#PlasmidGate #placentagate: Buckhaults confirms McKernan again, "Serious" UK Journalists were indifferent

The Alt Media should have been all over this and all over every regulator.

Let us put a scenario to each of you. Please give us your answers in the comments.

Imagine that you are a serious, minority/alt media journalistic outlet that has been around for years on the fringes. Your work is detailed, deeper than the mainstream, and you are willing to express analytical opinion i.e. directly challenge power and falsehoods on air, rather than defer to implications that you set up using the “oppositional guest format”. In short, your journalistic platform does take a stance that is backed by your investigative and analytical work.

You have called out COVID and torn down many of the faux pillars of the pandemic. One of your reporters has incessantly gone after the UK’s MHRA medical regulator on various grounds including safety and efficacy of gene therapies. Unfortunately, the MHRA is unaccountable and protected and no one has yet managed to penetrate its armour and deliver a killing blow.

Your platform is not deeply scientifically expert but you have no problem interviewing and investigating the scientific and medical fields if needs be. You are a serious outlet, although small and independent.

Now, one day, someone flags to you a story about the COVID gene therapies that strike at the heart of the manufacturer and regulator relationship. This is a death star trench run that could get you a shot into the generator.

You are delivered the extensive detail of Kevin McKernan’s #plasmidgate genetic sequencing of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA gene therapies. A comprehensive, lay accessible outlay of the whole matter is delivered to you with further references. The implications are laid out, which include the serious and untested possibility that contamination with genetic material could a) get into human cells b) interact or even integrate with human DNA c) drive into #placentagate i.e. have permanent and transferrable genetic implications for the whole of the human race’s offspring.

Now, here are the first questions:

1. Would you be interested in the story?

2. To what extent would you cross-check the information provided?

3. What degree of refutation would be adequate for you to bat it all off?

Her’s a 7 minute clip of McKernan chatting through some of plasmidgate in case you would like a quick but technical refresh.

---

In March 2023, VST published McKernan: DNA Contamination in Covid Shots #Plasmidgate, Latypova: DNA Contamination in Shots #plasmidgate and LETTER: RNA & DNA Contamination in Covid Gene Therapies & LNP Placenta Barrier #plasmidgate #placentagate.

We then set about re-drafting the work and delivered a comprehensive brief to a UK outlet in the hope that they would pick it up and run with it. We were giving them a way to bolster their ongoing, fully warranted attack on the MHRA. The MHRA cannot credibly address the issues in #plasmidgate without getting into a corner of some kind that can lead to serious legal challenges to which the UK populace can attach themselves. That’s how big #plasmidgate and #placentagate are.

The MHRA could be charged with gross negligence for allowing the use of a product it regulated that clearly violates Good Manufacturing Processes that it specified, as well as failing to control the content and quality of the products such that COVID gene therapies contain genetic contamination that is undeclared on the ingredients. There is literally no understating the gravity of #plasmidgate. There are many other serious ramifications for many other parties. #plasmidgate is a medical, scientific, political and legal Pandora’s box.

There’s no ambiguity here either. The findings are scientifically proven by multiple, independent experimental results that are fully reproducible. These results raise a key, obvious question: does the contamination have the potential for harm and/or to interact or integrate with human DNA?

That’s what’s at the heart of plasmidgate when you boil it down. It’s a question that must be answered and until it is, no one should be taking COVID gene therapies because they are proven contaminated in ways no regulator has spotted or declared and no patient has ever known about.

Yes. This is a BIG FUCKING DEAL.

So, if all of the above and more is spelled out to you and your journalistic outlet, what would you do to look into it?

Would you contact the lead scientist, Kevin McKernan? Would you talk to others directly involved in story?

Would you send the information to your “go to science guy” for their opinion on the veracity of the issues and the downstream potential?

Let’s say that you only did that last bit, and your go to guy said “ even though this shows again the products are junk and illegal, the dsDNA wouldn’t be able to get into human cells and even if it could, it would be degraded once inside.”

