A gene jock explains the problem in the Pfizer vaccine

[rustled]

Here's an expert in biochemistry and molecular biology who understands - and firmly believes in the usefulness of - vaccine technology.

He explains, in very simple terms, a problem in the Pfizer vaccine that must be addressed.

He takes a very pragmatic approach to what must be done now by drug regulators to determine next steps, and what must be done differently by regulators the next time there's an emergency roll-out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=deskt ... e=youtu.be
(Mods, the appropriate threads for this topic appear to have all been locked.)

[77TA]

Thank you Rustled, I posted this video in the last remaining not locked thread earlier this morning and was surprised to find the entire thread including my post had been completely deleted from the forum today.

[Fancy]

Makes one think about what one posts. I did see this video and he does have a point that negative issues aren’t addressed in peer reviewed journals.

[harblz]

Here's an expert in biochemistry and molecular biology who understands - and firmly believes in the usefulness of - vaccine technology.

He explains, in very simple terms, a problem in the Pfizer vaccine that must be addressed.

He takes a very pragmatic approach to what must be done now by drug regulators to determine next steps, and what must be done differently by regulators the next time there's an emergency roll-out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=deskt ... e=youtu.be
(Mods, the appropriate threads for this topic appear to have all been locked.)

I watched the whole thing and certainly don't disagree with any recommendations that enhance safety. With that said, his testimony is entirely based on the pfizer vaccine containing DNA and he determined that the pfizer vaccine contained DNA because he sampled some leftover vials that a colleague had given to him. If true, that seems like a pretty important thing to know for sure.

Question: why did he not repeat his sequencing on vials that he knew were uncontaminated rather than punctured leftovers? It defies belief that a scientist would not repeat that analysis on vials of known provenance and chain of custody. Did his colleague walk around a vaccination clinic collecting empty vials from garbages to put in a freezer? Why re-freeze them after they had been used? Why on earth would he base his testimony on possibly contaminated, punctured vials when there is fresh vaccine everywhere?

I have no specific reason to doubt this man (other than for his decision to wear a lab coat to senate testimony to look scientific), but there is not an answer to the questions above that does not call his integrity/motivation into question.

[the truth]

Thank you Rustled, I posted this video in the last remaining not locked thread earlier this morning and was surprised to find the entire thread including my post had been completely deleted from the forum today.

really, do you know why ?

[Fancy]

Here's an expert in biochemistry and molecular biology who understands - and firmly believes in the usefulness of - vaccine technology.

He explains, in very simple terms, a problem in the Pfizer vaccine that must be addressed.

He takes a very pragmatic approach to what must be done now by drug regulators to determine next steps, and what must be done differently by regulators the next time there's an emergency roll-out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=deskt ... e=youtu.be
(Mods, the appropriate threads for this topic appear to have all been locked.)

I watched the whole thing and certainly don't disagree with any recommendations that enhance safety. With that said, his testimony is entirely based on the pfizer vaccine containing DNA and he determined that the pfizer vaccine contained DNA because he sampled some leftover vials that a colleague had given to him. If true, that seems like a pretty important thing to know for sure.

Question: why did he not repeat his sequencing on vials that he knew were uncontaminated rather than punctured leftovers? It defies belief that a scientist would not repeat that analysis on vials of known provenance and chain of custody. Did his colleague walk around a vaccination clinic collecting empty vials from garbages to put in a freezer? Why re-freeze them after they had been used? Why on earth would he base his testimony on possibly contaminated, punctured vials when there is fresh vaccine everywhere?

I have no specific reason to doubt this man, but there is not an answer to the questions above that does not call his integrity/motivation into question.

I question he doesn't seem to want to pursue it.

[rustled]

Thank you Rustled, I posted this video in the last remaining not locked thread earlier this morning and was surprised to find the entire thread including my post had been completely deleted from the forum today.

You're welcome. (I thought I had come across it here, but couldn't find a link to it in the threads again after I'd watched it.)

Thank YOU for bringing it to my attention.

[Fancy]

He does believe the vaccines saved lives so that's a good thing.

[Fancy]

I watched the whole thing and certainly don't disagree with any recommendations that enhance safety. With that said, his testimony is entirely based on the pfizer vaccine containing DNA and he determined that the pfizer vaccine contained DNA because he sampled some leftover vials that a colleague had given to him. If true, that seems like a pretty important thing to know for sure.

Question: why did he not repeat his sequencing on vials that he knew were uncontaminated rather than punctured leftovers? It defies belief that a scientist would not repeat that analysis on vials of known provenance and chain of custody. Did his colleague walk around a vaccination clinic collecting empty vials from garbages to put in a freezer? Why re-freeze them after they had been used? Why on earth would he base his testimony on possibly contaminated, punctured vials when there is fresh vaccine everywhere?

I have no specific reason to doubt this man (other than for his decision to wear a lab coat to senate testimony to look scientific), but there is not an answer to the questions above that does not call his integrity/motivation into question.

Interesting I came across this study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21944469/
Is this a common problem?

[Silverstarqueen]

Here's an expert in biochemistry and molecular biology who understands - and firmly believes in the usefulness of - vaccine technology.

