American Thought Leaders - DNA Contamination in Vaccines: A Potential Cancer Risk? | Dr. Jessica Rose

Episode Date: November 9, 2023

“100 percent of the vials that have been tested in five different labs around the world now have discovered some level of DNA contamination.”Jessica Rose is an immunologist who has been analyzing datasets and testing components of the COVID-19 mRNA shots since they were released in 2020."If VAERS is a functioning pharmacovigilance database, then why isn't it being used as such by the owners of the data? Why is it [that] independent scientists like me are having to do this work and bring questions to the table?" she asks."The onus is not on us to prove that these things aren't safe. The onus was never on us to do that. This is appalling. The onus is on them, the manufacturers and the regulators, to prove that they are. And they claim that they have done that, but they have not.”In this episode, we dive into her research and look into the latest studies concerning DNA contamination and vaccine injury.“When you look at some datasets and you see things that really contradict, or a week later you see that they've changed the numbers in a way that is not possible, it kind of makes you wonder: is this data being manipulated?” asks Dr. Rose.

A hundred percent of the vials that have been tested in five different labs around the world now have discovered some level of DNA contamination. Jessica Rose is an immunologist who has been researching and analyzing data sets of the COVID-19 mRNA shots since they were released in 2021. In this episode, we dive into her research and look into the latest studies on DNA contamination and vaccine injury. If VAERS is a functioning pharmacovigilance database, then why isn't it being used as such by the owners of the data? The onus is not on us to prove that these things aren't safe.

The onus is on them, the manufacturers and the regulators, to prove that they are. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Janja Kelley. Jessica Rose, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. I'm really happy to be here. So it's high time, and of course I've been following your work for some time. You've been looking at VAERS, that reporting system for vaccine injury. You've been looking into contamination of the vial, mRNA vaccine vials. Can you just give me a sense of who you are, what your education is, how you got into working in all these areas? Yeah, absolutely. My name is Jessica Rose, and I'm a researcher primarily in biology of viruses. And I got started in my academic career

a long time ago in applied mathematics, where I applied the mathematics to immunology. I got an MSc in immunology with a focus on HIV immunopathogenesis. So I was really lucky. I got to work in a level three biosafety lab and also in a math lab. So it was an interdisciplinary project, very hard. Immunology is wild. I didn't learn more than I learned in those three years about anything. Then I was invited via that project to do a PhD in computational biology in Israel. And that was with a focus on cytomegalovirus, which is just another virus. It was more about big data analysis, though. No fun level three stuff. And then I did a postdoc in molecular biology, switched to Rickettsia, which is a type of bacteria that lives in ticks. And then I did a, uh, a postdoc in biochemistry with a focus on protein biology and, uh, these

things called ABC, uh, transporters, which are transmembrane molecules that bring things like B12 into cells. So, and of late, I've been more of a data analyst. So as part of all of those degree programs, there's always been the data analysis component. You always have to present your data in a thorough way, in a succinct way, you know, you get graded. So, um, I basically just applied everything I learned over the years to, um, to this, this fight we've been in for the last three years to bring light and truth to, to what's been going on with these, uh, these COVID products,

because I mean, everything about it is, um, it just leaves huge question marks hanging in the air. And so, yeah, I'm one of those people trying to resolve the question marks. We just had a headline from yesterday in the Epoch Times. The Canadian government is admitting to the fact that they recognize there's some sort of DNA contamination in these vials. And this is one of the issues that you've been tackling. So I wanted to get your reaction. So my reaction to that is, so it's Health Canada. They're kind of like the, as far as I understand, they're kind of like the regulator of the Canadian system. So they have admitted in an email exchange between the reporter and a representative

for Health Canada that indeed, SB40 elements, promoter and or enhancer are described as contaminants or residuals in the Pfizer products. I'm not sure if they said anything about Moderna, but in the modified mRNA products. And they kind of, they said this, they admitted this, but in the same breath, they said, ah, it's no big deal though. It doesn't change the risk benefit analysis.