Would you ask why they know that and for the evidence and research on which that’s based? If you were willing to go back to the source who had given you the original heads up and passed on your go to guy’s rebuttal, what would you do when the source came back and challenged your go to guy for evidence and their analysis?

Would you just go quiet?

That’s what happened. A while later VST sent a follow up raising the issue again in relation to the Australian Pfizer and Moderna case run by Julian Gillespie.

“Thanks” was their response.

Of the several outlets who were passed all of this information, only the Daily Sceptic had published an article on plasmidgate, but they are not “activist” in the way this other outlet is.

This outlet has never to VST’s knowledge covered plasmidgate or placentagate even though it tries to go after the MHRA on other angles that are not as strong as this.

---

Here’s the latest on #plasmidgate.

McKernan’s work has again been publicly confirmed by a genetics expert at the University of South Carolina, Dr. Philip Buckhaults. He’s just testified to a state senate hearing about his findings and what they mean. He expressly tells the senators exactly what VST said in its analysis and briefing to the journalists:

People who have been dosed with the gene therapy need to be actively genetically screened to look for signs of genomic integration of any aspect of the gene therapy contamination (and by implication any of its genetic content).

Listen to his testimony yourself. Buckhaults is an entertaining and engaging speaker who is over gracious towards the manufacturers and the regulators, but clearly expresses major concerns about the content of the gene therapies.

His findings show, in his opinion, deliberate efforts to sidestep the need to ensure purity of the gene therapies. The manufacturers have deliberately chopped up the dsDNA contamination instead of entirely removing it. In doing so, they’ve actively increased its potential for DNA integration. This shows knowledge and intent.

As we said to the journalists, there is no research into this plasmid dsDNA in humans, which means it is impossible for anyone to credibly state that the dsDNA contamination is harmless to humans. But that’s what their go to guy said and they refused to respond to our request for his evidence base.

We need the answers to plasmidgate one way or the other. If there’s genomic integration a lot of people could be in a lot of trouble.

---

Now, what would you make of a journalist platform that batted all of this off in this way, despite putting itself out there as serious?

We’ve included our correspondence with them to prove our story and demonstrate to you that you should never assume anything about any journalist, ever. The only thing you can know is what they end up doing and compare that to what they like to tell the world about themselves.

Enjoy Buckhaults’ testimony. His delivery is engaging. Our correspondence with the journalists follows below.

VST takes pride in its ability to understand and present the complexity of plasmidate and placentagate as we do below. We do not apologise for the length our our emails.

---

28/03/23

Dear XXX,

URGENT: RNA & DNA Contamination in Covid Gene Therapies, & LNP Placenta Barrier #plasmidgate + #placentagate

I write to draw your attention to two areas of major concern regarding Covid gene therapies. My hope is that you will examine these lines of inquiry. These issues comprise:

• RNA, DNA contamination of Covid gene therapies, detected by two independent lines of research, one ongoing #plasmidgate;

• The implications of the contamination on regulator activity and competence, and for patients and their informed consent;

• The scientific evidence of Lipid NanoParticle capability (inherently or by design) to get to and across the placental barrier, with demonstrable deleterious effects #placentagate;

• The potential meaning and outcome of combining all of the above in humans who have been injected with Covid gene therapies.

I stress what follows, while seemingly complex science, is absolutely fundamental to the work of all medical regulators in ICMRA and beyond. That the following exists and has been detected by two independent researchers is a potentially damning indictment of regulatory capability and regulators need to be made to investigate, address these issues and explain exactly how the situation arose. Provided McKernan's work can be backed up and confirmed, regulators must prove that genetic contamination is not present in Covid gene therapies. If they cannot, they must explain why these phenomena exist and how, then explain what the upstream causal factors are and the downstream implications are. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

You should come to understand that the presence of these issues, if multiply confirmed, means that the regulators must either be knowingly allowing these products to contain variable and unspecified ingredients/contaminants, or they do not know because they are not monitoring, at the very least, the final production gene therapies before they were injected into citizens. 

