everyone --

sperm-mediated genetic changes

and the science of Retropositions (modRNA being reverse transcribed into natural DNA)

.. also this paper, The Canaries in the Human DNA Mine: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/83

Expand full comment

"plasmids" are only mentioned one time of relevance in the WHO mRNA vaccine Guidance

"A purification process also needs to be in place to reduce impurities from the DNA plasmid (such as RNA, host-cell DNA, protein, lipids and polysaccharides)."


They don't say what process is adequate or what any limits should be. Their only word is 'reduce'.

Expand full comment

Pfizer had a cheap method of removing dsDNA etc.


Expand full comment

How do you know Pfizer didn't use the cheap method in "Process 2"?

I've missed the Process 1 vs 2 thing.

Expand full comment

Madeleine i have a whole article coming out on this next week 😊

Expand full comment

Because I have read documents that reveal how they produced the jabs.

Expand full comment

Are the docs publicly available? - Don't take the time to hunt them out. Have you written about it? (substack?)

Expand full comment

Gives meaning to Generation X, Y...

and Z.

Generation Alpha begins a new cycle.


Expand full comment

And the cheery news?

Expand full comment

"Oopsie poopsie! Everybody makes mistakes!" -- governments around the world.

Expand full comment

"Mistakes were made..."


Expand full comment

Shoot! Forgot the passive voice. You're way better at this than I am! :)

Expand full comment

No immunity no amnesty.

Retribution now !

Expand full comment

All with ours best interests at heart.

Expand full comment

The excuse is the "PHE" - public health emergency.

Dr Ka-Wai Wan (MHRA - UK) at the informal consultation of the draft Guidance for assessing the safety of mRNA vaccines in April 2021:

"She acknowledged that some decisions made were on the basis of risk in the context of a PHE and would likely not be the same for other new vaccines in development.

"Dr Wan detailed a number of issues regarding safety for which there are gaps in knowledge, asking whether these gaps are acceptable.

"Examples include information about how novel components are cleared from the body, and over what time course, whether novel components cross the placenta, a lack of correlate of protection for COVID-19, and the durability of the immune response."

Expand full comment

Which would POSSIBLY be acceptable if they were upfront and honest about the risks -- both the risks FROM covid AND the risks FROM the jab.

But they weren't. They lied at every turn and settled on "Safe and effective" -- which is two lies in three words.

Expand full comment


These following statements come from the TGA public doc on how they assessed Pfizer. I can only imagine the emergency powers allowed this...

"Quality : There was no requirement for a quality evaluation in a submission of this type.

"Nonclinical : There was no requirement for a nonclinical evaluation in a submission of this type

The PHE probably also allowed them to say "Safe and Effective". I went to an "Outrage Management" Masterclass with a lot of Australian Federal Health people. They feel justified in ramping up or dampening concern if they consider it to be in the public interest.

I spent six years writing a paper on the lies of FSANZ. These health regulators are not doing what we think we are paying them to do.

Expand full comment

Now he claims his info is not fit for public consumption....a bit like the vaccines themselves! The irony is mind blowing

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2023·edited Oct 25, 2023

...like Michael Mann and his hockey stick climate predictions. Bullet proof science exists in open forums and can handle any and all questioning. Michael can't even show up in public....ever

Expand full comment

seriously how blood y well "they" dare insult, we the people.. now where have I heard this before?? seen it somewhere...

Talk about get caught with your pants down.. when you thought no-one was looking, damn white coat superiority complex.

Expand full comment

Endotoxin and DNA fragments cling together in attempts at purification.

It is all to do with the net charge on the molecules.

Expand full comment

Dr McCulloch - courageous discord stack has just crossposted a research document by five Aussie doctors, thought you might be interested

Expand full comment

You only ever mention the endotoxins. There are so many genetic things that could go wrong. The LNP transfection of heart cells, which then produce spike proteins, requiring the standard auto-immune destruction, is a pretty big thing.

