Plasmid DNA contamination: investigating the controversy behind Pfizer’s vaccine production process (part 2)

Continued from Part 1. Kevin McKernan, a scientist known for his work in genomics, has recently been sounding the alarm about Pfizer’s controversial vaccine production process and failure to disclose manufacturing switches to regulators, putting at risk our health, at warp speed.

Let’s continue with part 2 with the long list of problems…

Large population: It is mentioned that there were no plans to test these vaccine batches in the elderly population, despite the higher risks posed by COVID-19.

Test blind: The trial was “observer-blind” rather than “double-blind,” meaning that those administering the vaccine knew who was receiving it, which could introduce bias.

Batch variability: There is speculation about variability in adverse event rates associated with different manufacturing processes (process 1 and process 2) and possibly even within batches of the same process, which could affect the safety profile of the vaccine

Placebo group: When those originally in the placebo group started receiving the actual vaccine, there appeared to be a higher rate of adverse events compared to the initial treatment group, which could be due to several factors, including the possibility that they were more likely to report symptoms. knowing they received the vaccine.

Lot numbers and distribution : Based on batch numbers and distribution across multiple sites, there is an implication that certain batches may have been linked to a higher incidence of adverse reactions.

Regulatory and manufacturing processes: Regulators allowed a change in manufacturing without adequately considering the potential increased risk and without requiring new clinical trials to assess the safety of vaccines produced using the new method. In the real world, this is an unacceptable scandal. Where is the diligence, methodological rigor and transparency in scientific research and communication, especially in matters of public health?

Lipid nanoparticles: LNPs are a critical component of mRNA vaccines because they encapsulate and protect the mRNA as it enters cells. However, there is concern about its toxicity and impact on the body. For example, McKernan discusses the potential for LNPs to cause adverse effects by transfecting epithelial cells and potentially creating leaky membranes. He also notes that there is a lack of studies on the effect of LNPs without mRNA, which leaves a gap in the understanding of their inherent toxicity. (I personally have had no problem finding about the risks and dangers of using LNP).

In addition, there is no way to assess where LNPs will go within the body, with the possibility that they will reach the ovaries, which could have implications for reproductive health. The original biodistribution studies were incomplete by not tracking the complete journey and final destination of these particles within the body once injected, including their excretion.

SV40 (Simian Virus 40): The enhancer elements were used to increase the production of neomycin resistance genes, which is necessary for the growth of the plasmid in E. coli. Pfizer did not disclose the presence of SV40 elements to the EMA, which could be a significant omission due to the controversial history of SV40 in vaccines.

To make matters worse, critics created straw arguments by falsely claiming that McKernan was claiming the presence of the SV40 virus in vaccines, while the real claim was about the SV40 promoter, which has different implications. Finally, the confusion took away from the real issues.

Open reading frames: In genetics, an open reading frame (ORF) is a DNA sequence that has the potential to be translated into a protein. ORFs begin with a start codon (usually AUG in eukaryotes) and end with a stop codon. For an ORF to be present in both directions on the same stretch of DNA, the sequence would have to avoid stop codons in both reading directions, which is statistically unlikely given the random nature of the occurrence of stop codons .

During the process of codon optimization (which is changing the codons of the spike protein to match those most commonly used in humans, to improve protein production in the human body), not only was an ORF created for the spike protein, but also an ORF. in reverse it was created unintentionally.

A scenario in which both DNA strands can potentially code for a functional protein is very unusual because open reading frames on one strand usually have stop codons when read in reverse. Suffice it to say that the possibility that this event was natural is somewhat impossible, making it likely that it was engineered.

If there was an inverted ORF and (in some strange circumstances) it could be transcribed and translated, it could lead to the production of a protein with unknown function, which could have unwanted biological effects. How could such a sequence have made it through the optimization process without being noticed and corrected, given the potential implications?

To recap because this is all quite complex, the process of codon optimization (which is changing the codons of the spike protein to match those most commonly used in humans, to improve protein production in the human body), it was not only an open reading frame. for the spike protein created, but also “inadvertently” created an ORF in the opposite direction.

Impact of synthetic modifications

mRNA modifications such as pseudouridine and methylpseudouridine N1 focus on their impact on the stability of the RNA and how it is processed by the body. These modifications do not occur naturally in such high abundance, raising questions about the long-term effects on cellular machinery and the exact biochemical pathways involved in the manipulation of these synthetic nucleosides. These RNAs are synthetic as fake.

These modifications can lead to errors in protein synthesis, such as stop codon misreading, which can result in the production of longer than expected protein products. This would have implications for vaccine safety and efficacy if the spike protein that is produced is not identical to the one designed by the vaccine developers.

McKernanwho is trained in the field of DNA sequencing and contributed to the Human Genome Project, notes that regulatory agencies may not have been presented with comprehensive data on the actual proteins produced by these modified mRNAs in vivo, based -se instead on codon tables and theoretical predictions rather than empirical evidence from protein sequencing.

Stop those shots

The findings of McKernan and his colleagues are mind-boggling. Could these hits potentially affect germ cells, meaning future generations? There are several problems with these shots. For example, there are concerns about dose (amount of vaccine given), potential spike protein issues, the potential for vaccine components to integrate into the human genome, and differentiating between symptoms of long vs. adverse effects of vaccination. I could go on.

A lawsuit in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) questions the classification of vaccines in relation to gene therapy regulations. This is due to the presence of DNA within the vaccines, which could reclassify them under gene therapy.

Furthermore, the vaccine DNA findings have now been replicated by independent laboratories, lending credibility beyond peer-reviewed publications, which unfortunately, as McKernan points out, have been compromised by pandemic politics.

How many more nails in the coffin do we need before we stop these strikes?


Like what you’re reading in The Tenpenny Report? Share this article with your friends. Help us grow.

Get more from Dr. tenpenny’s voice of reason on your website.

Join our list here


Maryam Henein is an investigative journalist, founder and editor-in-chief of the health and marketplace magazine HoneyColony. Read his Substack here. She is also a functional medicine consultant/coach and director of the award-winning documentary Vanishing of the Bees, narrated by Elliot Page. Follow her on Twitter @maryamhenein. Email her:

Vaxxter support

Your donation helps us fight censorship and stay ad-free

[give_form id=”5471″]

If you prefer postal mail, please make donation checks payable to CHOONADI, LLC, owner of 7380 Engle Road Middleburgh Hgts, OH 44130

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.