Peak Prosperity - Pfizer Hid SV40 From Regulators

Episode Date: October 25, 2024

Chris Martenson interviews Kevin McKernan about DNA contamination in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, discussing potential health risks, regulatory oversight failures, and implications for vaccine safety.

The following is the audio version of a video released at peakprosperity.com. Visit peakprosperity.com to watch the video and to find other insightful content such as articles, discussion forums, and exclusive subscriber-only content. This is a totally different beast than traditional vaccines because we're not injecting naked DNA here, we're packaging them in transfection vehicles that make it really effective at getting into cells. Hello everyone, I am Dr. Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity and we have a very special interview for you today. We're talking with Kevin McKeeran, Chief Scientific Officer or CSO and founder of Medical Genomics. He has pioneered the genomics of cannabis and hemp. And previously, Kevin was CSO of Cortagen Life Sciences, where he oversaw more than 100 research collaborations

exploring, and this is why it's important, the new biological frontiers with next generation genetic sequencing and saw particular excitement and traction in human tumor sequencing, also relevant to today's conversation. Kevin was the president and CSO of Agincourt Personal Genomics, a startup company he co-founded in 2005 to invent revolutionary sequencing technologies. Kevin also managed the R&D for something you might have heard about called the Human Genome Project at Whitehead Institute at MIT, which also resulted in several patents for nucleic acid purification. So, Kevin, I am so excited to be talking with you today.

Thank you, Chris. I appreciate the intro there. And that cancer stuff is actually done at Agincourt, not Corrigin, but whatever. It's hard to keep those straight because we flipped the names. It's probably in my bio mixed up. I'll have to fix it. But yeah, kind introduction. And I've enjoyed your presentations over the which is we're just trying to get to the truth, figure out what's going on. And I've been in defense of my beloved science, which has taken a real whack to the back of the head from COVID onward. That's at the medical level. That's at the science level. I mean, Kevin, just editorially, people seem to have lost the ability to think rationally. We can editorialize on that in just a minute, but I'm really astonished at how hard it is sometimes to talk with shared terminology even sometimes now. Yes. What are you finding these days?

I think the whole Gutenberg story is reliving itself in the form of peer review. You know, they finally come up with a printing press, and what happens is the church wants to make sure no one prints heretical research or thoughts. And here we are with the same centralized peer review system that has, I think, made a lot of citizens just trust the science without having to interrogate or question the science. And COVID revealed it. Well, it's this bad. I just read yesterday, a college was still strongly recommending vaccines for students because you want to stop the spread of transmission of COVID, of course, which it doesn't do. And we've known this for years. So I'm just astonished how slow

the penetration of institutions of higher learning, right? Or lower learning or no learning, whatever. Yeah. Yeah. They got to get rid of the uni and versity there and just put monoversity. So, you know, everyone comes out thinking the same. Yeah. So the purpose of today's talk, though, you've made a really big splash. Tell me if I get any of this wrong, correct it. But the basic story I have is that at some point you got a hold of four vials of the mRNA medical treatments or vaccines, some call them,

but I'm not clear that they are given putting a respiratory virus into a deltoid muscle, different topic. But you got your hands on some of these vials and using your expertise in sequencing, you said, what's in them, right? Because we were told if we didn't have a completely blank package insert that these were mRNA packages. And you went in there and you found something else. Take us through that. What happened at the beginning? Yes, so we started with two bivalent Moderna and two bivalent Pfizer's, and then someone

also shipped us another eight monovalent. So we had 12 vials in total in the first study. And that was a bit of an accidental experiment, which we'll save for later data, so, you know, what went on there. But we spiked them into a different RNA sequencing experiment to try and debug what was going on with our RNA sequencing pipeline, because they should be a perfectly pure RNA with a poly-A tail. And RNA sequencing is this process where you try to harvest the poly-A tails out of a cell and sequence them because those are RNAs, at least in mammalian systems and some plants.

So we go about doing this experiment, spiking in a pharmaceutical-grade RNA to troubleshoot our pipeline. And lo and behold, it comes through beautifully, but it has this expression vector with it, which is a piece of DNA that's used to make the RNA in the manufacturing process that shouldn't be there. So that scared us because we weren't funded or budgeted to, like, do anything about that. But we knew if we buried it, people would hate us, and if we published it, people would sue us. So we decided to just do a series of rapid substacks with kind of an open lab notebook of everything we did, negative results, positive results, things we were wrong about, things we were right about in the end, and just rapidly publish it on Substack, then write a preprint

where we got rid of the stuff we were wrong about and put in only the stuff that we thought was tortured and put that public. And then a few other researchers caught on to it and started to try to replicate it. And this quickly occurred, actually, in fact. So Sin Lee, who's a good figure in the field to know, because he was familiar with this problem with DNA contaminating the HPV vaccines. And the reason it was missed in those vaccines was because DNA tends to bind to aluminum. And when it does that, it falls out of solution and people don't tend to detect it. But as many

people know, there's aluminum adjuvants in a lot of vaccines, which is a great way to actually hide contaminating DNA. So he figured that out and published that. And so he saw our work and was like, let me try and replicate that. And he instantly did Sanger sequencing on some of the products and said, yeah, you're right, there's something in there. He didn't quantitate it, but he said, yeah, the spike is in there. Philip Buchholz quantitated it. He was actually on Twitter following my work and was like, this can't be true. He took the vaccines and believed in the technology like many of our peers did who were in the biotech space

because we thought this was like marvelous technology considering where the Human Genome Project had come from. So he was somewhat skeptical. And then to his surprise, he found what we found, which was that it's in there and at high levels. And this is a totally different beast than traditional vaccines because we're not injecting naked DNA here. We're packaging them in transfection vehicles that make it really effective at getting into cells. Now, this is an important point because obviously whenever I eat plants, meat, anything, I'm eating DNA and I'm eating RNA and I'm eating whole cells, right? And so the point here is that over time, evolutionarily, my body's totally used to DNA, RNA being on the outside of my cells.

Yes. Right. And so the issue here, though, is they've packaged this stuff up in an expression vector, which is a kind of active DNA that then is specifically being dumped into the cells, where how much evolutionary, besides viruses, what else goes about dumping DNA into human cells? Viruses are it, and that's the reason why we have a whole defense mechanism inside the cell that throws off interferon and something known as a seagas sting pathway that goes and attacks cytosolic DNA. And sometimes it leads to apoptosis, and sometimes it leads to oncogenesis. So it's not a normal thing to do. And this is what often gets thrown up by a lot of fact checkers is DNA is harmless.

You eat it all the time. But they are specifically evading the point that this is the reason the mRNA works is because there's a lipid nanoparticle there. If you ate that mRNA, nothing would happen. But if you injected an LNP, it suddenly is a very different beast. And the DNA is going on for the ride in that same system. So anyone who's bringing out that argument, usually it comes from UPenn, who has a lot of people at UPenn, like Offit, who have a billion dollars in vax royalty. They'd like to throw out that squid ink being like, you eat DNA and RNA at a time. Fine, let us eat your vaccine.

They know that doesn't work. It's packaged and injected with these LNPs that change the game tremendously. So normal DNA upon injection from older vaccines that have DNA contamination, it has a 10-minute half-life after injection because your body knows, even when you inject it without LNPs, your body knows how to take care of it outside of the cells. The trick is getting it into the cells, which is what the LNPs enable. So now you've got cytosolic DNA in the cell, which triggers a host of cell circuitry to ring alarm bells that there's viruses here. That's something you can look up in a paper from Kwan, which looks at cytosolic DNA and the impact on cancer. So it triggers a C-gas sting pathway. Sting stands for stimulatory

of interferon genes. And there's a host of interferon responses in cancer you have to pay close attention to. So yeah, eating it's not the same as injecting it with LNPs. And anyone who's handing you that, you should run away from. Yeah. The metaphor, I was thinking like, what's my metaphor for this? So for for my audience it's the difference between having bullets outside your body and bullets inside your body yeah that's a good analogy yes they're they're totally different things right yes yes yes this person died of lead poisoning we're not going to tell you how it got there exactly all right so so you find these vials and then like science this is how science is supposed to work right other scientists go nah that can't be i'm going

to prove kevin wrong uh-oh kevin's right and they start replicating this this has been multiply replicated at this point we can say without a without a shadow of a doubt that there is dna coming along in some in these vials with the RNA. Yes. So a group in Canada did the biggest study. David Speaker did about, I think he's up to 30 vials now in his most recent update to his paper. That was in Canada. And then another group surprisingly got it through peer review. Bridget Koenig's group in Germany ran through peer review.

And they're seeing levels, hundreds of fold over. So no one's debating whether it's over the limit anymore. Anyone who's actually picked up by PET, they're seeing levels hundreds of fold over. So no one's debating whether it's over the limit anymore. Anyone who's actually picked up by PET, they're debating is it 100 fold or 1,000 fold over. And that very much depends on some of the nuances of the techniques that you use to measure it. Quantitative PCR is something that undermeasures it because you just look at a little region of the plasmid. This plasmid is 7,000, 7,800 bases long. If you use 100 base per amplicon to measure this, you're going to miss the stuff that's smaller than 100 bases and all

the other stuff you're not targeting. So Moderna has a patent out there that specifically teaches against using qPCR because it undermeasures the problem. So where most people are finding these numbers to be extraordinarily high and over the limit, they're using a combination of qPCR and fluorometry. Fluorometry is something that just stains all DNA. So it doesn't matter what the sequence is. It just stains it all. And that's the more comprehensive way to do it. You just have to do it in a way where it doesn't also stain the RNA.