And it's like, how does that not change the risk? I mean, so that's my reaction. I'm very glad that this admittance has come, though, because I think for all intents and purposes, this is going to be a good thing, for whatever reason they did it, to have an out or because they were tired of withholding some information that they might have been privy to. I don't know. But I think that this is going to get a transparency ball rolling for whatever reason. And it's kind of predictable that this would happen because the truth is going to come out. I mean, you can't, as long as people are seeking it and trying to bring it to truth, to,

to light, there's always going to be people who are dying for the truth. So you bring these things together and poof. I mean, so I see it as a very good thing. I had Kevin McKernan on a little while ago. We did a deep dive into the contamination that he found and some of the other labs that had found similar DNA contamination. If you could just give me a quick recap of what the state of knowledge is around that right now and why is it actually a concern? Just briefly.

Yeah, as brief as I can be. Well, if people want to read about what we did, we uploaded a preprint of our paper. So it covers everything that we've done up to date in terms of sequencing the vials so i think one of the most important things two of the most important things people should know is that there isn't supposed to be dna in these vials this is a modified mrna product it's um it's been found in all of the vials that have been tested. And our study that we published a preprint yesterday tested 27 lots, I'm sorry, vials of 12 lots that were distributed in Canada. And every single one and every single one of the other lots that have been tested

were contaminated, let's call it contaminated with DNA or had residual DNA in it. This is absolutely concerning for a number of reasons, because, I mean, in order to produce the modified mRNA, there's a system, a synthesis system. And I think this is important to mention, so I'm going to. There are two ways that you can create your DNA in order to get your end product modified mRNA. You can use the PCR and magnetic beads, which is what they did in a process called process one for the products that were used in the clinical trials, Pfizer clinical trials, where you can use a plasmid E. coli system followed by in vitro transcription and purification of the product in a process called process two, which was what was put into all of the billions of people

as commercial products. The problem with that, with this upscaling system using plasmid and E. coli is that you can have potential contamination or spillover of both the E. coli membrane contents, which is an endotoxin, lipopolysaccharide, which is if you inject that into someone by accident, you can kill them. More likely, they're going to get anaphylaxis, but also component parts or the plasmids themselves could potentially carry over if your cleaning out process at the end, your purification of the modified mRNA is not thorough, which apparently it wasn't because, like I said, 100% of the vials that have been tested in five different labs around the world now have discovered some level of DNA contamination. By one methodology, all of them are way over the EMA limit, which is 330 nanograms of RNA per, I think it's milligrams, sorry, 330 nanograms of DNA

per milligram of RNA, way over these limits. By another methodology, they're under. So it raises another issue of who is using what methodology to measure what? Because you can actually choose a quantitative methodology in order to make it look better for yourself, if you know what I mean. If you want to make DNA look lower lower you can choose a specific test so there are there are all of these um these uh good manufacturing practice issues going on here and the real question of how is it possible at the end stage with the purification that the DNAs, this enzyme that chops up the residual DNA was not thoroughly filtered out. How is it possible that they, because they check the level of DNA in the product before it goes into you. How is it that they did that and they didn't find these residuals that

we're finding now in the vials? They must have. They did. We know that they did. So why wasn't this issue, why wasn't the alarm bell raised before? Why is the only document I've ever seen that has measured endotoxin levels have the readout redacted? That's not proprietary knowledge. That's just test results. So there's all these head scratchers surrounding it now. So the latest is that we've published, so everybody's free to read what we did. Kevin and et al are, you know, developing kits such that people can actually get their sperm cells or stem cells or any cells that they want checked for these residual DNAs if they want to. But we you need a special permission or IRB in order to do this kind of study. So the push is on the representatives of, let's just say, the United States of States to actually push the colleges and the laboratories that are tax funded to actually get up and do this kind of work, because it really does concern all of us.

And I'm not going to go into shedding now, but it really does concern all of us if this is actually a, like a comprehensive problem vial wise. And it certainly is starting to look like that. So more testing needs to be done. Well, and of course, the issue is that this DNA, there's the potential that it could be incorporated into our DNA. And then further, since we do know that these mRNA products, the spike, for example, it does concentrate in the ovaries and the testes.

