A gene jock explains the problem in the Pfizer vaccine

[Fancy]

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

(The link I posted mentioned covid. )
He doesn’t put himself into the at risk group? Doesn’t he support elderly to get vaccinated?

[Silverstarqueen]

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.

What would be the point in him getting a booster? a)he already got the vaccine b)he's probably had covid already at least once, probably more c) he's youngish so he's in a low risk category d) he's going to get covid again sooner or later, which will tweak his immune system and prepare him for the next infection.
As he said, he would recommend the vaccine for his parents, Why? because they are at higher risk and the vaccine has proved efficacious in preventing most serious cases and deaths. Of course why wouldn't he?
He is not making the claim that an mRNA vaccine will permanently alter and harm your genomic DNA, he is merely suggesting studies need to be done to establish whether it is happening. He is not even suggesting the vaccine be halted (now or even if this turned up in people). He is suggesting a different processing so the fragments are cleaned up, if they are occurring, and that they it might or might not be occurring (since he would take the vaccine if he could test it first). Meanwhile vaccine makers can certainly prepare for that slight change in their manufacturing process. Incidentally it has also been found in actual people that the SARS-II virus itself can leave DNA in some individuals which continues to survive and affects the human genome. Since practically everyone has been exposed by now, they have to weigh this against any concerns about vaccines (as yet unproved to cause the harm that is theorized). There's nothing stopping researchers from investigating this, and since the idea has been around for a while,this is not really news, I would bet there are already people working on it. When they actually come up with something, they will publish their studies. Meanwhile, seniors and anyone with underlying conditions have the same decisions to make, when to get the next vaccine, and whether it would be wise to prepare for the next surge of covid.

[rustled]

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.

What would be the point in him getting a booster?

That's not a question/discussion that interests me.

What interests me is:

1. how the regulatory framework will deal with the missing step that resulted in the Pfizer vaccine containing DNA, and
2. what the regulators will do to ensure that doesn't happen again, along with
3. how the regulators will follow up to find out how big of an issue the DNA in the Pfizer vaccines IS for those of us who were injected with it.

[77TA]

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

(The link I posted mentioned covid. )
He doesn’t put himself into the at risk group? Doesn’t he support elderly to get vaccinated?

Sorry, I didn't read the blog you posted about PE and not sure why you're directing questions to me about who Dr. Buckhaults puts into a risk group and if he supports injecting the elderly.

It seems Dr. Buckhaults has valid concerns about regulatory issues that affect his trust in boosters for himself.

[rustled]

Dr. Buckhaults explained very specifically where in the chain of manufacturing the DNA was introduced to the Pfizer vaccine.

He explained there is a step that can be taken to remove it properly.

[A Concerned Citizen]

What would be the point in him getting a booster?

That's not a question/discussion that interests me.

What interests me is:

1. how the regulatory framework will deal with the missing step that resulted in the Pfizer vaccine containing DNA, and
2. what the regulators will do to ensure that doesn't happen again, along with
3. how the regulators will follow up to find out how big of an issue the DNA in the Pfizer vaccines IS for those of us who were injected with it.

Sasha Latypova has done extension studies on the violations of good manufacturing processes that is worth reviewing ... also check out Deanna McLeod's testimony at the NCI regarding the faults in the regulatory and other processes ... all the rest is nothing but distractions ...

[77TA]

Dr. Buckhaults also explained that his research thus far was personally funded and continued research was not in his scope and should come from a government regulatory department among other areas.

[Fancy]

Yet Jacob S. Sherkow‘s viewpoint seems to indicate Sasha Latypova’s claims are inaccurate. She’s already been proven wrong on many accounts.

[rustled]

That's not a question/discussion that interests me.

What interests me is:

1. how the regulatory framework will deal with the missing step that resulted in the Pfizer vaccine containing DNA, and
2. what the regulators will do to ensure that doesn't happen again, along with
3. how the regulators will follow up to find out how big of an issue the DNA in the Pfizer vaccines IS for those of us who were injected with it.

Sasha Latypova has done extension studies on the violations of good manufacturing processes that is worth reviewing ... also check out Deanna McLeod's testimony at the NCI regarding the faults in the regulatory and other processes ... all the rest is nothing but distractions ...