And there are ways to just erase the RNA. That's a common critique you'll see online. Even the regulators keep regurgitating that story is that, oh, your fluorometry is measuring the RNA. You can't use fluorometry. Even though they use fluorometry to measure the RNA in the shots, they don't like you using it to measure the DNA for some reason. But you just use an enzyme like RNase A, and it races the RNA, and then you measure it. And that tells you how much DNA is there. And we've done that, and it still ends up being hundreds of fold over the limit. So it's

there. The only debate is how much. Now, why do people care about how much? The regulators put in regulations of you being able to have 10 picograms of DNA in a vaccine back in the late 80s. Pharmaceutical industry then lobbied to inflate that a thousand fold to set it at 10 nanograms. Now, that's the amount of DNA they're comfortable with if it is injected naked so that it gets destroyed quickly. There is no real rational limit for how much you can have in an LNP because those things don't let it degrade. So one of the big debates they keep throwing at the straw man is,

we measure with qPCR, it's not over the limit. And in some vials that might be true. It really depends on how they design their PCR. I could design you a PCR assay that will not trigger the limit by just making the amplicons large because the DNA is fragmented. But if you measure it with fluorometry, it's way over the limit. And they won't accept fluorometry data for DNA. They'll only accept it for the RNA for reasons that make no sense to anyone who's familiar with these tools. So Moderna teaches against using qPCR. We know that's not a comprehensive method to do it. But even if it's under the limit, the limit is

what is in question, because we're using LNP. So let me give you an example of why that limit is foolish. If, let's say, now that we're in the world of people crazily thinking about these self-amplifying RNAs, if you can sneak a molecule under that limit that replicates once it gets in the cell, what does that limit mean? That's like saying, okay, I'm only going to accept 10 nanograms. Okay, can I put in 9 nanograms of something that's going to turn into 900 nanograms once it gets into the cell? Seems kind of like an arbitrary loophole we can just

drive a truck through. So that was never in consideration when they're injecting naked DNA that might be cellular DNA from an egg or something that you grew the vaccine in. They weren't anticipating these gene therapy vectors going into that loophole and expanding once they got into the cell. So most scientists familiar with transfection do not like this limit, them applying this old limit to this new platform, because this new platform is a Trojan horse. Yeah, well, to carry my tortured metaphor along, it's like they found out in the 80s, like,

it's okay to have 10 bullets outside your body, but then the LNP is a gun. And they said, well, now 10 bullets are okay outside your body but then the lnp is a gun and they said well now 10 bullets are okay inside your body um it's just it's just not comparable at all again for for everybody listening your body and nature has been evolved a long time cat and mouse game to know how to deal with extracellular things it doesn't want inside this lnp theP, the lipid nanoparticle, grabs these things and fuses it with your membrane and dumps them straight inside. It's the difference between having wolves outside your house and wolves inside your house. Big difference, right? So however many

metaphors we need to put, it's just, I just want to really reinforce here, Kevin, it is totally a new, novel, and unnatural thing to be putting DNA products directly into human cells. Yeah, there's even some literature from Keith Petten at the FDA who was drafting the guidelines for how much DNA we could tolerate and not trigger oncogenesis in this naked DNA environment. And he even wrote up notes in a paper that they published. I think it's from Fowler is the last name you can look up. And their point was that the nanograms are somewhat the wrong metric. You should be looking at molarity because, you know, if you look at basically the human genome is about three picograms, six picograms of its diploid. But if that's actually a virus that's only 5kb, not six billion bases long, you end up having thousands of times more,

maybe millions of times more molecules of the virus, and the virus could replicate. So he actually said the limit should be adigrams if you're dealing with viruses, not picograms, right? So we're getting into astronomically small numbers. right so even the limit with naked dna is is something that's somewhat dna ignorant it's not thinking about what kind of dna is it is is it a viral dna or like host cell dna and what's the copy number of it the copy number is what really matters and uh and he has spoken to that but somehow the regulations just said we're mostly dealing with host cell DNA. Forget about the viruses. We're not going to use viruses.

I mean, that'd be crazy if we used viral DNA. Let's just use host DNA as a metric, and we'll set it at 10 picograms and then dilate that metric to a thousand-fold lighter when the pharmaceutical companies pressure us. So it's now up at 10 nanograms, not 10 picograms. And this has come across in a time frame when sequencing this DNA has gotten 100,000-fold cheaper in the last two decades, right? So they've allowed a lot more DNA to come through these vaccines, but they're not sequencing

them, even though it's 100,000-fold cheaper to do that today than it was when they made these regulations. So from someone who does lots of sequencing, I find it absolutely appalling that they're not sequencing every lot because it doesn't cost much to do this anymore. And that would tell them exactly what type of DNA is contaminating. Is there any virus in there? Is there any DNA that's known to replicate inside of a cell? Which you'll see as we go through this is what we in fact have with Pfizer. We have a piece of DNA that has viral components in it that can replicate in mammalian cells. Yikes. Okay, so this is, all right, let's get down to this because, you know,

people have started to catch on that there's this thing SV40. I want to unpack that a little bit. So DNA, we've been talking about as if it's a thing, just vaguely. But in fact, it matters what the exact sequence of letters are because DNA has very different functions based on that string of letters. So let's think. So this is a picture of an SV40 virus. It's a very, very big thing. It's a giant thing. So when we're talking about SV40, I want to talk about what you found when you did this. This is a paper preprint here to yourself and Helbert and Kane and McLaughlin. And oops,

you know, you found lots of DNA in the Pfizer and Moderna products here. And so this is the abstract from that paper where, again, you ran four things, right? So this was sequencing both of the bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines. Bivalent for everybody, maybe you've forgotten it so long ago. That means that it's both coding for the sequence for original Wuhan strain plus whatever the second one was they put in there. Omicron, yeah. Omicron. Okay.

And then also, so you found nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector, dsDNA per dose, expression vector. These are plasmids. Kevin, real quick, what's a plasmid? Plasmid is a circular piece of DNA that usually has components in it that allow it to replicate inside another host. In the case of Pfizer, it's what's commonly known as a shuttle vector. It's something that can go between different organisms, like bacteria can replicate it and mammalian cells can replicate it.

So they have to have multiple origins of replication in the plasmid, and then they usually need another gene that selects for the plasmid being present. So in bacteria, plasmids sometimes just get tossed out during cellular division. But if you have a gene in there that gives you kanamycin resistant, like an antibiotic, then only the cells that retain the plasmid are the ones that can survive. So that's called a selectable marker. And usually you need a selectable marker to get high quantities of DNA with a plasmid during a DNA prep, because that means you're only growing cells that have the gene of interest. And if that kanamycin gene is then tagged or covalently linked to the spike sequence that you want to manufacture,

you're getting the spike DNA replicated kind of on the coattails of the kanamycin gene. All right. So we put these plasmids. We transfect them into a big vat of bacteria. Not all of them take it up. So we hit them with some Kanamycin. All the ones that don't have the plasmid, they die. And then the ones that do have the thing we want, they keep replicating and they do what

they're going to do. Okay. And then in the purification process, it's supposed to be, I think they took those plasmids and then used those as templates to build the mRNA. That's right. And then you have to separate the mRNA from the DNA, and that's what we're talking about. And we were told that these were just mRNA shots. It was really no DNA at all. And then maybe there's a little, and then maybe it's, we can go through

the whole trickle-truth thing. Yeah, there was one of the crime they committed in this is when they did the first trial, to get that DNA out of the plasmid, they PCR amplified just the spike region to get rid of the antibiotic resistance gene and to also get rid of all the E. coli crap. Because when you try and get plasmids out of E. coli, it's not a clean process. Endotoxin comes along. All the guts of the E. coli get dragged along. So if you crack open E. coli cells, it's usually best to amplify the region that you're going to express into RNA. That way, it's a million-fold higher in concentration than all the background, and you can dilute some of that background out.

That's what they did for the real clinical trials. Once they got approval, they then switched gears and said, we can't afford to do that PCR step anymore. We're just going to crack the E. coli cells open and leave all the garbage around. And that's why the plasmids are now at higher concentration than they were in the trial. They didn't retrial this. They should have because in biological manufacturing, And that's why the plasmids are now at higher concentration than they were in the trial. They didn't retrial this. They should have because in biological manufacturing, the process is the product.

You change the process. You retrial. They were supposed to retrial 252 patients. Retses-Levy has a great paper on this in the BMJ. And they failed to do that in that the EMA kept asking for the data. And Pfizer said, well, it's only 252 people, so statistically we're not going to find an adverse event unless it's more frequent than 1 in 252, and it's too late. We've already given them to everybody who cares, and the EMA just let them off the hook.

So we're now dealing with what's known as process 2, not process 1. So now we've got all this junk. We've got a lot more of this antibiotic resistance gene and all of these other SV40 components that are in the plasmid that were at much lower concentrations in process one. So these other components in the plasmid, like the ketamycin gene, you need something to turn on that gene. And when Pfizer was in a pinch, they bragged actually in one of their peer-reviewed papers that they didn't need warp speed money because they could call up their gene therapy division and get their gene therapy vector and use that. So the SV40 piece that's in there is the important gene therapy element. It does a couple things. There's three main components to the SV40 DNA that's in the plasmid. One is the SV40 promoter. That is what turns on the kanamycin gene. You can't get that kanamycin gene to express if you don't have that there.

Moderna does not have this SV40 there. They chose a bacterial promoter known as AMP-R, which only is active in bacterial cells, not in mammalian cells. Pfizer went with SV40, which is active in mammalian cells. The other two components of SV40 kind of overlap with one another. There's the SV40 enhancer that overlaps with the promoter. It's in a similar sequence region. That enhancer, David Dean has published quite a bit about. That has certain DNA sequences on it that transcription factors bind to it and drag it into the nucleus. So that's why it's an effective gene therapy tool, because you can grab DNA, drive it into the nucleus, and then it's more prone to integrate.