Basically, it creates a situation where there might even be some sort of germline movement of this contaminant DNA. We don't know, but it's very, very troubling. Yeah. Yeah, especially since we were really, really pounded with the idea that first, these things don't biodistribute. We don't have to worry about them going to the sex organs, for example. And B, there's never going to be an issue with integration because they're mRNA products. Well, you know what? Line one is a reverse transcriptase, which is actively producing DNA of this modified mRNA.

So first of all, that has potential for integration right there. We don't know. We haven't validated that yet. But it's also a concern. Now, with this DNA issue, you're absolutely right. It's integration. Of course, that's the biggest concern for me, besides immunological activity against this. I mean, if we're talking about hordes of DNA, these tiny little bits, we're talking about an increased potential for integration. And I read recently that the cell doesn't even need to be dividing like the,

the nuclear membrane doesn't even have to have been like dispersed in order for this stuff to get in, can get in through nuclear force. So there there's definitely, I mean, this is why we have safety measures against this. This is why we test for DNA, because we really don't want this kind of contamination because it could be disastrous in terms of cancer in a nutshell. If you have disturbance, like integration of a fragment of DNA in an essential gene, let's go all the way here. Let's say p53. I mean, this is a horrific situation. p53 is the guardian of the genome. It's like the surveillance, one of the most powerful

surveillance systems of cancer. And if this gets disrupted in any way, then it or it can't click onto the DNA to surveil if there are any breakages. It can't function to alert the rest of the guys implicated to, hey, come here and repair this. We need some help here. And things can really run amok. So, and then there's also this issue of the SV40 promoter. I mean, this is a very strong promoter that's useful in mammalian cell systems, for example. So if that thing gets integrated upstream of an oncogene, that's not going to be so good either. It's a cancer promoting. So a number of things from my, I'm learning about a lot of, I'm not an oncologist, I'm not a geneticist, so I'm learning a lot of this as I go. But it seems to me that the likelihood for all of these factors to come together is, like, it's higher than it would be without all these factors coming together, if that makes any sense, with the combined immune suppression that we're seeing with the shots themselves, the component parts of the shots, the effects of the LNPs, the effect of the spike, the effect of the pseudo use. I mean,

the whole thing is a nightmare. And you combine that with this issue of potential integration. I mean, it makes you like really kind of come to the conclusion that this is why we're seeing all these reports of turbo cancers it's like it's the combination of all of these factors double-stranded dna repair break um mechanisms mechanisms are being held back. This is published as well. I mean, yeah, it's, and people also have pre-existing conditions. I mean, if you have some kind of impairment in your BRCA gene, you're more predisposed for breast cancer. So it's like, people have this stuff already too. So it kind of makes you wonder if it's not akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. I mean, it just seems like it's making any current

situation going on in the body just explode. Not just cancer, but like immunological stuff. These things are so inflammatory. if you have any low level inflammation it just seems like it's going to make it go so yeah that's uh that's a non-technical way to say it well but the real issue here is that we should be studying this stuff intensely like our our agencies you know NIH which have the funding, there's a lot of troubling signals. And this actually leads us to the VAERS, what we were originally going to talk about. What I'd like to do with that is just start by talking about what we saw, what should the reaction have been? I want to kind of recap that, what we've learned

since you've actually been, you know, you've been doing quite a bit of work on this. And it's something I don't want people to forget. Yeah, I think it's time and it's timely to recap this now. And just before I start, in case people aren't aware, VAERS was, is before all of this started three years ago, I didn't know about VAERS. I didn't really know anything about the vaccine battle. I didn't know anything about this world. And so I thought it was normal and standard that VAERS was updated weekly. It's always been that way since I started looking at this data in November 2020. I'm sorry, December 2020, when they started the rollout of the shots. But apparently the standard before COVID-19 started was monthly updating of VAERS data. So as of last week, the 6th of October, it's reverted to the monthly updating of VAERS data. So what that means is that we're only going to have an update

every month. So it means, I'm not sure what it means. If it's going to mean they're going to clump all of that month of data into one or if it means more data is going to be held back or what it's hard to know with theirs but um it's kind of sad because i mean we kind of i kind of knew something was going to come like they were either going to stop posting the data or allowing the data to be downloaded or that it would become less frequently uh available so but apparently this is just how it is. So on that note, because I was kind of, pardon me, poised because of what I had witnessed in the form of mandated control of the population and this linear thinking about one way out using these injections,