He explains, in very simple terms, a problem in the Pfizer vaccine that must be addressed.

He takes a very pragmatic approach to what must be done now by drug regulators to determine next steps, and what must be done differently by regulators the next time there's an emergency roll-out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=deskt ... e=youtu.be
(Mods, the appropriate threads for this topic appear to have all been locked.)

Not only does he believe in vaccine technology, but he would still have recommended this vaccine to his parents.
He was so disturbed by finding DNA in discarded vials, that he sent an EMAIL TO THE FDA!
So if he didn't want to do a study on this issue, did he take it to some collegues who might want to? Wouldn't that be a usual kind of thing to do? In this way, with several people verifying the findings, or doing real studies on it, with nice fresh vaccine samples, they would then have some ammunition to get the FDA's attention.

There have been all kinds of studies done on vaccinated vs unvaccinated, older, younger people, etc. So there's no reason why this wouldn't be done, except studies are generally done by people who have a reason and motive to do them, so they can be the first to come up with some novel important finding.

[rustled]

He does believe the vaccines saved lives so that's a good thing.

Yes, he absolutely believes this is good technology, and provided the solution for Pfizer (the missing step). It's now up to regulators to deal with the regulatory issues.

[hozzle]

Who knows... too bad it may take 60 yrs for regulators to say new ailments or diseases were caused by gene mutations from vaxxs. Heck it took them that long to discover a simple decongestant they help approve, based on "science" doesn't even work.

Capture.JPG

[rustled]

Interesting that one of Dr. Buckhaults' closing statements indicated he wouldn't get a booster unless he could test it for dna first.

Exactly. He feels strongly enough about the technology to come out firmly in support of it, and strongly enough about the risks caused by the "missed step" he won't take the Pfizer vaccine unless he can first be sure DNA isn't present.

[A Concerned Citizen]

Who knows... too bad it may take 60 yrs for regulators to say new ailments or diseases were caused by gene mutations from vaxxs. Heck it took them that long to discover a simple decongestant they help approve, based on "science" doesn't even work.

Capture.JPG

That is certainly among issues ... using gene altering products on people violates the most fundamental ethical principles of medicine ... as Roger Hodkinson has repeatedly pointed out the danger was and still is not knowing what we don’t know ... saying that something has been injected into billions of people with only a small number of people being severely injured or dying compared to the total being is reckless and immoral ... the regulators did not ensure proper testing regarding thalidomide anymore than they did with the more recent Covid injections .... and the public health agency people were either incompetent, inept, corrupt or all of the foregoing and more ... they allowed politics to drive medicine as proven by the Ingram/Hinshaw case which is a toxic public policy cocktail on its own ... the safety and efficacy was never tested for as factually demonstrated with truthful testimony from the NCI ...

[rustled]

Here's an expert in biochemistry and molecular biology who understands - and firmly believes in the usefulness of - vaccine technology.

He explains, in very simple terms, a problem in the Pfizer vaccine that must be addressed.

He takes a very pragmatic approach to what must be done now by drug regulators to determine next steps, and what must be done differently by regulators the next time there's an emergency roll-out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=deskt ... e=youtu.be
(Mods, the appropriate threads for this topic appear to have all been locked.)

I watched the whole thing and certainly don't disagree with any recommendations that enhance safety. With that said, his testimony is entirely based on the pfizer vaccine containing DNA and he determined that the pfizer vaccine contained DNA because he sampled some leftover vials that a colleague had given to him. If true, that seems like a pretty important thing to know for sure.

Question: why did he not repeat his sequencing on vials that he knew were uncontaminated rather than punctured leftovers? It defies belief that a scientist would not repeat that analysis on vials of known provenance and chain of custody. Did his colleague walk around a vaccination clinic collecting empty vials from garbages to put in a freezer? Why re-freeze them after they had been used? Why on earth would he base his testimony on possibly contaminated, punctured vials when there is fresh vaccine everywhere?

I have no specific reason to doubt this man (other than for his decision to wear a lab coat to senate testimony to look scientific), but there is not an answer to the questions above that does not call his integrity/motivation into question.

I've been thinking about your questions since you posted them. I think it's possible his colleague had concerns about the rapid release and may have erred on the side of caution, retaining the used vials "just in case". It seems unnecessarily suspicious to me to assume nefarious motivation. (Dr. Buckhaults has made a choice NOT to assume malice or nefarious intent, despite his concerns. We can make the same choice.)

If vials of vaccine can be considered contaminated after they're punctured, we would all have BIG concerns about not being the first to receive an injection from a vial.

Keep in mind he was able to reconstruct enough of the molecule to know exactly what the contaminating DNA was, and - more importantly - exactly where it came from. It didn't come from post-puncture contamination.

In his presentation, he shows that it would have been introduced during the process of growing a big enough batch of the base, and then not removed properly - the missing step.

I'm interested in your question about testing unused vials for DNA, and will re-watch to find out if he covered that. However, his and his colleague's interest was in testing the vials already used, probably because of the fast roll-out, possibly because of the reports of adverse effects. Just as his interest now is in testing some of the recipients of the Pfizer vaccine to find out whether or not their genes are being affected by the DNA in the vaccine, and if so, which genes and in what way.