And then the third piece is the SV40 origin of replication. That's a little bit adjacent to the promoter and the enhancer, which overlap. And that drives replication in mammalian cells. And a lot of people have discounted that in fact checks being like, well, it won't really turn on unless you have the T antigen, which isn't in the Pfizer vaccine. It's in that 5,000 base pair virus you showed, but it's not actually in their vaccine. So we're off the hook because that origin of replication shouldn't be active in mammalian cells. That's not entirely true either. There's other papers showing if your vector has a bacterial origin like Coley1, which this one does because they

grew it in the coli, and if it has an F1 origin, then the SP40 origin of replication will turn on in some mammalian cell lines. So they do have something that actively replicates. We have some sequencing data that I think addresses that, that shows it's actively replicating. And those three components are really what are required to make gene therapy more effective, is you need something that gets it into the nucleus, something that keeps it at high copy numbers so it's more prone to integrate, and something that can promote the gene of interest that you're looking to insert. Interesting. So here's what you found in this paper. So first you took these vials, right? And you ran them through four separate

things here, right? QPCR, you got the RT, QPCR qubit, and fluorometry. Oh, and a tape station. So you ran it through a variety of things, just like these are all independent tests saying, can we find some stuff in here? The answer is yes. And the question is how much, right? So, all right. Yeah. And the reason it's important to run multiple different tools is that we're dealing with a different form of nucleic acid here. We're dealing with N1-methylsutuidine RNA. And that's kind of a new molecule that some of these dyes that people use to differentiate RNA and DNA may behave in unknown ways. Good point. And it is true when you use fluorometry, some of these dyes can crosstalk a little bit.

They tend to crosstalk more on the RNA front, like the dyes known as ribogreen that bind RNA actually have twice the affinity for DNA. Most people just use DNAs to get rid of the DNA so that they can measure only the RNA. Picogreen is a dye that's used to measure DNA, and it likes minor grooves of DNA. So it doesn't find a lot of RNA unless the RNA is hairpinning on itself. And these vaccines are designed to hairpin, so it does bind to these vaccines. And that N1-methylsutuyridine plays a role there. It changes the melting temperature of the RNA, so it folds on itself more. So you have to use RNase A to get rid of the RNA when you start measuring with PicoGreen. Now, the qPCR, as I

mentioned earlier, is a completely different beast. It uses amplification of DNA of a very short region of DNA and a very specific region of DNA to monitor how quickly it actually grows. If PCR is running efficiently, it should double every single cycle. And if you watch that doubling event, you can gauge what the initial concentration is because you can compute it by just drawing a line through that growth curve. And that tells you how much you initially started with. So, however, it has some of its limitations. As I've mentioned before, Moderna's own patents say, hey, look, this is going to miss the boat. David Speaker's paper did a really good job.

When they were measuring this in the spike region of Moderna versus the vector, which is the backbone that doesn't have the spike, they get a hundred-fold different signal with two different PCR amplicons. So right there, most of the regulatory bodies are just off the mark because they're using a single assay to measure this, and they're sticking it in the kanamycin gene. And the spike region ends up being 100 times higher in concentration, probably because there's a lot of RNA present, and the enzymes that chew apart DNA get confused when it has a complementary strand of RNA around, because it looks like RNA and DNA. They hybridize. And so those RNA-DNA hybrids choke up all the DNAs, and so it can't chew up spike. It can't chew up the plasmid.

And if you're really smart about this, you'll make sure not to measure spike. You'll measure the plasmid so you can look like you have low amounts of DNA. So the fact that PCR is looking at this very narrow window means it can be very, very misleading. Whereas fluorometry is putting a dye across everything that's there and just quantitating the fluorescence of that dye, you've just got to be careful that you've got enzymes there that get rid of the competing molecules the dye might cross-react with. QPCR has polymerases that are very specific to either DNA or RNA. They don't have crosstalk, so that's very specific in that regard. You can use a polymerase that will only copy DNA, and then you can use a polymerase that copies only RNA or RNA plus DNA. And those things give you like one in a million segregation between the different molecules.

So we use them for different reasons because we want to really narrow down what is the number here when we're dealing with this new chemical entity. The tape station does electrophoresis, so we can measure that the vaccines that came in the mail to us, they were not, we got them sent anonymously. And what you do to make sure they're not destroyed is you look at the RNA integrity. If the RNA integrity looks like it's intact, that's a good indicator that the vials weren't like cooked or microwaved or tampered with. Because RNA decay is much faster than DNA. We can find DNA in 5,000-year-old mummies in the Alps, like the UTSI project. There's paleogenomics projects out there that get DNA out of mammoths. I mean, DNA is, they use this now. They print DNA into glass to basically store encyclopedias of information that will last, you know, 100,000 years. This is becoming a better store, you know, information storage system than hard drives and flash drives drives because those are all susceptible to failure over time. Wow. So you run all these things. Oh, quick question. Is RNase fooled by

the N1 methyl pseudoyardene? RNase A is not. It seems to destroy it all. However, there are other RNases like RNase L that is. And so you got to be, we went through a whole library of different RNases to sort that out. RNase 3 is one that's also very interesting that we've used to assess how much double-stranded RNA is present in these. And we think those numbers are also off the charts. We just need a little bit more work before we publish that. Well, that's interesting. All right. And so you run through all these tests and then the red underline here is multiple assays support DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency or the EMA 330 nanogram per mig requirement and the FDA's 10 nanogram per dose requirements. They exceeded by how much? Right now, I think everyone's zeroing in on like somewhere between 100 to 500 fold.

Our paper was the earliest and they've sharpened that since. So, yeah, it's if you use fluorometry with RNAs, I think David Speaker's most recent study in Australia was like 145 fold over the yeah so we're in the micro we're in the microgram range wow unbelievable um and and so all right uh and then in yellow at the bottom you said the exact ratio of linear fragmented dna so these are the circular plasmids have sort of been broken up somehow um linear fragmented dna versus intact circular plasmid dna still being investigated um what. Where are you on that at this point in time? And by the way, I get this all the time. People yell at me that this stuff is not replication competent, meaning that even if it is circular DNA, it's somehow inactive. True or false? Yeah. So it's true that they are using DNAs. They are trying to get rid of this. That is

fragmenting it. It's just not fragmenting all regions of the plasmid at the same rate. So the longest molecule we've seen with Oxford anaphora is three and a half KB. Now, that was in a study where we only sequenced like, I think, 866 molecules. And I think if we expanded that to sequencing 866,000 molecules, we'd probably find one that's full length. So I think they're out there and it really depends on what vials you interrogate. Some of the vials do vary. Like we have some vials that give us CTs out of 22, other ones that give us CTs down at like 14. All right. So that's about a good six, eight CT gap that can be a hundred to 200 fold difference in the quantity that we're seeing vial to vial. So I think the vials that are,

where the DNAs clearly fail, there's probably more intact circular plasmid. Now, the challenge in measuring how much of it is circular is that you need to then start transfecting these things or transforming these things into bacteria, which has its own low efficiency problem. You can't get every molecule into every single cell. So there aren't really good efficient tools to measure how many of these molecules are that length. But Oxford Nanopore is probably the best tool to actually get, just look at the read length, the fragment length distributions. And we have one of those in the David Speaker preprint that shows you the actual histogram

curve of all the different fragments we measured with those 866 reads. But, you know, an important point is a large portion of this is, like, centered around 214 bases is the median, and then there's a long tail of long molecules that are sticking around. And now when things get below the 100 base pair range, we start to worry because the PCR tools can't measure that stuff at all. And I think there's a large portion of it. And the smaller it gets, the more sticky ends you have per nanogram. So the integration capacity of DNA gets worse the smaller it gets, because it's the function of the number of hydroxies and phosphates in the end of the DNA

that drive the ligation reactions. This is an enzyme that glues DNA.ates in the end of the DNA that drive the ligation reactions. This is an enzyme that glues DNA. It needs the ends of the DNA to do the gluing. So if you have a big long piece of DNA, a million bases, and you only have one phosphate on one end and a hydroxyl, you really only have four ligatable ends per molecule. You chop that thing into 50 base pair pieces and now you've got a lot of ends that are active. So fragmenting it actually opens up the reactive components of DNA for ligation. So the smaller it gets, the harder it is to detect with PCR, and the harder it is in terms of transfection efficiency and transformation or the integration potential inside the genome.

Well, so I'm going to have to skip around here a bit, but I found in one of your papers this, and sorry, on your sub stack, this was a clip of a piece from Hiroshi Arakawa saying that integration of coronavirus vaccine contaminated DNA into human cell line genomes. Does that sound like what it means? It does, yeah. So what we did to try to model this is we took the vaccines, or at least Uli Kammermer's group did out in Germany. She took the Pfizer vaccines and then transfected them into ovarian cancer cell lines, Ofcar 3 cell lines.

And once she did that, she measured for spike IHC, which is immunohistochemistry, and she saw that, okay, they're expressing spike. That means the transfection was real, and it got into the cell. And then she sent the cells off to us to do qPCR to make sure, all right, the DNA is still in there. She also put them through several cell passages, and we were PCRing at each cell passage to see how permanent is this. Because you would think if you transpect it into cells and you grow them and let them replicate, if it's a transient expression of spike, the DNA will decay over time. If it integrates, it will stick around a couple passages. So we did qPCR at each of these, and we were seeing it out into the second passage.