Expand full comment

Full-time research into Endotoxins is my game.

I welcome your feedback on Endotoxin Induced Myocarditis, known since 2003 in great Epigenetic detail.


Expand full comment
Oct 28, 2023Liked by Rebekah Barnett

Thanks for the excellent presentation. Many years ago I trained to be a molecular biologist so I appreciate the extra detail in the slides.

I had a nasty reaction to an initial dose of the Astrazeneca 'vaccine', which I was forced to get to keep my job, but no reaction to a subsequent dose of the Novavax peptide vaccine, which thankfully became available just in time, allowing me to avoid getting a second dose of Astrazeneca or an mRNA shot.

I elected to have the Astrazeneca shot because it seemed like the lesser of two evils (a replication deficient adenovirus versus vs artificially stabilised mRNA). It never occurred to me that both options would be dangerously contaminated with endotoxin as I assumed that a reasonable level of care would be taken in producing them, but evidently I was wrong.

The symptoms I experienced are possibly consistent with sepsis (fever, confusion, tachycardia, painfully tight back and neck muscles). The weird thing is that they only occurred on the left side of my body, the side I had been injected in. Longer-term symptoms included loss of feeling in two toes (peripheral nerve damage), which persisted for about two months, and severe sleep disruption (including suicidal ideation), eventually corrected with Agomelatonin, an atypical anti-depressant that acts as a melatonin agonist. The acute symptoms peaked 12 hours after injection and were severe enough to wake me from a deep sleep.

I consider myself lucky because a work colleague about the same age as me was diagnosed with Guillaine-Barre syndrome, which was confirmed to have been caused by the Astrazeneca shot.

Expand full comment

Thanks very much Tim for sharing with such detail. Was your Serious Adverse Reaction reported to TGA DAEN, or elsewhere if you are not in Australia?

Expand full comment

I live in Tasmania and reported it to the relevant Tasmanian Government contact person (an immunologist) who interviewed me at length about the symptoms. I assume it was reported to the TGA but I didn't report it myself.

Your presentation was like a lightbulb switching on in my head. It made me realise that I've been barking up the wrong tree, focusing on the novel gene therapies instead of the manufacturing process. It is so elegant an explanation that I'd be surprised if you haven't hit the nail on the head.

However, I'd never risk an mRNA shot even if it was certified free from endotoxin. It has always seemed like an inherently dangerous technology (what could possibly go wrong flooding your body with long-lived mRNA molecules?!). It doesn't deserve a Nobel prize, even for its novelty, but could be in contention or a Darwin Award.

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2023Liked by Rebekah Barnett

And don't forget, these questions are being probed in the AVN case that Pfizer and Moderna pushed these GMO products without obtaining the necessary lisence under the Gene Technology Act 2000:



Expand full comment

Dr. Phillip Buckhaults sounds like the TGA, I'll pass thanks.

Expand full comment

Dr. Buckhaults is different to the TGA because when he came across information he thought could not be true (ie: McKernan's work), he tested for himself. That's how he found out it was true. The TGA just sends Mayo Clinic fact sheets and looks the other way.

Expand full comment

But exactly like the TGA when he says his bombshell is no big deal.

Expand full comment

yeah and keep looking the OTHER way

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2023Liked by Rebekah Barnett

Love your tweet in response to him. Excellent!!

Expand full comment

I have a nagging feeling they are throwing a specific industrial process [the second one which uses the e coli bacteria and the plasmids. not the one used in the trials which was PCR based] under the bus, as being the thing causing all the adverse events, so that they can exonerate the mRNA technology itself - i.e. they are going say it is was all due to a quality control issues, but the basic concept is still sound.....

Expand full comment

On point as always, Gary. Peter McCullough and friends (Jessica Rose, Tess Laurie) have already done this. Lots of handwaving to 'justify publication.' No excuse to alter DNA. Not now, not ever.


mRNA Off to a Bad Start but Future May be Brighter

Expand full comment

Thanks for this - seems confirming, if very concerning too.