Further, everything that follows comprises clear non-conformance to published MHRA specifications for the Covid gene therapies. This means, at the simple, base level, that the MHRA's published information (EPAR/CMA, info for health professionals, patient information leaflets) is inaccurate and therefore patients have been misinformed about what they have been injected with and the effects it should and could have on them.

#Plasmidgate - DNA, RNA & Protein Contamination in Covid Gene Therapies

In 2021, Sasha Latypova, Pharma & Medical Device R&D Senior Executive, performed VAERS analysis and "found in early 2021 from looking at VAERS adverse events by lot number - the manufacturing of the vials is “changed on the fly” and nobody is checking or enforcing any cGMP standards:". Latypova was provided with European research that separated RNA, DNA and protein from Covid gene therapy vials. RNA in the Pfizer vial did not conform to Pfizer's declared specifications; either too long or too short (fragmented) in nucleic acid sequence length. This research also detected the presence of DNA contamination that was orders of magnitude above regulator limits, and protein contamination.  According to her findings in regulatory documentation, regulators were aware of non-conformances but allowed it. RNA fragments can have toxic and carcinogenic effects. This research did not sequence the DNA found, so what it was was unknown.

Since February 2023, Kevin McKernan, expert in genomics and sequencing, is engaged in independent and ongoing analysis of vial content of the Moderna and Pfizer monovalent and bivalent gene therapies. He found RNA and DNA contamination that was again out of specification. He has used 9 different tests (assays) to characterise the contamination. In summary:

• All gene therapies contain RNA that is out of spec (both longer and fragments).

• The DNA contamination comprises "expression vector plasmids", which are remnants of the gene therapy manufacturing process, and are genetically active i.e. they are "replication competent" in mammalian and bacterial cells, capable of producing copies of themselves in vivo, with unknown but hypothetical effects.

• The amount of this contamination is "orders of magnitude" above specific limits set by the EMA ("dsDNA contamination levels are 100 fold higher and imply trillions of DNA molecules per dose.").

• The EMA had a prior appreciation of the need to set limits on DNA contamination, although why and how those limits were set for these products is not stated in documentation Latypova or McKernan have seen. This demonstrates regulatory concern about such contamination that precedes product roll out.

• These plasmids are made of double strand DNA (dsDNA). Injecting dsDNA into humans (in a DNA vaccine, for example) is known to produce a human immune Type 1 Interferon response via STING. This means that regardless of why the contamination is there, some form of undocumented immune response could be triggered in patients by the dsDNA alone.

• The plasmids have been engineered with specific characteristics including coding for spike protein and antibiotic resistance to neomycin and katamycin, which are typically used to treat gut infections.

• The plasmids contain genetic code for SV40 promoter, with some being engineered with that code occurring twice. SV40 promoter makes the plasmid more capable of gene expression i.e. producing proteins that have some effect, and doubling SV40 increases gene expression capability further.

• The detected "SV40 promoter with 72bps indel" is a "nuclear localization signal" that means either the plasmid or one of its expressed proteins can be transported into host cell nuclei, where the host DNA is found, creating an open question of whether host DNA interaction will occur and to what effect e.g. integration with human DNA.

• The plasmids also contain the genetic code for spike protein. Combine the plasmid's capability to express spike protein with one or two SV40 promoters, and that could be a powerful source of spike protein production in vivo additional to that intended by the gene therapy's in-spec mRNA payload, in a totally uncontrolled way for unknown duration.

Potential effects of plasmid contamination in vivo

• Simply injecting humans with dsDNA could trigger the inherent, unintended STING immune response involving cytokines, to unknown degree given the level of dsDNA contamination.

• Out-of-spec mRNA contamination could have unknown effect, possibly carcinogenic based on prior knowledge of mRNA and micro RNA (miRNA).

• The LNP component of the gene therapies has the potential to encapsulate the dsDNA contamination just like it is intended to encapsulate the mRNA payload. If this happens, dsDNA contamination would be delivered in vivo in the same way as the mRNA payload i.e.  hidden from the immune system, throughout the entire body, into cells where they can replicate and interact at the nuclear level i.e. with access to the human genome.