We were getting signal, and then we went and sequenced it. And when we sequenced it, we found two integration events, one of which I think Hiroshi concluded was okay, that one's probably a sequencing artifact. The process of sequencing has a ligation step of its own that can accidentally glue genomic DNA to the plasma DNA. And when that happens, you kind of get a pileup of reads that show that it all happened at the same place in the genome. Therefore, it's probably an artifact of making the sequencing library. There was another one that had multiple reads with different start and stop points that, to him, looked like there was

a mechanism at play that looked like micro-mediated end joining. So a microhomology-mediated end joining, MMEJ is what it's called. So what does that mean? Microhomology mediated end joining means there's like a six to eight base pair sequence of the vaccine that had homology to a broken piece of DNA in the human genome, and it got sealed together based on that microhomology, and that end joining occurred by the cell. And so we have some reads across that area that show that, all right, there's a part of spike getting integrated into chromosome 12. Now, of course, when we wrote that up, everyone was like, oh, it's the cell line.

Who cares? You're wasting your time. There's some truth to that. So we've since gone on and started measuring real tumor samples. And we don't have all the sequencing data back for that, but we have PCR data back showing that a Pfizer sequence is, in fact, in that tumor sample a year after vaccination. So in which sequence specifically are you looking for that you're finding a year after the last vaccination?

It's a good question. So when we screen these biopsies, we're currently screening with three assays. We're working with Philip Buchholz on this too. He just sent us a few more of his assays, which we're loading on, which will bring us up to five assays. But it's a good point because we're only looking under those lampposts

and it could be a piece of DNA integrates into a cancer cell line and we're not seeing those events and we're throwing those samples out. So we screen all of the biopsies that come in off of initially three amplicons, soon to be five, and then prioritize those that have signal for sequencing. So in this case, we had SV40 amplicon and a Coley 1 Ori amplicon and a Spike amplicon that we were targeting to try to figure out which ones to sequence. In this case, the signal came back positive for SV40 and the origin,

and the spike signal was really delayed, if not there at all. So that was perplexing because she spike IHC screened these before she sent them to us, so there's clearly spike expressing, but our spike amplicon didn't fire off, and the other two things did. So, of course, we're like, okay, maybe there's a mutation in spike, sequence the thing. We did a real skim sequencing on it just to see if the library was good at less than 1x coverage. And we can now see some other reads, the lumina reads that are in spike, they're just not

under our assay, and a bunch of other ones scattered throughout the plasmid. So when we saw that, we said, okay, maybe there's a mutation in the screwing up our assay. Let's go like 100x deep on this puppy, which is what's underway right now. And then we'll see exactly what the structure of the plasmid is after it gets into cell lines. Now, what's important to understand is when we did this in ovarian cancer cell lines, one thing that really perplexed us is that when we got the sequence back for the plasmid, we had like 10,000 X coverage of the plasmid out of those ovarian cancer cell lines. There was a tremendous amount of DNA there. But there's mutations in it. And we also sequenced her vaccine side by side, and there were no mutations in it. So something about putting the vaccine inside of the cells

induced a bunch of mutations in the plasmid. And that to us signified, okay, it's definitely in the cell because the cell is doing something. It could be the APOBEC pathway or one of these interferon pathways that are trying to attack this DNA as if it's viral. Or the polymerases that are replicating in the cell are making some errors. We don't know the answer to that, but what's interesting is when we looked at a cancer biopsy from a patient that was vaccinated a year ago, a similar pattern emerged. There's mutations in the plasmid that are inside the cancer cell.

And we don't fully understand the mechanism of that, but that's probably why our spike assay was falling out of that one region, and we can see spike sequence in other parts of the biopsy. Now, we don't yet have the depth to answer the ultimate question which you brought up from Hiroshi, which is, all right, where did it integrate? What is it, man? What chromosome? We need more depth of sequencing to figure that out. But there's two alternatives here. It could integrate. And if it did integrate, it likely amplified after integration because the PCR signal we're getting for SV40 and this other

origin of replication are like 100 to 200 times higher than the genomic control. What we would expect if this were a driver mutation is that you would get an integration event, and if it were a driver mutation, that means it would give a selective growth advantage to the cell, like a tumor in a turbocancer, and it would replicate with the genome. So you'd have the same CT as the genome if it drove the cancer. If it was a passenger mutation, it would probably fall behind the genome and signal, right? And we're seeing the opposite of that. We're seeing more signal for SV40 in origin than we are for the RNAP.

That tells us that it's either replicating in the cell like a plasma at a high copy number, or it integrated. And sometimes with cancers, when they integrate like this, they sometimes copy themselves all over the genome in a process known as chromothripsis. You get like an amplification event. We don't know which one of those it is. And we're going to have to do deep sequencing

to sort that out. But independent of whether it integrates or not, I think the important thing for the audience to know is that you broke the rules when you got it into the cell, because at that stage, the cell is on fire. And you're going to trigger the C-gas sting pathway, which is going to can trigger cancer, particularly if you chronically stimulate it. This person got four vaccines. That's what's known to trip C-gas sting into an oncogenic state. And so the fact checkers out there keep moving the goalposts to, you know, DNA is not there at all.

DNA is not getting into the cell. DNA is not getting into the nucleus. DNA is not integrating. The reality is it should get into the cell. Right there is the problem. And whether it gets into the nucleus or not is somewhat of a diversionary tactic that they play. And most of them, when they bring that up, don't recognize that the nucleus dissolves in cell division. So it's a fake goal that they have

that, oh, it doesn't get into the nucleus. Well, then they don't know anything about cell biology because when cells divide, that's not there. So you'll know that you're dealing with a fact checker shell if they bring up the nucleus. You'll also know that they haven't read David Dean's work, which shows this SV40 enhancer drags things into the nucleus. So'll also know that they haven't read David Dean's work, which shows this SV40 enhancer drags things into the nucleus. So even if the cell doesn't divide, you're in trouble, which is what they tend to tell you, that it stays in the arm, and the arm has muscle, and muscle doesn't divide. Well, it doesn't stay in the arm, and it does get into the nucleus in the arm. So both things are false. And don't forget, it's mRNA. It breaks down in hours.

It breaks down in hours, yeah. Yeah, we wouldn't see it 60 days out in the Roachian paper or in heart tissue in the Krausen paper or in plasma 28 days later in the Castoruda paper or in breast milk five days later in the Hanna paper or in placentas 10 days later in the Gonzalez paper. Yeah, none of that happened. None of that happened. This is the David Dean paper I think you're talking about, 1999. So I was getting ready

for this interview, looking it up. And he said, in this report, we show that although fragments throughout this region of SV40 can support varying degrees of nuclear import, the 72 base pair repeat of the SV40 enhancer facilitate maximal transport. So if we had, I'm just making this up, if we had a plasmid and if it had this SV40 enhancer on it, and we just sort of chunked this thing up with the DNA, but it was a little imprecise, is it possible, Kevin, that if we had a chunk that had that SV40 enhancer and whatever else was coming along for that chunked up ride, that that might get

brought into the nucleus of the cell? Yes, I'm glad you asked this. Something tells me you've gone in and looked at our primers here because we specifically designed our SV40 primers to target that exact 72 base pair repeat because of David Dean's paper. So we get a PCR signal, we're measuring actually 144 base pair regions surrounding that. So David Dean talks about the 72 base pair repeat. You can turbocharge that 72 base pair repeat by duplicating it and making it two tandem copies of 72. And that does an even better job getting into the nucleus. And that's what we amplify with our assay, because we wanted basically a proxy for what is the nuclear import capacity of the DNA

that's there. So we amplify that whole 144 base pair region, and we're getting CTs that are sometimes seven CTs earlier than RNAP from these cancer biopsies. That means it's not just there, it's there at 100 to 200-fold higher copy than the genome. So it's there in high quantity. It's not a one-to-one ratio of this material to the genome. So I think that's a sign that's replicating. And maybe the sequencing will prove me wrong, but I was not expecting to see CTs for that SV40 element to be that many CTs ahead of the RNAP internal control. Now, for people following along at home, this is just the nucleus of a cell. The rest would be the cytoplasm. It would be the size of this room. The nucleus is just this thing in the center.

Nature has designed the nucleus to keep stuff out. And in particular, it's designed to keep out foreign DNA. It doesn't do a super great job. Viruses have figured out workarounds, but that's a many million, if not billion year long process of cat and mouse and working stuff out. The issue here seems to me in a precautionary principle would be to say,

maybe we ought to be a little humble before we just dump random DNA into a cell in a billion plus people or however many they gave these things to, several billion, in the hopes that that's all going to be cool. Where was the scientific medical control on that? Was nobody really seriously asking about the legitimacy of having that SV40 enhancer in promoter region?

No. In fact, that brings us up to the deception that went on is that they hid it. Because I think the reason they hid it is they know that this would raise alarm bells because this SB 40 piece actually is basically a passport into the nucleus. So they're using DNA that's designed to get through there. This is this is from April of 2024, the Epoch Times thing. Pfizer chose not to tell regulators about SV40 sequence in the COVID shots, says a Health Canada official. So, quote, a senior Health Canada official says pharma giant Pfizer made a conscious decision not to advise regulators that its mRNA COVID- vaccine contained dna sequence from sv40 dr dean smith of health canada he said um he said oh yeah they were present these sequences were present the covet 19 vaccine he said quote i understand that there have been internal discussions at seber the center for biologicals about biologics evaluation research regarding the present uh presence of a sv4 40

enhancer promoter sequence noting that its presence is unrelated to the purpose of the plasmid pfizer's plasmid so that's why they didn't tell him about it like oh we didn't tell you because it's it's not important yes and and i remember seeing that that in the in health canada they had a picture of the plasmid and they didn't label it. It was blank. It was blank. Yeah, so. It's not possible that Pfizer forgot to tell them.

Come on. No, they intentionally deceived them in that. I mean, there's so many things wrong with that statement. So, for one, Pfizer is treating the regulators as if they're idiots. And if I were the regulator, I'd be really pissed at them right now because they're trying to do this game of, well, that sequence is not pertinent to plasmid manufacturing. I worked in the Human Genome Project. We made millions of plasmids and purified them per year.