Expand full comment

I try to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but there are a tier of 'acceptable' people who I suspect will slot into the power structure at the appointed time.

Expand full comment

"Scientists, and especially oncologists, are concerned about the possibility of contamination leading to rare but serious side effects"

Another damnable conflation of the reality of the shot with 'negative-risk benefit'.

So, where exactly is the quantitative evidence for, "rare?"

In a running experiment bereft of controls, all recipients are ad hoc lab rats.

All events are deadly serious until proved otherwise.

Expand full comment

There was no specific Guidance on how to assess the mRNA vaccines for safety before they were approved. I'm going to do a substack on this, but here is the gist...

It is (woefully) typical that novel products are released before such Guidance is developed. GM crops were released in 1996, and the Guidance for National Regulators (such as FSANZ) came out in 2003. Here is the Codex Alimentarius Guidance document for GM crops that covers a lot of the typical things that can go wrong in any genetic inventions. "Unintended Effects" is a critical aspect of assessing their safety: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXG%2B45-2003%252FCXG_045e.pdf

When dealing with a direct-injectable, how much more important is 'getting it right'? Not apparently very important, to the TGA.

The WHO got together in mid 2020, suddenly realising that mRNA injectables were lead candidates, and there were no specific Guidelines.

Before the first draft had been written people in the northern hemisphere were already being injected.

Before the first comment period was over the TGA had already approved the vaccine.

Before the "Informal Consultation" over 20-21 April that had one Australian representative from the TGA, 51 suspected deaths had already been registered on their DAEN database in respect of Pfizer.

By the time the second draft was written everyone in Australia who was going to be vaccinated had been vaccinated.

I couldn't believe it at the time - still can't believe that people walked forward for the injections.

There's a bigger story on who was writing the Guidelines, and a lot of questions on how good they actually are. The Working Group of "Experts" seemed to be largely the pharmaceutical companies seeking to profit. One of the major co-ordinators, Dr Rebecca L Sheets, had a good decade at the NIH NIAID where she worked on the Guidance and selection for HIV trial vaccines. So it's probably a perfect choice to organise the Guidance for assessing the safety of a bioweapon, apparently with HIV binding sites. I don't mean to imply anything at all - I think it's nice that the developers of the bioweapon, developers of the injection 'solution', and the developers of the Guidance, were all quite cosy.

The authors lamented that they didn't have all the information they needed - the pharmaceutical companies weren't that keen of releasing all the information on how they were making them. In my area of speciality (multiple proteins in respect of supposedly one single piece of genetic code) Guidance was barely mentioned. "Demonstration of expression of the complete encoded protein(s) without truncated or alternative forms should be provided. In particular, if expression of truncated or alternative forms of the target antigen is demonstrated during characterization studies and these alternative forms would result in neo-antigens or unwanted immune responses, then this may require a redesign of the mRNA sequence."

At the April 2021 consultation, after the damage in the UK would've been well seen, Dr Ka-Wai Wan of the UK MHRA (TGA equivalent) acknowledged that "some decisions made were on the basis of risk in the context of a PHE [public health emergency] and would likely not be the same for other new vaccines in development". https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2022.2026742?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Expand full comment

And as such, LOL "Scientist [sic] and regulators and industry experts are always working to make extra sure that the public is protected..."

Expand full comment

Trouble is ... there wasn’t any regulatory oversight. Of any of this. Let’s all cast our minds back to late-2020 and the “emergency use authorisations” landscape that not only allowed but actively encouraged regulators to take all necessary steps to push “vaccine” approvals for Pfizer and Moderna through, with all manner of gaps and omissions in the so-called EUA’s using weasel language indicating the “greater good” would be to inject and then see. Our TGA in particular just rubber-stamped Pfizer’s own report ... citing “others have already approved this experimental product so why bother looking into it. Pfizer and Moderna say their products are SAFE and EFFECTIVE you see.” The list of unknowns was longer than the list of knowns for FFS.