• Manufacturer animal biodistribution studies show that the LNPs can get literally anywhere in the body, thereby delivering their payload (mRNA or dsDNA) to cells of all tissue types, including into the intestine, where gut microbiome bacteria reside.

• Should the dsDNA plasmids access gut bacteria, they are capable of entering (transfecting) those bacteria and potentially replicating 50 - 300 copies of themselves in the gut.

• The plasmids are antibiotic resistant, meaning they might withstand the use of common antibiotics to remove them from the gut, remaining free to act.

• The plasmids can transfect human cells via delivery while encapsulated in LNP wrappers or possibly by virtue of their massive number having replicated in bacteria, leading to bactofection, wherein some of the body's cells try to kill plasmid-infected bacteria by engulfing them. This process can result in plasmids transfecting the human cells that engulfed the bacteria.

• All of the above, combined with the plasmid's capability to code for spike protein, possibly enhanced by the SV40 promoter, means that in vivo spike protein production could be significantly increased in quantity and extended in duration, well outside of any originally intended limits. Research has demonstrated in vivo spike production continuing for over six weeks and possibly months.

• The plasmids have the potential to enter the nucleus of human cells and integrate with human DNA. It has been experimentally shown in vitro that the mRNA payload can do this in human liver cancer cells via a process called LINE-1 reverse transcription. That experiment does not necessarily mean it will happen in vivo in other non-cancer human cells, but that research warrants further studies. However, McKernan points out that when dsDNA contamination is present in sufficiently large quantity, it can potentially integrate with human DNA by sheer force of contamination i.e. without the LINE-1 RT process being employed, which gives rise to the question of whether this is happening in humans and to what effects.

Possible endotoxin presence

All of the above, in McKernan's view, is a result of the manufacturing process that employ engineered E. coli bacteria in which the dsDNA plasmids are grown. The plasmids are a DNA template from which the mRNA active ingredients of the Covid gene therapies are derived. Thus, the quality ("fidelity") of the plasmids are fundamental to the quality of the mRNA payload (paraphrasing MHRA). The production process should extract the plasmids from the E. Coli bacteria, derive the mRNA payload and then purify the mRNA.

What he has detected is production plasmids from the manufacturing process that have not been removed, suggesting inadequate purification. It is his natural and informed suspicion that the presence of plasmids suggests the hypothetical  presence of another related substance that inherently occurs as a result of extracting plasmids from a gram negative bacteria such as E. coli. When such bacteria are destroyed - say in the act of plasmid extraction - an endotoxin, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), is released. LPS, when injected into humans, can cause significant deleterious effects including anaphylaxis and can therefore be harmful or fatal.

That the plasmid contamination is present is a flag for possible LPS contamination, and in McKernan's view this also needs to be properly investigated. At worst, Covid gene therapies could contain LPS at levels that alone causes harm or possible death. Numerous documented cases of anaphylaxis have been recorded and anaphylaxis is formally recognised as being caused in some people by the Covid gene therapies. Hypothetically, it could be that some batches that triggered anaphylaxis did so in whole or part because of LPS levels.

QC, QA, oversight and monitoring

All of the above begs questions of the entire, global Quality Control, Quality Assurance, regulatory oversight and monitoring of the Covid gene therapies. In short, if these processes were in place effectively, then products that contained anything other than the ingredients specified in regulatory and manufacturer patient information and package inserts would not be released to the market and injected into humans.

Misinformed patients, informed consent and liability

Patients have not been told about the possible presence of contamination or ingredients other than listed in information provided to them, nor have the possible effects of such been explained. The risks and probabilities of this have not been explained. Thus, patient informed consent may have been impacted to the extent that true informed consent could never have been given.

If regulators knew of possible contamination with genetic material and set limits for it, conformant presence of such material could be considered "an ingredient", which could, even in limited amounts, have some effect on the patient. No such possible genetic contaminant was declared on the regulatory or manufacturer patient information, and no side-effects or risks associated were expressly listed beyond side-effects associated with the declared ingredients. From documentation currently available, it would appear that clinical trials of the products did not include researching the effects of mRNA, miRNA or dsDNA contamination on humans specifically, even though it was a concern known to the regulators, who took specific decisions around limits, but appear to have failed to police those limits.