which is never the way to do anything with a, you know, a coronavirus. I was ready to start digging into the VAERS data as soon as these reports started coming in, which was December 14th or 17th. So I have that data going back all the way to those dates. And it's very important that everybody understand that if, like I've done this recently, I dug out the data for the fifth week into the rollout, which puts us at January 30th, 2021. And by the end of January 2021, there was way more of a signal that would be required to at least do an investigation because that's what BEARS is for. It's a pharmacovigilance system

which detects safety signals in the way of adverse events that are reported that weren't detected during pre-market testing by clinical trials. So it was functioning beautifully. There were safety signals left, right, and center going all the way to death. And so one of the slides that I show when I want, when I really want to let people know that we knew right away that these things were not safe by any definition of the word, and that the signal had been, the bell had been rung, and that a causality assessment should have been done. Something should have been done in the way of trying to assess whether or not these shots were the cause of, say, all of the deaths.

So there was a disproportionate number of reports and singular adverse events like death and hospitalizations, myocarditis, all of these things very early on. And when you compared them to the last 30 years of data, because VAERS has been on the go for about 30 years. And let's just say from the very beginning, it was disproportionate. And now, that was the beginning. Now, as of October 6th, we have something over 1.6 million reports in the context of the COVID products alone. So that's Novavax, Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen for the states. And that's in comparison. Well, actually, I should be fair here. In 2021 alone, for I think it was only three products in 2021, there was no Novavax. So just three products. We had just shy of a million reports

in VAERS. And that compares to an average for the last 30 years of 39,000 reports for all vaccines combined. So if that's not a safety signal, I don't know what is. And it's not like this is hidden from the people who do the causality assessments this is their data this is owned by the people who do the assessment so it's like why why isn't something being done and then you know typically the answer it must be because you know there were just so many shots given out and it's proportional to the number of shots it's normal and that's hogwash if you compare just to the number of shots. It's normal. And that's hogwash. If you compare just to the flu, not all the vaccines, if you compared COVID to the flu per million doses,

it's completely disproportionate. It's not the number of shots. And another piece of evidence is the range of adverse events that are being reported in the context of the COVID shots when you compare it to all vaccines combined. They are coded using something called a measure code, which is like the name of the adverse event that's reported. And there are potential, I think there are 25,000 odd that you can choose from. So typically, you're seeing about 5,000, like a range of 5,000 different adverse event coded, metric coded adverse events reported. But for the COVID products, it's over, it was the last time I checked, which was months ago, over 14,000. And you know yourself

that the damages that we're seeing reported in the peer-reviewed literature is comprehensive. There's some kind of disruption of the immune system itself, it seems, suppression. There's neurological damage, cardiac damage, hepatological damage, perhaps fertility damage, every damage you can think of. So it's absolute BS to say that these products are comparable to anything that we've used before, because they're not. They're brand new technology, both the lipid nanoparticle, which is toxic, and the modified mRNA. They're completely new. And so it's almost unshocking what we're seeing, although it is shocking.

So that's what's going on in bears back then and now. And it's been a very, very useful tool for me to see everything that's being published now, basically. It's not being used the way that it should be. There was another system actually that was created specifically for the COVID vaccines vigilance and V-safe And I understand that system has actually been, was taken offline recently. Any thoughts about why that might be? Nope.

My guess would be they think they don't need it anymore. It's probably akin to the reason why they're reverting to only posting VAERS data once a month now. Their claim is that the emergency is over from my sources. So I guess, you know, that would be the optics that they would portray. But my take would be that they're sick and tired of people coming out with information and studies using their data that they should have done years ago and showing them up. So it's like, it's not a good optic. So yeah, hiding data that is from the public is not a good idea.