You cannot get plasmid manufacturing to work without the antibiotic resistance gene, and the SV40 is driving the promotion of this. So it's actually the most meaningful sequence for plasmid manufacturing to work without the antibiotic resistance gene and the SV40 is driving the promotion of this. So it's actually the most meaningful sequence for plasmid manufacturing that they have. So for them to come back to the regulators being like, that doesn't matter for manufacturing, it's as if it's an insult to the intelligence of the regulators. And you can, if you read through, so by the way, NOAA and all the people out there who are thinking how do I chip in, how do I help with all this mayhem that's going on? Talk to NOAA, Chartier, and Skoops Magoo.

They're filing FOIAs like mad, and they are striking gold. I mean, we would not have half of this story if it weren't for those guys running around getting these ATIPs and FOIAs out of the governments to show all this e-mail communication that shows them they're theses. But to the point of their hiding this, you had that plasmid map, right? So there's a region of that plasmid map that is missing. It's got nothing annotated on it. And this is from the EMA filing, right? That's the EMA file, right. So the interesting thing about tools that annotate these things, no one in genetics anymore annotates these maps with pens and pencils, right?

Like we used to in the Maniatis days in the 80s, right? You plug the sequence into a software tool like SnapGene, and it paints all of these features on there automatically. So where did it go? Like, Pfizer, their tool annotated SV40. It's someone at Pfizer erased it before giving it to the regulators. That's the point here. It wasn't like, oh, did we forget to put that on there with our Sharpie? Yeah, Sharpie effect. So they purposely erased it. Now, why would they

do that? They would do that because SV40 is about as famous as P. Diddy in the genetic space. This thing contaminated the polio vaccine and created a shit show. So let me talk about that real quick for people. SV40, simianvirus 40, that means there's many others. This is the 40th one.

It came along for the ride accidentally in 59 and 63 between those two dates. They were using inactivated and also live but attenuated poliovirus vaccines that they had grown in a cell line that also oops had simian virus 40 in there so they put that out there and it turned out to be not a good thing there were a lot of health effects off of that and they say here on the science direct article there is no evidence that polio vaccine administered in the early 60s has since then has contained sv40 so like oh okay but there is an elevated cancer risk

they say in persons who received sv40 contaminated vaccines um and by the way fragments of sv40 dna have been identified not just in certain human tumors but a lot of them. Just to cover this story up, Kevin, because this is just fun for everybody following along. Wiki, when I want to find out how you're going to minimize this or otherwise cover it up, I go to Wiki. Because they'll erase it pretty quickly. They will, or they'll modify it. So they say here, going to Wiki today about SV40, they say, you know, it's a DNA virus that sometimes causes tumors in animals but you know there's a possible cancer risk now my background is toxicology we when i worked in when

we were doing tox labs on animals if it caused a tumor in an animal you were done yes it was therefore tumorigenic or could have been teratogenic or whatever it was causing, if it did it in animals, that animals is how we know that it's, you know. If you want to cover it up, what you do is you do a very large study, an epidemiology study that has shitloads of confounders that confuse everybody and say, ah, we can't see the signal anymore because we looked across the entire world, including people smoking, not smoking, what have you. So people should know that like epidemiology studies are all confounded, inferential, filled with loser statistics. But the top studies in animals are all that matter. Correct. Yeah. Good point. Yeah. Yeah.

We looked for SV40 signal in a bunch of asbestos miners and we saw nothing. So this is from 2001, right? I'm reading, I'm just reading up, trying to figure out SV40 and all this, right? And so they, you know, they say, yeah, this polyomavirus SV40 is a known oncogenic DNA virus, fine. Persuasive evidence now indicates that it causes infections in humans, okay, represents an emerging pathogen, okay, in green. A meta-analysis of molecular pathological clinical data from 1,793 cancer patients indicates there is a significant excess risk of SV40 associated with human primary brain cancers, bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and in red, underlined, experimental data strongly suggests that SV40 may be functionally important in the development of some of those human malignancies. Therefore, the major types of tumors induced by SV40 in laboratory animals are the same

as those human malignancies found to contain SV40 markers. Now, to be clear, this is talking about the whole thing. It is. And we're just talking about a region that has an enhancer or promoter how important is that it's it's it is an important detail there's 5 000 bases in the in the virus and we're only talking about like 444 or something here however uh the the the key parts that are responsible the functional elements that are responsible for this are the sv40 enhancer and promoter that drive this thing into the nucleus and then the origin of replication.

Now, a valid criticism of this concern is that you need to have the large tumor antigen present from SV40 to drive a lot of these cancers, okay? That is true. However, there are other papers that have published showing that if you don't have large T antigen present, they like to say T antigen because they don't like saying tumor antigen, but it's a tumor antigen. And if that's not present, there are other ways to make this thing replicate. By having a Coley 1 origin replication and an F1 origin will do it. Another person published a paper on a SMAD domain, which is a sequence element that helps unwind chromosomes. And that's another way that if that's present in a cell and you have the SV40

origin of replication, that you'll get replication. So the jury's still out on whether this is going to be as carcinogenic as SV40, the entire virus. Odds are it's going to be lower, but we are doing something different here. We have lots of copies of this in an LNP being injected into patients. And the same injection is doing other things that SV40 isn't doing. So we're generating a lot of spike protein. That spike protein has been published by Zhang et al. and Woffik Eldieri to down-regulate P53, which is the tumor suppressor gene. The other thing that's been published by, who is it again? It's not Dean.

It's Draymond. Draymond et al. published that the SV40 promoter actually binds to p53, and we're injecting 60 billion of these with each dose. So we've got a DNA molecule that binds p53. We don't know what it's doing, if it's upregulating or downregulating, but the fact that it's binding to your tumor suppressor gene should be a red flag. And we know the spike protein, when it's expressed, downregulates that gene. Now, there's like three other things wrong with these vaccines that could make this worse than the SV40 that we saw as a virus.

The vaccines are known to give you neutropenia and lymphocytopenia, so they lower your defenses. You've got a weakened immune system there's an igd4 class shift that's going on which makes you tolerant of other reoccurring infections if you have another viral infection on top of this which there does seem to be viral reactivation with these vaccines from epstein-barr and shingles that that can that can trigger more chaos i've even seen some stuff from uh Fornerod's work that there's some estrogen receptor activity going on with these vaccines. So there's like a perfect storm times three here of all these other triggers that are occurring on top of the DNA. That being said, if they clean up this DNA 100% perfectly, I think there's still going to be a cancer risk because of all that other stuff that's going on.

But it's just one more hair on the camel's back that we're doing. And it's something that happens to have some permanence and some replication capacity. And as a biologist, I always pay attention to the mechanisms that can amplify because you can get a lot of biological signals out there. But if it's one that can amplify, you have to pay attention to it. So if there's an original replication, pay attention. If there's prion capacity, pay attention. Those are things that chain react and those create exponential effects. So I don't think it's something we can ignore, but I don't think they're out of the woods if they get rid of it all. Yeah. I mean, there's so many ways that this has just been a complete disaster. I'm not showing

here in this presentation at all, all of the clots, but I've been following that story really well for a long time. And the work that's being done to show that, I don't know what those things are, but it's a really bizarre, it looks like amyloid genesis at this point in time, the misfolding of the proteins in a way that your body can't clear naturally. We've got, of course, the all-time favorites where they said, oh, the COVID shots absolutely do not affect fertility. They just make women bleed at odd times and amounts, right? It's like, by definition, that's, my biology's a

little thin, but I think that affects fertility. And then, of course, anything that dysregulates your immune system, of course, is going to have some sort of a signal on cancer if it's weakening your immune system because that's your surveillance system to take care of the cancer that arises as a normal course of business. Being a live thing. So all of these things are kind of crazy. But back to the SV40, obviously there's all kinds of papers going way back showing about, you know, the involvement of SV40 in human cancer. So we know that stuff, right? And this was an interesting chart by ethical skeptics saying, look, here's malignant neoplasm deaths normalized per 100,000 population. So also age standardized in the population. And here you can see, let me get my

funky do little drawing tool out or let me get my laser pointer we'll just laser pointer this up um yeah back here is the introduction of that sv40 contaminated polio vaccine back here in the 60s and then we had this huge rise in cancers that came back to this to this baseline because obviously this baseline is shrinking because we're getting better and better at treating people for cancers. And so it falls from a, call that 190-ish case rate per 100,000, and it fell all the way back down here to 150-ish. But this is the SV40 cancer wave. There could be other confounders in there. That inflection point that's occurring towards the end there is obviously the COVID vaccination. And what people need to recognize is that the COVID vaccination campaign probably came in faster and harder than the polio vaccination campaign and in multiple doses, you know, over and over again.

People getting four or five, six doses. They weren't getting that for polio because vaccines back then were believed to only need one and done. Yeah, that's what a vaccine was so so yeah we're seeing that come in so um in your view i mean i i have lots of anecdotal evidence from doctors i talked to i was talking where i'm finding people who are writing papers for cancers they never saw in a 30-year career now they have enough cases they can actually write about them, right? You're seeing them in kids, right? Appendix in kids and rare ones. Yeah. Yeah. It's remarkable. I have a lot of anecdotal evidence, too. I know friends in town where both parents got cancer after the vaccinations,

like in two different, one pancreatic, one, what was the other one? I think the other one was lymphoma. So there does seem to be a rise in the blood-based cancers. And, you know, the other angle on this is, you know, you can look at what Ed Dowd's doing looking at cancer spending, and that's an interesting graph. You can look at cancer company acquisitions from Pfizer. That's an interesting graph. Like, they dropped $40 billion on Cgen, which is a blood cancer company. You know, they also put Trillium Health, which is a couple billion on Trillium Health, which is targeting, I think it's CD147, which is a receptor that's also involved in COVID infections. So they're buying cancer companies. Cancer spending is up. Rates, anecdotal rates that I'm seeing are up.