Thus, there are questions about liability that flow from the manufacturer, through governments to the regulator and any of its agents, including doctors, nurses and vaccinator staff.

Infant and child exposure

The products investigated in the above manner have been used to inject infants and children. That there is a possibility of their exposure to this contaminant should be cause for great concern. 

#Placentagate

The general claim of manufacturers, governments and regulators has been that the Covid gene therapies are safe and effective for women, pregnant or otherwise, and infants and children. This claim has been made despite a lack of evidence proving the claim. Lack of evidence of harm due to no clinical trials or investigation into potential or actual harm is not proof of safety i.e. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It has been scientifically demonstrated in Pfizer animal studies that LNPs employed in Covid gene therapies biodistribute throughout the entire body and all investigated cell types, accreting over the observed 48-hour time period. Notably, this accretion occurred in the brain, liver and ovaries. The ovarian accretion was very high. The ovary is not designed to remove contaminants.

Other research has shown that LNPs not necessarily of the specific type employed in Covid gene therapies have the ability, either innately or by design, to get to and through the placenta and placental barrier and into trophoblasts, for the express delivery of mRNA payloads there. These structures are inherently fundamental to embryo implantation and development. It may be the case that Covid gene therapy LNPs have this innate or deliberate placental affinity. The accretion of them in the ovary and designed capability to transfect all human cells makes this a possibility. Some research claims this LNP mRNA delivery has been done with "no toxicity" but this claim has been called into question by @Jikkyleaks, an anonymous scientist involved in close scrutiny of scientific matters across the pandemic. Jikkyleak's investigation into LNP research and claims, as they relate to fertility, are encapsulated within #Placentagate (see article below for lay primer and further links) and reveal potential deliberate obfuscation of evidence refuting the "no toxicity" claim in the very research papers making that claim.

Further Jikkyleaks demonstrates that agents within the scientific community who constitute "pharma's go to on fertility" have nepotistic links and vested interests amongst each other and traceable funding and publishing relationships that all add up to potential conflicts of and vested interests.

This situation alone begs the question of what effect the LNPs and intended mRNA payload in Covid gene therapies has on women, pregnancy, embryos, foetuses and children. Literally no human research on these specific questions was done prior to the roll out, and this is expressly stated by regulators in public documentation, Phase 3 clinical trials into aspects of these areas of enquiry were only initiated well after roll out had begun. By their nature, human fertility testing takes more than a decade if it seeks to look at the longitudinal effect on both first and second generation offspring.

Now consider the possible questions around LNPs carrying unintended and unstudied out-of-specification mRNA, miRNA and dsDNA to the the ovary, the placenta, the embryo and foetus.

Combine #Plasmidgate with #Placentagate

If we now consider the integration of all of the above, we are faced with numerous possibilities and unanswered questions around the net effect on humans and their offspring, of the Covid gene therapies.

What is warranted by the above?

I suggest that the issues described here warrant:

• urgent further experimental investigation into the content of production vials of all Covid gene therapies to verify McKernan et al's findings. McKernan seeks precisely greater involvement and active peer review of his work. He has made fully available, for low cost, all the means to independently verify his work.

• publicity of his work to make the population aware in order to drive public demand for answers to the questions raised.

• direct challenge of all global medical regulators and pharma manufacturers in order to demand answers to the myriad questions and proof supporting all answers.

What you can do

Please consider:

• examining the above yourself and, should you feel the above is valid, using your platform to inform your audiences of the concerns raised, implications and calls for action.

• contacting Kevin McKernan and Sasha Latypova directly, with a view to giving either or both a chance to provide and in-depth, lay accessible explanation of all of the above.

• factoring the above into your work on medical regulators' and manufacturers' roles in Covid and the Covid gene therapies, specifically challenging them with the above and demanding answers.