I mean, it's appalling. I mean, there's been no transparency. The transparency of data that we've had has either been cut or we've discovered that it's not trustworthy. You know, some data, I've learned that there's some kind of middleman in between. So somebody actually manipulates the data and then it ends up on the front end. But I mean, I can't confirm that. But I mean, when you look at some data sets and you see things that really contradict or a week later, you see that they've changed the numbers in a way that is not possible. It kind of makes you wonder, like, is this data being manipulated? That's what I'd have to say about that. If I recall correctly, in the V-safe data, they found that 7.7% of people had a serious adverse reaction

where they required some sort of medical attention, in some cases hospitalization or some kind of, you know, urgent care. What does the VAERS data tell us? Yeah. So first of all, they had a pull down tab that I believe if memory recalls only had a list of 18 possible adverse events to choose from. So that 7% is probably a real underestimate. And so in VAERS, you can, first of all, let's classify serious adverse event according to the VAERS handbook. It's anything that is called a death, a life-threatening illness, a birth defect, hospitalization, disability, or an

emergency room visit. So if you have one of these six things, it's considered a serious adverse event. So typically, according to the VAERS handbook, you won't really ever see anything about 15% serious adverse events per any group of data. So if all your adverse events about 15% tops are going to be serious in a normal distribution, I suppose. But for the COVID shots, this has remained consistently above 15% the entire time. Here's an interesting thing. In February 2021, it peaked above 60, which was really weird, really anomalous. I still don't know if that was real, but it could have been, and they could have noticed and started kind of, I don't know, I'm not sure what happened

there. I won't speculate. You guys can make up your own minds, but it's fluctuated, but it's kind of stayed steady at around 28%, where I believe it remains today. I'd have to go run a check, but the last time I checked, it was at 28%. So this is a very high percentage of serious adverse events. And by the way, I just want to be clear here. That only includes six things. This is not including myocarditis. Well, it kind of might include myocarditis because that might be why that person ended up in the hospital. But we don't know.

So my point here is all sorts of serious adverse events that aren't classified as such that are also going to contribute to the percentage. So, and I should, should have said this before, everybody here probably knows this VAERS is underreported. I mean, all, all, um, pharmacovigilance databases that are volunteer, like passive reporting system, it's called, you know, are underreported. Some people have studied this. They say it's like one in a hundred people will report. Who knows what the underreporting factor for the COVID shots is. I think it's probably 30 times based on Pfizer's phase three clinical trial SAE rate. But in any case, all of the numbers that you'll hear me quote are underestimates by far. So you can probably

multiply any number you hear from me or see that I post by 30, and that's probably a better idea of how many people are actually suffering. So it's kind of gross, for lack of a better word, that we don't even need the underreporting factor to be horrified at the number of reports that have successfully been filed. So if VAERS is a functioning pharmacovigilance database, then why isn't it being used as such by the owners of the data? Why is it independent scientists like me are having to do this work and bring questions to the table?

The onus is not on us to prove that these things aren't safe. The onus was never on us to do that. This is appalling. The onus is on them, the manufacturers and the regulators, to prove that they are. And they claim that they have done that, but they have not. So, yeah. This is actually an interesting kind of inversion that I've observed with these particular products. There's this idea somehow that's developed that the onus is on people to prove that they're not safe or not effective, as opposed to the opposite, when counter data is available. And that's strange. Is this only with these products that we're seeing this?

Or has this somehow become a common thing? I think more people have become aware that this problem is systemic. I've become aware of that. I didn't know anything about problems with vaccines, other vaccines, before this all started. Once you start reading and attending meetings with people who, like, you know, have been flies on the walls in important meetings, you start learning that there are all kinds of atrocities going on all over the place. So I think it's important for me now to say, like, I've always gotten vaccinated. When I would travel to places where, you know,

they recommended a vaccine, I was the first one there, man. I was lined up. I studied viruses. I mean, I'm very learned on these subjects. And I think the concept of inoculation, you know, giving yourself a small dose of something and making yourself like, hey, so that when you come into contact with the pathogen for real, which is called challenge, you don't get sick. I think this is a genius concept. If it's done properly, it'll never outdo natural immunity. Never, especially in certain contexts like where you need, where you're looking for IgA mediated immunity. However, it just seems very clear to me now, not just with COVID products, that the whole industry, and that's what it is. It's a business now. It's a mega business. It's been usurped by people who