Expand full comment

Most of us moderate our 'appalled onlooker' unvaxd observations when talking with the happily vaxd. It's a no-brainer. Why worry a friend?

But the people who were forced against their will are validated to learn more of the dangers and risks - it heightens their just sense of being wronged - as much as they are frightened by the new information. The lady in Victoria who said she was going to Queensland to 'have the vax taken out' springs to mind. Her sister had a turbo brain cancer, but 'got the vax taken out'. Make of that what you will.

If the vaxd weren't interested in seeing the discussion they wouldn't be going there.

Expand full comment
Oct 25, 2023Liked by Rebekah Barnett

I do fear a whole host of 'vax removal' fraudsters in the coming year. Once the true narrative is learned by the masses, there will be a ton of people looking to 'fix' their DNA, at any cost.

Expand full comment

Hopefully it's just a bit of nattokinase & bromelain.

Expand full comment

Food For Thought: Professor Denis Rancourt states that there was there was No PHE - great interview at https://rumble.com/v3oni8d-october-11-2023.html Professor Denis Rancourt was at the University of Ottawa for 23 years as a tenured professor in Physics. He has written over 100 peer reviewed articles published in leading scientific journals. He is now the co-director and researcher of the non-profit correlation-canada.org, which is a registered non-profit organization conducting independent scientific research on topics of public interest. Read his work on the Covid Pandemic here: https://denisrancourt.ca/categories.php?id=1&name=covid.

How was it contaminated - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RPxwEVWoho&t=18s "I know whodunit," says Sasha Latypova. "I only guess who ordered it." Sasha joins Dr. Kelly Victory to discuss her research and what she calls the "executive organizational structure of the covid crime."

Sasha Latypova is a former pharmaceutical R&D executive with 25 years of experience in clinical trials, clinical technologies, and regulatory approvals. She owned and managed several contract research organizations and worked for more than 60 pharma companies worldwide. She interacted with the FDA as part of a scientific industry consortium on improving cardiac safety assessments in clinical trials.

TWO vaccines were produced one for testing and the other for injection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO1Ivk6JYyE Two different manufacturing processes. Pfizer covid vaccines for the clinical trials were mostly produced using manufacturing ‘process 1’ whereas the vaccines used for population vaccination were produced using a different ‘process 2’


Finally the FDA advised Dr. Joseph Fraiman (recorded) that they didn't use their VARS data but sent out "a man" they use to determine whether there was a problem with the Vax.

In a letter published in Vaccine, emergency medicine specialist Dr. Joseph Fraiman led a group of physicians who warn "there are major shortcomings in the FDA’s recent publication of its first “near real-time surveillance” study." He joins Dr. Kelly Victory and Dr. Drew to examine the reliability of mRNA vaccine serious adverse event reports by government agencies. Dr. Joseph Fraiman is an emergency medical physician from Louisiana. He is the former Medical Manager of Louisiana's Urban Search Rescue Disaster Task Force

Expand full comment

One of my favourite films as a child was The Dark Crystal, terrifying though it was.

There is now a backstory to it called Age of Resistance. It's admitting everything we're going through, but sideways. Not recommended if there are children about.

The Scientist is utterly diabolical, I'm not yet halfway through.

It's reality... (downer) but with muppets! (Hooray!) What's not to love. And if one has already seen the film back in the 80's or 90's or whenever it came out, you know there will be a happy ending eventually.

Emphasis on eventually...

Expand full comment

Dr Buckhault is another soul sold to the devil🤦‍♀️

Expand full comment

nah he volunteered !

Expand full comment

Here in the U.S., the acknowledgment of contamination or any wrong doing whatsoever with mRNA will be harder to pry out of 'the powers that be' because our DoD, CDC and others are primarily responsible for the 'vaccines' in the first place. Hopefully the truth comes out soon in Australia, Canada, U.K. and any other country willing to examine evidence over protecting narratives.

Expand full comment