• consider activating your audiences around the above to directly pressure manufacturers and regulators for answers.

These issues represent potentially the most egregious shortcomings in medicine in the history of mankind precisely because the products are genetic in nature, have the hitherto undisclosed ability to biodistribute throughout the body, and have the potential for unknown, complex effects. That genetic contamination of the kind described above has been detected in such scale amplifies all of these issues by potential orders of magnitude.

For an hour long conversation between Jessica Rose and Kevin McKernan on this topic, which provides a relatively easy start point, see this interview:

https://rumble.com/v2ekgwu-contamination-of-mrna-covid-products.html

For further detailed information and access to full sourcing of all of the issues described herein, please start with the following articles which were written for lay audiences.

https://veryslowthinking.substack.com/p/mckernan-dna-contamination-in-covid

https://veryslowthinking.substack.com/p/latypova-dna-contamination-in-shots

https://veryslowthinking.substack.com/p/placentagate

@kevin_mckernan

Kevin.McKernan@medicinalgenomics.com

@sasha_laypova

@jikkyleaks

From my clean hands to yours,

Ignasz Semmelweisz

Truth dies in darkness

---

29/03/2023

FROM: XXX

Dear Ignasz,

Thank you very much for writing. 

I asked a man I trust about these issues, and he replied:

The plasmid DNA contamination shows the low quality of the product and yet again shows that it was illegal to approve it, but does not alter the toxicity of the gene therapy because this DNA does not make it into the cells; if it does, it is degraded there.

Kind regards,

---

29-30/03/2023

McKernan & Latypova both responded to VST to confirm that the LNP wrapper could get the dsDNA contamination into human cells and that there was no evidence it didn’t happen and no evidence that it would have no effect/be harmless.

---

30/03/2003

Dear XXX,

Thank you for your swift reply. I am grateful for your willingness to consider the information and look into it via your networks. I include Kevin McKernan's response inline below FYI. Sasha Latypova's response is included complete at the end of this email, which reinforces all that precedes it.

I appreciate that the following is specific and technical and I do not present it to ask these questions of only you and your team per sé, but rather to present it for the consideration of you and your contact, and also to highlight that, despite your contact's response, serious questions remain open. If your trusted contact can provide experimental evidence and data specific to these phenomena to back their response, that would be of great use to McKernan's ongoing research and might help to close the issues that concern him.

See the attached paper that discusses aspects of DNA toxicity etc, which McKernan includes as relevant to the topic of DNA contamination.

Regarding your contact's comments, which I received with gratitude, I think this raises further questions as follows.

The plasmid DNA contamination shows the low quality of the product and yet again shows that it was illegal to approve it, but does not alter the toxicity of the gene therapy because this DNA does not make it into the cells; if it does, it is degraded there.

Quality

If "low quality of the product" is indicated, this clearly reinforces the issues around QC/QA/oversight/monitoring, patient information and informed consent. If the contamination levels are above regulatory limits and are not declared, then this represents potential regulatory and manufacturer failings in multiple ways. Given your journalistic interest via [XXX’s team member] to hold the MHRA to account on both broad and specific matters relating to the products and wider pandemic management issues, do the quality and legality issues highlighted here not merit either publicity and/or direct presentation to the MHRA and other ICMRA regulators, especially since the recognition of growing adverse events is building?

Illegal approval

If quality issues suggest illegal approval, and this can be proven via McKernan's work, this is another matter of public interest that would feed directly into the vaccine harms debate and the big picture liability argument involving the MHRA, wider government and manufacturers, which again falls into line with your historical reporting.

Transfection

Your contact states that the plasmid "DNA does not make it into the cells". Is your contact able to reference any evidence to support that claim? If so, can they please share it with McKernan and Latypova?

As is flagged in my original email, McKernan reiterates the question:

McKernan: If it’s in the LNPs how does the RNA get in and the DNA fail to?