John Bodwin has some data on, I think, blood cancers as well. He's doing really good work. If you haven't interviewed him, I highly recommend interviewing him. He's got a little bit more data, I think, on the renal failure issue that's going on. Which could be remdesivir? It's probably that and vancomycin. It's not just remdesivir from his data, but it's probably a two-hit punch. A lot of these people get put on remdesivir and they get pneumonia, so they end up giving them vanco.

And that's got additional toxicity to the kidneys. But they're clearly tagging a lot of these things that are vaccine injury as COVID in his hands. And so when people say, oh, we're not seeing this, or COVID causes the same thing, so we might as well take the poison because it's better than the COVID, he's got clear evidence that, no, that's all reverse, that's all mirage. They've been tagging everyone who's dying with this vaccine as COVID, and they've put out a campaign to make you believe that you're going to get myocarditis from COVID and you're going to get all these other things from COVID when they're just fraud. And he's got this directly from death records. So the death records don't lie.

The media lies because they're pretty much an arm of pharma. But the death records, there's fraud associated with those types of claims, and you can get a lot more clarity on exactly how they died. And there isn't HIPAA on death records, so you can tie the people on the death records to VAERS reports that are anonymized and realize that, okay, all these people that died from fentanyl and shotguns and everything else, they're actually in VAERS. So there's a massive cover-up going on there. So yeah, I'm seeing this

cancer wave as well amongst my kind of community of people and from the literature that I read. There are papers out there showing a lot of blood cancers that are induced post-vaccination, and they're coming on quick, and they're growing fast, and some of these things that typically take slow-growing cancers are now suddenly rapid. They don't like you saying the word turbo, but it's a fast-progressing disease, and we don't totally understand the mechanism of what's going on here. But I would want everyone to say that, you know, even if there could be multiple mechanisms of what's causing these cancers, and maybe DNA is only one hair that breaks the camel's back,

what you need to know about the DNA is it doesn't need to be there. At least in Pfizer's case, this SV40 sequence is completely superfluous. They could get rid of it and put a different promoter in there and get rid of it and not have this be there. But with this whole emergency use authorization fiasco they've got going on, there are no rails on the pharma industry right now. So every drug pharma wants to make, they want to make as a vaccine now because they know they can jam it through regulations with very little cost and very little liability. Well, even a complete shield of liability, unless the PrEP Act does not shield you from a willful act. Yes. So fraud may, if we can prove fraud, then maybe that dissolves. And the challenge I think we're going to find there is who's really the defendant?

Is it Pfizer? Is it the DOD? Everyone's going to point fingers the other way. But I know with at least Brooke Jackson's case, they went after Pfizer for manipulating the trials, and the judge ruled that you've got the wrong defendant. The DOD told him to do it. So that's something to check with Barnes. Barnes Law and Warner Mendel Hall, I think, have been prosecuting that. And they're on record now saying the DOD is involved. So this is not considered a vaccine. It's considered a biological countermeasure. And that brings in the whole biowarfare state.

So it's going to be complicated to figure out, you know, who to go after here. I think for the sake of the patients and the victims, Pfizer has the money pot. They got the $100 billion. Some of that money needs to go back to the victims. I don't know what the DOD got out of this, other than probably saving their hide for having perhaps been involved in funding the manufacturer of the virus. They needed to have a biological countermeasure. Otherwise. They needed to have a biological countermeasure, otherwise they don't have a reason to exist, right? The whole bioweapons program was built on gain-of-function research as a precautionary tool against a potential

bioweapon. And if the only thing your group has spent billions of dollars on turns out to be the first damn leak and you don't have a vaccine for it, you're backed into a corner and you have to jam the vaccine on everybody in order for survival of your mission statement to actually exist. So I kind of think that's the psychology that's going on here is that they're painted in a corner, they're supposed to be making these countermeasures, and they got caught on the back of their heels having leaked the actual first risk and they didn't have the countermeasure. So the countermeasure could be the only solution. Otherwise, it would end the bioweapons program. And so they, I think, rammed this down everyone's throat and gave Pfizer a hall pass to make it happen. But I think most of the revenues are going into Pfizer, into BioNTech,

Moderna, and the NIH. The NIH has at least 400 million in royalty from Moderna, and they're trying to get 800 out of Pfizer and BioNTech for some of the patents that are involved in the proline changes in the virus. So yeah, it's a big mess. I don't know where it's going to go legally. I'm not a lawyer on that front. But there's certainly evidence, I think, with all the ATIPs that are coming out from these great journalists, that fraud is at play. They didn't tell the regulators, and now the regulators are trying to figure out if they have a chair in the Titanic or not, and who's going to go down for this, and they're starting to cough up that, you guys never told us about this. This is something that's, according to their own guidelines, you have to disclose every open reading frame and every promoter uh in pfizer now while pfizer did give them the dna sequence they didn't annotate it so that they kind of in an underhanded way they snuck it in uh but they're supposed to annotate

it and tell them about the promoters that are there and even the hidden there's other things in the in the pfizer vaccine like there's this long hidden open reading frame we don't have time to go into but that needed to be disclosed as well and they didn't disclose that. Like there's this long, hidden, open reading frame we don't have time to go into, but that needed to be disclosed as well. And they didn't disclose that. So there's multiple violations that have occurred here. And I'm just curious whether or not they can retreat from this. Well, I am seeing more and more rumblings out there, right?

And they're sort of at the edges now, but there's like that one small town in Australia that said no more mRNA vaccines. And of course, that totally freaked out the rest of the Australian. I'll call them anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists and the usual canards. Usual stuff. You know, good news. I get to wear conspiracy theorists proudly now. Like, I know, isn't it great? That means you should be a futures option trader because in six days you'll be right. Exactly. Europe's starting to break a little bit in some corners.

But most importantly, I'm starting to see this privately. People are starting to ask questions. You know, did what happen to Aunt Sally? What was that related? Or this case of the 43-year-old fitness Maria Kang, just as happens now presents with stage four and is gone in a year, you know, leaving behind a family. And it's just obviously tragic, but millions of tragic stories kind of like that, including people I've known and cared about who are now gone and including maybe, you know, you know, i don't know how i feel about this per se but um you know the ceo of uh youtube uh got small cell lung carcinoma that's that's a really sick case of a karmic boomerang right the person who is censoring that the information that may have

saved her from this is gone now uh and their censorship continues beyond her death unfortunately it does people getting kicked off of youtube recently talking about these topics. And it's just like it doesn't seem to doesn't seem to end. So, yeah, that that is a she was young, like 54, right? Yep. Yep. And and so so but I'm starting to see this break a little bit like people are starting to sort of put two and two together and not least of which is if you it was may of 23 so i don't know what the numbers are now when the cdc stopped reporting on vaccine uptake because it was just zeroing out right um but you know when i go to cvs i still see some few folks rolling up their sleeves some of them wearing masks you know so it hasn't gotten out there entirely yet um do you think so this was concerning to me, A, the doctors anecdotally, but B,

talking to somebody who works in an ambulance service, they're saying, I was kind of expecting, Kevin, for this all to level off with that lack of vaccine, continued administration and uptake on the boosters. I thought this was all going to start falling down. They're like, our call volume is just as, it's just the same as it's been. It's just at a very high static level. That lines up with ethical skeptics, other charts as well. That it's not I was I was of the same opinion that we're going to go through a hump and a wave, if you will. And it will start to get start to normalize.

But that's not occurred yet in the data. There's still it's still flat arising in terms of excess mortality that's not related to COVID. And I don't know when that stops because, I mean, if we're finding DNA a year out from vaccination in tumors, granted, it's not in all these other tissues people are screening. We're looking where it's most likely to persist, if you will. We don't know when that ends. And if it replicates, I mean, this is what is driving me crazy about these self-replicating RNAs, you know? You're like, okay, you already have something that's replicating DNA in Pfizer, I think. That's not good. It was never intentional.

And we don't know the repercussions of that yet. We're still gonna have to wait and see where that goes. But the self-amplifying RNAs has a whole other level of hubris. And I also think it's just stupid. First off, if you don't address the fact that injecting these vaccines does nothing to this virus, injecting less of them shouldn't be a goal, right? That's the justification for this is like we want to lower the dose, so we're going to put something in that self amplifies so we can't control the dose. But we'll be putting in less. Yeah. So it's one of these cases where every technology is a solution to the prior technology that caused all the problems, right?

Yes. Yeah. It's awful. I'm perplexed that there's no forest to the trees here. Now, granted, I've heard some of them are going to go after nasal applications, so there's mucosal IgA. Great. That makes sense to me. I can understand that.

That makes sense to me, but do you really need a self-amplifying system because you don't really know what else it amplifies? I mean, all of these. Let's talk about this real quick because people have been asking questions, so I'm really glad to be able to talk about this. So the so-called conventional mRNA here, which, by the way, this isn't just mRNA. This is methyl pseudouridine modified RNA. Let's be clear about that. But at least there you had a payload. It goes into the cell. Maybe it came along with some other stuff it shouldn't have.

But the idea is you get this in situ translation and you make this antigen and then somehow the body sees it makes antibodies with self-amplifying it also comes with this other little region that ends up making this rdrp complex which has the wonderful attribute of being able to make more copies of itself through its genetic it it'll copy its own mRNA. So walk us through this. This idea is you put this thing in and it has the capability to make more of itself. And let me guess, we don't actually understand how much or how to turn it off if we don't like the results. Exactly.

