A #plasmidgate update
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
"Oopsie poopsie! Everybody makes mistakes!" -- governments around the world.
Now he claims his info is not fit for public consumption....a bit like the vaccines themselves! The irony is mind blowing
Endotoxin and DNA fragments cling together in attempts at purification.
It is all to do with the net charge on the molecules.
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:
Dr. Phillip Buckhaults sounds like the TGA, I'll pass thanks.
Love your tweet in response to him. Excellent!!
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.....
"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.
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
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.
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.
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
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...
Dr Buckhault is another soul sold to the devil🤦♀️
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.