have no idea about vaccinology, about vaccines, about virology, about immunology. There's just a bunch of bureaucrats. It's like, how did this happen? How did this monster grow like such big muscles? And like, I know that this had to have started out as a small problem and it got bigger clearly very quickly, but wow, did it ever get big? I mean and then they go work at the FDA and then it's just this, you know, circular situation. And so it's kind of brought me to a point after all these years, and I've had my heart broken a number of times when The Lancet did that little number about hydroxychloroquine. I was like, like the Lancet's supposed to be one of the great medical journals. And it's just like, it's not anymore. New England Journal of Medicine, same thing. It's like, and people, I mean, yeah.

So my point there is I don't want anyone to get the idea that this was an easy shift. It's like, I've been fighting this. I've been fighting myself the whole time. It's like, no, it can't be. It can't be. It can't be. But it is. And once you see enough and you hear enough, it's like, okay, I just have to admit this

and deal with it. So now at that point of, you know, realization, I will never get another product injected into me. I just wouldn't feel comfortable knowing, knowing what I know now about the so-called safety studies that are supposed to include 10 years of animal trials and phase one, two, three clinical trials, phase four pharmacovigilance, generational studies, you know, to make sure that, you know, further generations aren't affected. And especially in the context of new technologies. I mean, yeah, so it's, yeah, it's changed my life, this whole thing. Just to summarize, I think it's changed everybody's

lives. I think some people are just, their lives are just starting to change now because they're starting to realize that, you know, something was very wrong with what happened in the last three years. I mean, I really do feel like a lot of people just had a nagging suspicion, but they wouldn't admit it. But now I feel like it's much more prevalent that people are saying, yeah, something weird happened there. It's got everything to do with people continuing to talk about all the things that were faulty and malevol in in for lack of a better word in the last three years i mean these mandates that that's just uh that was never necessary if your product works you don't need to mandate it doesn't work you shouldn't mandate. Hello, my cat has joined me.

Do you think there's any chance that for some reason with these mRNA products, the reporting in VAERS is there's a lot more reporting? I mean, just for some reason, people are more interested in reporting in general, not specific cases and so forth. Because this is one of the arguments I've heard too, that people are just reporting more for some reason. They've been incentivized to do that. Oh, that's what it is, Jem. I've been wrong this whole time. Yeah, no, that's not true. Now, I do think awareness has been raised. There's no doubt about that, but that's recent. The 1 million reports at the end of 2001 that were filed,

that's not because of over-reporting, because there was at least a three-month backlog on data that hadn't been entered. There's incentivization in hospital settings and medical settings not to report. doctor and first of all, they were afraid to even bring up that it might be the shot that did it. Even if it was 24 hours ago, they felt fine. And now they're having chest pain because they, they, they, they didn't want to be mocked because if you're having chest pain and you're really scared and you go to your doctor and you suggest that, or, or not even suggest, if you say, I just happened to get my booster like yesterday, what's going to happen to your mind and also your body if that doctor says, get out of my office? And I'm not being dramatic here. I've had people tell this to me.

Their personal experience was that, which is horrific. So it's not incentivized to file reports. In Canada, doctors lost their licenses for doing so. I know someone who filed five reports to the Canadian Adverse Event Reporting System, or CAFIS, or whatever it's called, and five reports were denied. It was absolutely not encouraged by medical professionals to report adverse events. It was one of the things you don't talk about that. You know what I mean. Everybody knows what I mean. I mean, even if you're a safe and effective, you know what I'm saying right now. It's a hush talk topic. You don't talk about that. And so it's absolutely laughable that anybody would say that Paris is overreported. Because if you want to use that argument, okay, let's do it. You have to also compensate for the fact that it's underreported. So they cancel each other out. So we'll just use the absolute numbers, okay? It's still horrific. You know, it's a's a losing argument because it's there's just no way to.