Their goal here is to be able to claim that they're putting less material in without having to be responsible for turning your cells into the factory to do their manufacturing for you. And they don't care if it stops or when it stops, because at that point, they've satisfied giving you a small, small dose, and what your body decides to do with it's on you. Now, these enzymes shouldn't replicate all RNA. They're supposed to only go and replicate RNA that's attached to these non-structural proteins, NSP1 through 4, that are common in these encephalitis viruses. And it's a class of alpha viruses. The problem of the whole design here is that this rep enzyme, or RDRP,

yeah, it's great in that it's more specific and only goes after alpha viruses. The problem is in some jurisdictions, alpha viruses are in like 30 to 60% of the population. So you pop this into, and they're asymptomatic in many cases. In the cases where they're not asymptomatic, they form encephalitis. Like these are the EEV viruses. There's some from, there's a VEEV, which is a Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, and there's a whole class of these other encephalitis viruses. And this enzyme's likely going to amplify those. All right, so if you start amplifying, if you start putting this in patients, and they have dormant or asymptomatic alpha viruses around, you've got an enzyme in there now that's not

going to make your vaccine, but it's going to start replicating the RNA from those other viruses. So things that are asymptomatic in them may become symptomatic. So when I see them doing this, I'm like, you have no idea what you're doing. And of course, they probably want to administer these to millions to billions of people at a time, not wanting to stop and check. Like, are you sure that your self-amplifying mRNA is not going to amplify RNA from any other asymptomatic viruses present in the population? They should be able to measure that with sequencing, but I guarantee you they won't. Well, it's good to know that that RDRP isn't just randomly amplifying any mRNA it finds, because that would dysregulate the cellular machinery in a very bad way.

Are we sure it's highly specific that way? Well, the things I've read are on the EEVs, and I don't know if that's what everyone is pursuing, but I see a lot of literature on the experts in this field that are working on the EEV viruses, and they're basically using those NSP sequences, which are signals for what should be amplified. You put them in front of the RNA, and the enzyme is supposed to bind to those sequences and perform the replication process. But those sequences exist.

They took them from other alpha viruses, and there is some cross-reactivity of these enzymes to other alpha viruses. So I wouldn't be surprised if the one from VEEV can amplify ones from other EEVs. And so now you have to start asking, you know, ask Grok and chat GPT, like what are the asymptomatic frequencies of these different alpha viruses throughout the world? And it will give you a list of, okay, and there's some in South America that are in 30 to 60% of the population. There's some in Southeast Asia that have this frequency. So, you know, whenever you borrow machinery from nature, you've got to make sure that it's not going to backfire from where you got it. And that's – there's hot to trot here where they want to use this replication machinery and just ignore

the fact that, all right, we stole this kit and caboodle from this virus over here, and we're going to use it to vaccinate people, and we're just going to pretend no one else has those viruses. And that when a vaccinated patient meets someone with an alpha virus already present, that there isn't some unexpected result of amplifying that virus's RNA to a point where asymptomatic patients become symptomatic. If they're really high frequency in the population, your vaccination program can totally backfire. And as we said earlier, it's like if you're injecting this, you're foolish, right? You just don't understand mucosal respiratory viruses, right? Some people are going to go the mucosal route, but even if you go the mucosal route, you need to understand this before you start doing this because I bet they won't do

any studies on shedding, but what if some of these components get involved in, if you're co-infected with an alpha virus, does any of this get packaged and sent out with the virions? So there's a much bigger shedding risk here that I don't think they've considered. And they might say, oh, in our model system, we do this viral amplification reaction, or this, I should say, mRNA, SARNA amplification reaction, and it all stays nice and tidy. But what happens if you put that in a patient who has alpha viruses? Do those viruses absorb any of this material? Do they start spreading it for you? Does your vaccine become a contagion? I mean, I'd want to see all of those

boxes checked and the types of risks that they're taking for global risk here. The thing better be Ebola. I mean, like doing this for whole is crazy. Yeah. Yeah. So lots of things to unpack there. I want to get to shedding in just a second, but at least by the definition I learned in grad school. So maybe maybe this has changed. That thing on the bottom actually would tick the box for a virus. It is a self replicating. I agree. Piece of of genetic material. Yes. And, you know, I'm in the plant field and we have an even lower barrier than this, which is a viroid, which don't have any packaging components to them. So these NSPs, these non-structural proteins, they are proteins that have structure. They just don't form the structure of the coat on the virus.

Viroids don't have any coats. Now, they don't infect humans, but they do infect plants. And it's just a circular piece of RNA that's only like 256 letters long, but it has enough signal in there to do rolling circle amplification if it gets inside of a plant. It just adopts the plant's replication machinery, it makes a shitload more of it, and then bugs move it to other plants. So it's an infectious agent that's just RNA, no coats at all. There's an evolutionary leap, or I should say missing link, that was just published this year by Andy Fiers' group that's between viroids and viruses. They're called obelisks, and they are circular

RNAs about 1,000 letters long, and they do have one or two coding genes in them, but they've got no protein coat, and humans have them in their microbiome in their mouth, so far as where they found them. That kind of ties the how did viroids get to viruses with open reading frames and structural codes. They probably went through obelisks first and then into into viruses so infectious agents don't need to have protein coats and you know sem images to find viruses they evolved from something much simpler and earlier than that so yeah that to me is an infectious agent infectious agent okay second point is um before we get to the shedding part is for this to get even if we're using the mucosal route like let's say we we straighten up fly right you still have

to get that in the cells are they still talking about lnps they are every vehicle i've been seeing yes they're still they're still thinking about lnps now i saw that astrazeneca was getting involved so maybe they'll try and do something with a virus like they did with the COVID vaccine. But I actually pulled that up. Because what did we learn about the LNPs, though, is that they go on walkabout. And the problem is that you then let's say let's say it ends up in the heart, either in an endothelial cell or in a heart muscle cell. And then that cell is now coding for and expressing a protein that's foreign. And the body says no bueno and

comes and attacks that i think is part of the mechanism as i understand it so the whole idea here is that it's not a good idea to trick your body into making a foreign protein so yes and now that they know that that process is so cytotoxic they want to lower the dose but the right thing to do is to target right They're shotgunning this into all of your cells. You can't control where the hell it goes. And then your immune system's got to deal with the fact that, all right, some heart cells are transfected, expressing foreign proteins. I've got liver cells. I've got ovarian cells. I've got bone marrow. I've got immune-privileged stem cells expressing this. Ah, what do I do? And it starts attacking you everywhere. And I think

this is why the etiology of COVID vaccination is so hard to track down because they've shotgunned it to every damn tissue in the body that you get every goddamn disease. It's very hard. And this might be like by design, right? If they're really evil,

make something that has such a diverse, complicated, adverse reaction profile that no one can figure it out. You know, it'd be one thing if they all were really targeted and they went to the spleen, and you had a bunch of diseases around the spleen, right? Then you'd be like, okay, we can get a hypothesis here. But what really confuses the medical system, it's like mitochondrial disease. It doesn't exist in one place.

It exists wherever there's metabolic disorder. And so there isn't – you go to the health care systems. They're all siloed based on organs. You've got neurology, you've got nephrology, you've got cardiology. But when you have a mitochondrial disease, it goes anywhere that consumes energy and none of those departments can figure it out. So you end up in this basic diagnostic odyssey inside the hospital, bouncing between silos of different organ systems. But COVID does that. COVID is kind of like a mitochondrial disease and it confuses the hell out of everybody. And I think the spike protein is part of it. So when you

inject it and it goes more places than the virus can go, they're doubly confused on what the hell is going on. So if they were smart about this, they wouldn't be trying to lower the dose, be trying to target the dose. And the fact that they're not doing that shows you that they're way over their skis and what they're doing. there's that and to speaking that multi-ideology issue we're dealing with right now so you know i i well it was january 20th of 2020 the prashad paper came out and said oh my gosh there's four direct hiv gp120 sequences plus two more that if you if you skip a few letters there they are um i've got memory a little faster than trump's assassination it sure did um and then we find out it has a cd147 binding which takes it into this uh the the t cells right and then we find out that it's got neuropilin one which takes it into neuronal

tissue so it is so i just want to repeat this it is so unusual for a virus to jump posts and come with six keys not just one kind kind of shaky key to get into a cell. This thing had six perfect master keys to get into different tissue groups. That made it very unusual in my experience. Yeah, I'm convinced it was engineered. And I know a lot of people push back being like, if it's a weapon, it's not a very good one. But, you know, weapons aren't always designed to kill everybody. They're sometimes designed to take out the elderly or just put the whole country into disarray.

Or they're co-delivered with like a mass marketing campaign or media propaganda campaign that just scares the country into self-annihilation. And I think we're on that path. When you look at all the spending they did to do this. This triggered the country to go into absolute chaos mode and self-destruction, and it didn't have to be an Ebola to do it. Yep. Okay. So I'm going to ask you two questions. The first is, what do you think about shedding as a concept? Is it real or not? And second, what would happen if this started amplifying and shedding? Yes.

So, all right. So shedding is, I was just with Ryan Cole talking about this, um, at this most recent meeting. And I was always very skeptical of shedding, not because there aren't sufficient anecdotes of menstruation patterns and everything and women getting synchronized and out of whack. Um, but because the dose thing, I couldn't, I couldn't figure out, like if you were shedding some spike, how much would you get in the recipient, and is that really going to be that, is the person going to be that sensitized to like a thousand-fold less spike than what you actually have in the donor?

And I've seen a lot of great stuff from Pierre Corey talking about all the different, you know, mechanisms upon which this can happen. We're definitely seeing in breast milk. That's a form of shedding to the child, right? So that's happening. Bans will show that it's on exosomes in the blood. Okay, but what of shedding to the child, right? So that's happening. Bansal show that's on exosomes in the blood. Okay. But what else is in that exosome? Is there plasma DNA in there? Is there RNA? So that when it gets in a recipient, it can actually amplify? We don't know.