The LNPs in the product were designed to encapsulate mRNA and it is the LNP wrapper that enables transfection of the payload. If the DNA contamination is also encapsulated by the LNPs in the vials at working temperature/conditions to become an unintended payload, which - in the absence of evidence that proves otherwise - appears to be possible, that would present a means for the DNA to transfect cells as per the intended design of LNPs. This possible scenario runs directly counter, on a mechanistic basis alone, to your contact's statement.

In short, investigation into what the LNPs can encapsulate and subsequently deliver into cells is warranted given the presence of the DNA contamination, in order for your contact's statement to be validated.

Plasmid DNA Resilience

McKernan: The argument for using RNA was that it degrades faster than DNA. Now that DNA is shown to be present, that degrades quickly too?

If out-of-spec DNA in large quantities has been detected in 8/8 vials from the same Pfizer batch and DNA is more resilient that mRNA, where is the specific research into the in vivo lifecycle and effect of this plasmid DNA and the other OOS RNA, irrespective of whether it is injected within a LNP wrapper or not? If it is injected "unwrapped" and subjected to DNase/RNase degradation etc, does specific evidence exist to demonstrate the net effects of this specific contamination, even if that shows zero effect and definite harmless degradation? If not, should such investigation and proof be demanded via the MHRA and manufacturers?

McKernan: We were told, the mRNA would disappear in 48 hours. Hannah [sic] shows it in breast milk. It’s be [sic] sequenced from the serum 15 days later.

These experimental observations demonstrate that mRNA is not degraded before it can be expressed in breast milk and that it is sufficiently robust to persist in blood, where RNase degradation should take effect. If plasmid DNA is more resilient than mRNA, it stands to reason that it could demonstrate the same or greater resilience in the same and other fluids/secretions, with unknown effects. Again, this warrants investigation and runs counter to your contact's claim.

McKernan: Perhaps the longevity is related to DNA being more stable than RNA?

An open question.

Action in human or bacterial cells

If your contact is certain about the above claim plasmid "DNA does not make it into the cells", why the need to state that the plasmid DNA would be degraded in the cells if it made it in?

Via what mechanism would the plasmid DNA be degraded inside any human or bacterial cell? Do they have evidence to support that claim that can be shared to answer McKernan's questions in this regard?

The plasmid DNA McKernan has sequenced shows a potential for replication competence in mammalian and bacterial cells. At present, he believes that "transformation efficiency" i.e. the ability of the plasmid DNA to be taken up and integrated by a cell "is low", subject to further specific proof in the context of the quantity of contamination. However, he also flags the deliberate inclusion of SV40 promoters that enhance gene expression capability that would drive into cell nuclei and give access to the host genome, begging questions of whether this is actually happening in humans and to what degree (transformation efficiency being factored). Given that it has been shown that just the mRNA payload has some capability to integrate with human DNA under certain circumstances, wouldn't it merit demands to prove this cannot happen with DNA and RNA contamination as well as the intended mRNA payload?

Absence of testing

It should be stressed that as per all ICMRA documentation, no carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and extremely limited animal genotoxicity testing was done for any of the products. This is stated in EMA/CMA/EPAR documentation freely available. All of these areas of testing/concern are directly relevant to the contamination question and they have been wilfully overlooked by the regulators and manufacturers as a direct result of their deliberate classification of these products as "vaccines", which automatically eliminates or minimises the regulatory requirement to perform such testing. This is expressly stated in the regulatory documentation. This suggests that formal evidence supporting the claim that DNA/RNA contamination (including OOS mRNA) "is not toxic" is not backed up by specific research relating to the regulation of these products.

Given that:

• a wide and growing range of adverse events (AE) are being experienced in vaccine recipients globally; and

• AE are recognised as being causally linked to the vaccines; and 

• testing in relevant areas has been omitted/minimised;

• and contamination detected above regulatory limits; and

• regulators set limits in explicit recognition of the need to (thereby suggesting potential for harm);

is it not reasonable to see all of the above as multiple red flags?

Regarding these contamination issues, Dr. Anthony Brookes, Professor of Genomics and Health Data Science at the University of Leicester, stated:

This is a solid piece of research by a very knowledgeable team.