And I've never, you know, come out and said it's definitely causing all of the adverse events. It's definitely causing some of them and we need to find out which ones. But it's it's just it's it's remarkable how there are ways to determine causality, which is what we've always done. Like I said, we did this with the rotavirus vaccine in 1999. It's like a handful of interception cases in children and bears. Bears, same thing, same system. The bell went off, the safety signal went off because they were kids and interception is very serious. And they did their

causality assessment, which is the Bradford Hill criteria. There are 10 criteria that you should satisfy and you have to satisfy six, I think, to get a verdict of very likely causal effect. And they did. They made that decision that it was very likely that the rotavirus vaccine was causing the interception. So poof, they pulled the product. I mean, that's what's supposed to happen. That's pharmacovigilance. So what happened here? Again, I sound like a broken record, but it's shocking after three years that we're still asking the same bloody question and have no answers. It's crazy. To your point earlier, a lot of awareness has been raised. And I'm wondering if you

think that's the reason that the uptake of these new boosters, which on the one side are being recommended, I think, is it six months up in the US? On the other hand, I think the uptake is, you know, 2%. Right. How do you explain this? The uptake fall? Word of mouth. It's like I said, I mean, you everyone can kind of say, you know, walk around and not talk about it. But everybody knows. Everybody knows. I mean, take Israel, for example. OK, why not? Israel was one of the first places to get the Pfizer product like the test subject. Everybody was like, you know, Israelis are very like, yes, I want to help. And yes, I'm going to do what I can. And they're very proud. It's like if they feel like they're going to be helping the world, they're going to they're definitely going to do

that. So everyone took a shot. Everyone took two shots. Some people took three. Some people are still getting them. But when they started going for the kids in israel nobody got them it just stopped right there and so something clicked in everyone they're like wait now my kid's fine and kids are okay so why are they pushing this on our children hmm so there's some kind of awareness through word of mouth. You know, Israel is an interesting place. A lot of people, you know, are families and, you know, it's very interconnected and very community oriented. So I think people just, you know, they looked around and they said, yeah, okay, everything's fine. And it looks like they're just trying to do something that, you know, push something on us that we don't need. So going back to the US, I dare say it's just people, you know, saying, no, I'm not doing that again. It's like, you know, it didn't work the first time I got COVID four times. So why am I going to go back for another one? I'm definitely not going to give it to my

kid. So I would dare say that that's probably the thought process of many people. And by the way, I'm very happy that this is how it worked out. Because it's like, yeah, I think that everybody should be angry, but in a constructive way. And I think that we absolutely need to get the people involved with pushing the people who can get the next step to start, which is absolutely getting more data on the DNA in the vials and absolutely testing people who are injected with different numbers. Because, you know, if we find a correlation between people who are injected three times and let's just say we find this foreign dna in their genome when people who are injected once without i mean there's all sorts of things that could possibly happen it could have to

do with the number of shots that you get it could it likely would up your propensity to be um in danger of having this crap integrate if it was in the shots that you got. So yeah, again, it, I think what I'm trying to say is, the powers and the people, it always has been, and I think the people are starting to realize that. And if you're listening to this, one of the best ways you can really take your power back now and push back is to call up your member of parliament or however it's done in the States. I'm not an American, so I don't know how it works, but get your congressman, for example, to push the academic institutions and the labs who have all the funding and the RRBs, all this stuff, to do these studies legally and all that stuff. They have all the paperwork worked out right now. Right now. Because they're funded by your tax dollars, so it's only fair, right?

So Jessica, as we finish up, I understand that you're actually going to be presenting some of your recent findings to a state legislature or several. If you could just tell me what your plans are and what's next. Yeah. So, as a continuance of the testimony that Dr. Jancy Lindsay and Dr. Philip Buchholz gave two weeks ago, I think, just about two weeks ago. I'm added on to the roster to give an update of where we stand with this DNA, residual DNA or contamination, whatever you want to call it. So this is going to be a call to action at the state level to to because they have the power to do this. As I understand it, they can call to the the institutions, the academic institutions and the labs to actually do this work. As I understand it, it's probably not going to happen at the federal level. So it has to start happening at the state level. And so if this happens, if we succeed to convince them to say, yes, you're going to start doing this, this is going to be huge a little bit about our paper that we have on the preprint,