No one's sequenced those. But when I saw this cancer stuff with the PCR signals we're seeing, suggestive of amplification in the cancer cell lines. I'm like, okay, if any of these plasmids are getting into the exosomes in other patients, that could explain a dose expansion. But at the same time, it could also be hormones, right? I mean, women synchronize on hormones, and those are small molecules, and maybe something in the COVID infection or the vaccine infection throws off their hormones out of whack and the estrogen pathway. And so you get shedding of pheromones from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. And it appears as like, you know, you get menstruation in women who haven't been vaccinated, but are near vaccinated women. So there's a whole host of things that can be going on that I don't think anyone's got hard

data that shows mRNA or DNA in exhaled exosomes, which is kind of the piece we need. What I'm worried about with these self-amplifying RNAs is that you need less of them to shed to create an outcome in the recipient, right? So if the donor only gets one virion or whatever you want to call these things, these infectious agents, out of an exosome into another person, what's the minimal infectious dose? Like in some diseases, it's 10, right? And that can take off in a recipient. So I think what this does is it lowers the minimum effective dose in the shedding example, and it's going to be more prone to it than what we have currently.

So I don't have an answer on what's going on. I don't like the fact that there's any replication capacity in these vaccines, whether it's amplifying the RNA or amplifying the DNA, because when you're this wasteful about targeting, you shouldn't have those things around. You should be able to find a way to target this to the mucosa and not have to amplify. All of our previous vaccines that, love them or hate them for how well they work, they had a lower side effect profile than this approach, right? And they're putting in protein antigens that your immune system recognizes, and the point of your immune system is to amplify the response, not the drug, right? It amplifies

T cells and B cells to remember this thing. That's the adaptive immune system is it is an amplifier. So you get a lot more of something with a small second administration. And here we are trying to amplify the tool that makes the antigen, which I think is backwards for all of this. So I'm kind of against the philosophy of everything they're doing on this front. Like make a protein, use that. Yeah. You know, I was not an anti-vaxxer at all and I'm not still, but I am anti-no science kind of guy. And so when I really started digging in, I read Turtle Laws all the way down, edited by Mary Holland. And I started, I'm like, wait a minute, where's the base study? And I'm a toxicologist. So the first thing I dial in on is, okay, the aluminum adjuvant. This is aluminum, naturally speaking, is a highly reactive, highly bound molecule.

So the idea that you're going to see that naturally in a free state is very low, right? Because it's super reactive substance. It just does not, you won't find it. So they create it in a free form and start injecting it and it goes all the way back to this one paper where there was like like 12 rats and they fed it to them which is a parental you know it's like a totally different route of administration right where your elementary canal is basically going to go yeah we're not absorbing any of that stuff right um 0.3 percent whereas and then they're comparing that to when you give little infants like like a full injection yeah right which is a hundred percent uh absorbed right by definition anyway just the

whole thing i couldn't believe how shaky that was kevin there was like literally nothing there that i would rely on as a scientist right and meanwhile i get fact checkeded if I get one comma out of place. And the fact-checks are usually smoke screens and wrong, right? They're just meant to confuse people who can't read between the lines on this stuff. But, I mean, I'm also concerned that the adjuvants could be transfection vehicles, right? Metals. We use other metals for transfection, calcium phosphate. So if the DNA, if Sidney is finding the DNA is binding to the aluminum, is there anything else in the vaccines, polysorbate 80 or saponins or other things that facilitate transfection and move the aluminum particles into cells?

There's a whole host of unknowns. And it's not clear they need them. They keep claiming they need to stimulate this immune response, so they put in this other toxin like aluminum. It's why doesn't your antigen do it alone? And maybe they have the wrong antigen. Yeah, that would be the actual piece there. But the further I've gone down in this, I realize that what I'm considering a bug I've now turned around.

And I think it's a feature. They create chronically sick people who consume a lot more of their products over time. This is true. The studies coming out looking at vax versus unvaxed kids, they're hard as hell to get out and get published, but the more and more of them roll out showing that. I mean, when you look back at it, you're like, you never did a – even the aluminum stuff and turtles all the way down side of things. Fine. That, that, those are, those are, there's, there's a toxins that are higher than Robert Riff Kennedy would have ever wanted in water and fish and what have you. And

that's how we got into this. But no one ever did the study looking at 72 of these things in, in, in like a, you know, a 10 year period. Uh, it's just piled on one after another. And, and we're going to keep, and then you see the chronic disease, you see the autism rates, you see all of these problems emerge, eczema, asthma, and everyone's like, it can't be the vaccines. It's nothing. It's the frosted flakes. And I'm like, I don't – I mean, sure, there's metabolic disease going on, but you're not injecting it. I'm really nervous about these forced injections.

So many of them piled up. No one's done the study. And most of these vaccine studies, when they do them, they never really do it against the placebo. They do it against the next worst vaccine. So you just have to be not as toxic as the shittiest one out there. And then you can add another one on. And so you've got like, you know, tolerance stacking problems going on here. Yeah, I agree with you. It's more, it's not an answer. I like the idea of immunology and well-designed vaccines, but this has turned into a forced vaccination of children in order to get to school, in order to survive in society. And there's no limit to how many they're willing to stuff your kids with.

And at some point it's going to blow up if it hasn't already. Yeah. Well, I've said this. I said this in a talk recently. If I was going to run for president, I'd have one plank, and it would be consequences, not just for little people anymore. Yes. If we said, hey, you know, pharma companies, you make these vaccines all you want, but if it turns out they're harmful, we're coming after. You are individually and severally liable. And I don't care if you were CEO 10 years ago. If that was on your watch, you're coming for all your money, your family's money.

We don't care if you put it in the Cayman Islands, we'll find it. Is it in El Salvador in Bitcoin? We'll get it back. We're coming for all of it. And then guess what? That ship would straighten out and fly right again. Yeah. I mean, even the Purdue thing took decades for it to unravel, and they've managed to hide a good portion of their money from this.

And I think what's going on here is going to, in retrospect, going to be viewed as much worse than the Purdue problem. The opioid epidemic, I think, is going to be swamped by what they do with the vaccines. Yeah. The Sackler family will be thrilled. Hey, at least we're not the worst know, the worst people in the world anymore. Yeah. They're like second worst now. Yeah, right. They can go basically, they don't have to run and hide with the Borla family somewhere. Yeah. Uruguay, it's nice this time of year. So what's next for you, and what can we look forward to?

Well, right now we wanted to get – so we're going to be writing up this preprint. We get a lot of stone's throw to us for putting out early data, but the point of getting out early data is for other people to start replicating it and also to get the word out to pathologists to don't throw away your slides. Sometimes pathologists toss samples after two years. Don't do that. Not now. There's going to be people coming to look at these. And we want to make sure there's a good reason for people to not throw them out. And it's because we're starting to find signal in vaccines a year later or vaccinated biopsies a year later. So hold on to them. Not certain we're going to find something in all of them. We don't know the frequency of this. If you've been vaccinated, don't freak out because right

now the frequency of this is unknown. And there's a lot of people who were vaccinated that don't have any symptoms. All right. And there's a lot of data that also shows the adverse events piled up in a certain number of vaccine lots that were probably early on in the process or in the rollout. There's other evidence I like of Mark Gerdos that looks like this could have been a roulette wheel based on how they injected it, right? So chronic stress and fear is what they used to start this pandemic. Don't let us use it on you over what's happened in the past. It's early. We have to be loud about this because we're censored, but that also means you've got to take it with some nuance, which is that we don't know the frequency of these things.

And the vast majority of people that were vaccinated are not showing symptoms. And from what I've heard from the frontline physicians, if you didn't get a symptom upon vaccination, you're probably in the clear. It's only if you've got like a sore arm or some weird symptom shortly thereafter that they want to take a second look at you because there could be some kind of adverse event that's lurking but for a large number of people let's let's put this behind us and don't repeat it and for anyone else that's concerned start talking to pathologists about if you have a biopsy that they have in storage is yours you own that you usually have rights to be able to get that tested and there's groups starting to organize with pathologists to get the proper irbs and consent forms in place to perform the testing so it's slow going we're underdog team but there are

more people paying attention now than there were before well that was so well said and for everybody listening that's what actual common sense science sounds like. You repeat things. You ask to be challenged. You welcome the challenges. We'd like to see that we can confirm things. It turns out that what you thought first, no matter how right you were, always gets refined through nuance and further study. And that's how it is. That happened. If you look through our history and substack, we made mistakes. No doubt.

We initially were transforming these into bacterial cells and got colonies, and the more we chased that, that result turned to be an aberration. But other things got refined by other people who repeated these things, with Philip's work and David Speaker's work and Bridget Conan's work. It takes a village. And what science is is not what these fact-checkers tell you and what the media tells you. What it is is consensus that enemies can agree on, like Bitcoin, right? We all agree gravity is real because our enemies work with it as much as we do, right?

So you're going to see that in science, that when people start replicating things like this in different countries and different places that aren't necessarily on the same page, that's a signal that you've got reproduction and consensus amongst enemies. Well, fantastic. So, Kevin, where can people follow you, all your excellent work? Well, I mostly abuse other trolls on Twitter, which can be hilarious to follow, but it's not necessarily educational. And then I try to be more polite on Substack. If you want the more mature side of me, go there. That's a Substack that no one can spell called the Petalactone. It's an active ingredient in catnip.

If you can't spell it, you'll find that under Google. And medicinal genomics is where I work. So we tend to be working more on cannabis genomics and sort of decentralizing plant and fungi-based medicines that don't necessarily get all tangled up in this FDA madness. Great. Well, Kevin, thank you so much for your time today and for the work you've been doing. I really appreciate it. Thank you for the time.

I appreciate it as well. Great. I love the fact that you dug so deep into all this. You've got slides I might have to borrow now