The DNA vector molecules from which the mRNA is created (‘transcribed’) is a stable entity, and it is shown to be present at non-trivial levels in the vaccines. It will therefore presumably get into bacteria and human cells throughout the injected person, to be potentially transcribed into mRNA and cause long-term expression of spike protein.

We must hope that vector-carrying, spike-expressing cells are progressively eliminated by the immune system, but if tolerance is created by long-term exposure to the toxic spike protein then this removal may not be very efficient. In this worst-case but feasible scenario, a residue of spike producing cells may exist for months or years – slowly and steadily damaging many organs and tissues in the vaccinated individual. Treatments that help to eliminate or negate the action of the spike protein need to be established, and fortunately various candidate interventions are now being reported.

Sasha Latypova's response:

It astounds me that the editor is so sure DNA does not make it into the cells.  Did he conduct experiments to definitively exclude this possibility?  Has anyone published on this? The LNPs form around anything that is present in the drug substance during LNP formulation - this includes RNA, its broken pieces (micro-RNAs, which are designated by the US NIH as weaponizable technology, see below), DNA (single stranded and double stranded), metal contaminants and anything else that is present.  The LNPs are the "vehicle" that delivers any cargo in it INTO THE CELLS.  While most of the cargo described above is non-translating, it is nonetheless a weapon.  Please see this book chapter that describes numerous ways non-coding nucleic acid fragments can damage genome and microbiome.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535870/

I will be publishing an article on this soon.  This is my older piece on the same topic. https://substack.com/profile/50868935-sasha-latypova/note/p-88614524

Thank you for your further consideration of the above. These questions alone, if presented directly the MHRA with force of public exposure, could represent an effective pathway by which to challenge the MHRA's competence, interests and integrity, inline with your efforts in these areas to date.

I hope you continue to engage and look forward to any input that could inform ongoing investigations.

Kind regards,

Ignasz Semmelweisz

Truth dies in darkness

---

28/07/2023

Dear XXX,

Further to previous information sent to you regarding the contamination of COVID gene therapies, I wish to draw your attention to an Australian legal case filed on July 6th against Pfizer & Moderna, which also implicates the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Office of Gene Technology Regulation.

The case alleges criminal violations of the Australian Gene Technology Act (2000) by Pfizer and Moderna, as well as criminal recklessness and/or negligence on the part of the manufacturers and regulators.

The primary active ingredients and their mode of action are shown to conform to the Australian legal definition of Genetically Modified Organisms, which demands that the products be regulated by the OTGR as such. This has not occurred.

Further, Kevin McKernan's now multiply replicated sequencing work on COVID monovalent and bivalent gene therapies prove the presence of genetical material as undeclared contaminants, grossly beyond any specified maximum level. That contamination is in and of itself a GMO. Kevin McKernan has filed an affidavit in the case regarding his work and findings. 

Both the regulators and manufacturers knew about the presence of this contamination, as indicated by their deliberate specification of a maximum level for it in the products.

Pfizer and Moderna did not follow Australian law and failed to refer the products to the OTGR before seeking authorisation/approval from the TGA. The Secretary of Health is also implicated in having failed to send required notifications to the regulatory bodies.

You can read an overview of the case here, which contains all source links.

You can watch this discussion featuring the legal team, Julian Gillespie, Katie Ashby-Koppens, Dr. Julie Sladden and Dr. Chris Neil.

Additional to this, there is also the matter of the confirmed detection of SV40 in the vial contents, which has serious implication for the products' interaction with the human genome. When combined with proven interaction with the P53/BRCA gene, the questions of carcinogenicity/oncogenicity continue to rear their ugly head.

As I have understood and checked with Mr. Gillespie, it is likely that this Australian case is portable to other jurisdictions/territories because of similarities in definition, regulation and legislation. Currently, there is significant similarity between Australian and EU legislation meaning that the case could quickly be ported and brought in the EU. Resources demonstrating this are available via links in the article provided above.

I hope you find this of journalistic interest.

Kind regards,

I S

---

28/07/2023

FROM: XXX

Thank you very much!