Thanks, I'll look at that later. The political wrangling interests me too, but that's not why I started a thread on this topic.

For now, and for the purposes of this thread, what interests me is quite specific to Dr. Buckhaults' concerns about DNA in the Pfizer vaccines, and how the regulators will respond to the risks to us associated with DNA in the Pfizer vaccines now that scientists working in the field are bringing this risk to their attention in very clear, very direct, very understandable terms.

[the truth]

Sasha Latypova has done extension studies on the violations of good manufacturing processes that is worth reviewing ... also check out Deanna McLeod's testimony at the NCI regarding the faults in the regulatory and other processes ... all the rest is nothing but distractions ...

Thanks, I'll look at that later. The political wrangling interests me too, but that's not why I started a thread on this topic.

For now, and for the purposes of this thread, what interests me is quite specific to Dr. Buckhaults' concerns about DNA in the Pfizer vaccines, and how the regulators will respond to the risks to us associated with DNA in the Pfizer vaccines now that scientists working in the field are bringing this risk to their attention in very clear, very direct, very understandable terms.

were we not told by big pharma that there was no danger to our dna when they pretty much forced most of the planted to take this poison

[rustled]

Thanks, I'll look at that later. The political wrangling interests me too, but that's not why I started a thread on this topic.

For now, and for the purposes of this thread, what interests me is quite specific to Dr. Buckhaults' concerns about DNA in the Pfizer vaccines, and how the regulators will respond to the risks to us associated with DNA in the Pfizer vaccines now that scientists working in the field are bringing this risk to their attention in very clear, very direct, very understandable terms.

were we not told by big pharma that there was no danger to our dna when they pretty much forced most of the planted to take this poison

It will take some time to figure out who knew what, and when, but for now it seems to me our objective (for this thread at least) should be to understand the process through which DNA got into the Pfizer vaccine, and what the risks for those of us injected with a vaccine containing DNA actually are.

Unfortunately, scientists can't delve into what these risks are, and what needs to be done next, without regulatory involvement.

[the truth]

were we not told by big pharma that there was no danger to our dna when they pretty much forced most of the planted to take this poison

It will take some time to figure out who knew what, and when, but for now it seems to me our objective (for this thread at least) should be to understand the process through which DNA got into the Pfizer vaccine, and what the risks for those of us injected with a vaccine containing DNA actually are.

Unfortunately, scientists can't delve into what these risks are, and what needs to be done next, without regulatory involvement.

and that is exactly why ,i never took this poison.

[rustled]

It will take some time to figure out who knew what, and when, but for now it seems to me our objective (for this thread at least) should be to understand the process through which DNA got into the Pfizer vaccine, and what the risks for those of us injected with a vaccine containing DNA actually are.

Unfortunately, scientists can't delve into what these risks are, and what needs to be done next, without regulatory involvement.

and that is exactly why ,i never took this poison.

Unfortunately, many of us were in situations where our own risk/benefit analysis showed it made sense for us, in our situation, to get the first two injections. That's for another thread, though.

Now that scientists have identified a very specific risk - DNA in the Pfizer vaccines - we need to understand what that specific risk entails, who's most at risk, and what the next steps should be to mitigate those risks.

[the truth]

and that is exactly why ,i never took this poison.

Unfortunately, many of us were in situations where our own risk/benefit analysis showed it made sense for us, in our situation, to get the first two injections. That's for another thread, though.

Now that scientists have identified a very specific risk - DNA in the Pfizer vaccines - we need to understand what that specific risk entails, who's most at risk, and what the next steps should be to mitigate those risks.

to be honest ,i do not think they will every give out the real honest truth about that,

[Silverstarqueen]

So like any researcher, he beats the bushes for funding, and conducts his research. He could talk to Pfizer and/or Moderna for instance, and propose how the research could be done to show there's DNA harming anyone, or fixes be conducted. I doubt the group he was speaking to are the ones directing research, so one has to wonder what the point of it was. If his theories have merit, and he cares, he can pursue it. If not, he surely can interest some researchers in doing the work. If there is something to what he says, there are already likely people doing the research. They will post the results when they have something. Just batting theories around in public isn't helping anything.