but they also apparently want to hear about VAERS and myocarditis because there are a few papers that came out recently about heart damage that are kind of shocking. So yeah, it seems like a lot of the deaths are associated with cardiac damage, fibrosis and such. So I'm going to be talking a bit about that, too. Well, maybe as we actually finish up, maybe if you could just summarize for me what this new paper is saying, because I think I know the one you speak of and it's important. The one that I can probably summarize in one line is a forensic analysis of, I'll just read you the title, forensic analysis of the 38 subject deaths in the six month interim report of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine clinical trial. This was published really recently on the 17th of this month. And basically they found the headline in the abstract is most importantly, we found evidence

of over of an over 3.7 fold increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in the BNT162B2 vaccinated subjects compared to placebo controls. So this is yet again another piece of evidence that I'm sorry to talk about VAERS again, but this has been evident in bears for years. And also the potential for the fibrosis in the cardiac tissue and in the myocardium specifically, it all relates to myocarditis or even cardiac amyloidosis. And like this paper points out, it's not just mild and transient as we were told for the longest time there's no such thing if you have fibrotic tissue in the place of um the the cells of the myocardium that are supposed to be very elastic-y so that your heart can beat i mean think about it if they, the analogy I've been using is

the difference between a rubber band and a yarn string. If you try and pull on a yarn string, there's no give. Rubber band has give. So it's like replacing out the rubber band material with string. It won't be able to beat properly. People who feel absolutely fine, young people who got multiple

shots, no symptoms of anything, no chest pain, no nothing. They did a study to look at the condition of the heart tissue and they found a lot of scarring. So the danger there is what Peter McCullough talks about as a cardiologist all the time. And this is if you have an adrenaline surge, which you have, you know, when you're exercising or during your sleep at 3 a.m. We always have adrenaline surges going off at 3 a.m. when we sleep. You could die. This is this is why people, in my opinion, are dying in their sleep. It's a cardiac related event whereby the heart just can't beat anymore.

This is why, as Peter points out all the time, if you have a diagnosis of cardio, of myocarditis, pardon me, you're not supposed to exercise for a little while. You're supposed to like, you know, have your heart recover in whatever way it can, because, you know, the heart cells can't replenish themselves, but you're supposed to put on the brakes of the adrenaline surges that come with physical activity. So yeah, it seems like these things are heartbreakers. So, yeah. By the way, having said that, if you feel good, if you've had multiple shots and you feel good, don't freak out. You're probably fine.

We're not talking about everybody who got the shots being, like, very badly affected. We're talking about a proportion of people. But I'm not underplaying it. It's just I also don't want to fear monger because we've had enough of that, right? A lot of people do email me and they say, oh, I've had so many shots and am I going to die? And I'm like, well, first of all, I'm not a medical doctor, so I can't give you medical advice. But as a human being and as an empathetic being, I can tell you, I think if you feel good, you're fine. You know, if you're a year out, let's just say, this is what Pierre Corey said the other day, if you're, and he's an ICU doctor,

if you're a year out and you feel fine, you're fine. And it's very, very important for people. I know this is a long final answer, but it's very important for people to maintain not just a good physical lifestyle, but a good mental lifestyle. Like try not to be too stressed out and in the fear state too often because that absolutely destroys your immune system. This is coming from an immunologist. So it's important to eat well. It's important to have clean drinking water. It's important to exercise So it's important to eat well. It's important to have clean drinking water. It's important to exercise. It's important to get sun.

It's important to ground yourself, to earth yourself. It's important to fast every now and then. Apparently autophagy is like fantastic for your body, for getting rid of garbage in your cells. But it's also really important to take it back and just to go easy on yourself and not be in flight mode all the time. So if you start hearing about scary things like DNA contamination, be concerned,

but don't think that you're going to die of cancer tomorrow. scary things like DNA contamination, you know, be concerned, but don't think that you're going to die of cancer tomorrow. I think that's the best way for me to put it. I shouldn't laugh. It's not funny. I think that's fantastic, fantastic advice. I'm going to be going off to meditate later today, 100% chance. Well, Jessica Rose, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. It's been a long time coming and it's been a pleasure just speaking about the serious stuff and also talking to you. It's been a pleasure for me.

Thank you all for joining Dr. Jessica Rose and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Janja Kellek..