A gene jock explains the problem in the Pfizer vaccine

[foenix]

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.)

For those of us that bother to research how the completely "synthetic" Pfizer Covid vaccine was manufactured or a quick google search will expose the youtube video as more fear mongering misinformation and how anti-vax sheeples will fall for it hook, line and sinker every time.

No, ‘monkey virus DNA’ was not found in COVID vaccines

“There is no evidence to indicate the presence of SV40, a virus found in monkey kidneys that can potentially cause cancer in humans, in the formulation of COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Alessandro Faia, a spokesperson for the European Medicines Agency, the Netherlands-based European Union agency that regulates pharmaceuticals, in an email..............“The vaccine is a completely synthetic vaccine,” the company wrote. “There were preclinical animal challenge studies utilizing rhesus macaques; however, no part of our vaccine or studies utilized green monkeys. The claim that the vaccine includes monkey DNA is inaccurate.”

Kevin McKernan, one of the authors of the study cited in some of the posts, dismissed the claims as “fear mongering” and “click bait.”

He says researchers involved in the study, which is a “pre-print” that has not been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, discovered an “SV40 promoter” in the Pfizer vaccine.But that’s not the same as finding the full SV40 virus in the shot, stressed McKernan, a former research director at MIT’s Human Genome Project..........

https://apnews.com/ap-fact-check/no-mon ... ff1aef0000

[Silverstarqueen]

Who has attacked Dr. Buckhaults, or his integrity?Do you have quotes to that effect?
He made an interesting observation, has a sort of interesting theory that this is somehow harming people. He needs studies to support that,he said so himself. and he isn't prepared to do the research. He may or may not be aware of others who are now researching this to either support or disprove his theory. I dont' see how that's an attack.

It's interesting that I'm asked who has attacked Dr. Buckhaults and then it's explained that the questioner can't see how their comments are an attack.

I, as Dr. Buckhaults mentioned of himself, hope further research shows that dna in covid vaccines does not cause cancer or other medical issues but we won't know unless a regulatory department takes action on Dr. Buckhaults initial findings

Please quote any of my comments which were an attack on Dr. Buckhaults.
He said his findings were of DNA in some leftover vials, has not said that there was this DNA found doing anything inside of real humans or that it caused any harm. He said himself, his theory is just that a theory, a "possibility" based on no findings related to these vaccines in humans. I didn't say there was anything wrong with this finding, or his novel theory, I agreed with him that many more people would have to be involved and do the research, which as far as he knows (I doubt he knows who all is working on this) he thinks is not being done. Is he privy to the research that Pfizer, Moderna, or any other vaccine researchers are doing? (I doubt they sent hima memo if they are). He has said the research would not be terribly complicated to carry out, and the fix (if one were needed) is also not incredibly difficult. so how does he know this is not being investigated already?

We have heard this before "Why doesn't some one do something about this?", when investigations, and plans are already in the works, results just haven't been posted yet. Researchers are cautious people, they don't jump into the limelight with everything they are researching, they double check results, ask other researchers to review and verify their research. That doesn't mean that nothing is being done to ensure the vaccines are as safe as possible.

[rustled]

He has asked regulators to give scientists the tools they need to do this research.

If scientists have already been given the tools he asked for, you will be able to show us this is the case.

You want governments to regulate research?

That's NOT what I said. Kindly refrain from turning this into another pointless ideological argument.

We should ALL want regulators to give scientists the tools they need to do the research we need them to do.

[rustled]

I, as Dr. Buckhaults mentioned of himself, hope further research shows that dna in covid vaccines does not cause cancer or other medical issues but we won't know unless a regulatory department takes action on Dr. Buckhaults initial findings.

Yes, he was very reasoned and very direct about his concerns.

I was pleased some of the people he was speaking to seemed to understand enough of what he was patiently and clearly explaining to take it seriously.

[77TA]

That doesn't mean that nothing is being done to ensure the vaccines are as safe as possible.

No one has suggested nothing is being done to ensure the vaccines are as safe as possible. Dr. Buckhaults' research has shown a flaw in the regulatory process and potential danger from dna found in covid vaccines and then suggested further research by a regulatory body to ensure his (Dr. Buckhaults) findings do not prove harmful to those that received covid injections.

[Fancy]

You want governments to regulate research?

That's NOT what I said. Kindly refrain from turning this into another pointless ideological argument.

We should ALL want regulators to give scientists the tools they need to do the research we need them to do.

It was a simple question. Should the government get involved then of course it could be said any results might be tainted.

[rustled]

That's NOT what I said. Kindly refrain from turning this into another pointless ideological argument.

We should ALL want regulators to give scientists the tools they need to do the research we need them to do.

It was a simple question. Should the government get involved then of course it could be said any results might be tainted.

It was a leading question.

As explained in the presentation at the hearing, the government's regulatory bodies are responsible for giving scientists the tools they need to do this research.

[LordEd]

No one has suggested nothing is being done to ensure the vaccines are as safe as possible.

Except those saying the vaccines are part of a global depopulation conspiracy. Or that big pharma is intentionally making people sick with them.

[77TA]

No one has suggested nothing is being done to ensure the vaccines are as safe as possible.

Except those saying the vaccines are part of a global depopulation conspiracy. Or that big pharma is intentionally making people sick with them.

I don't think those saying such things were at the SC senate hearing. Perhaps you're looking for the conspiracy forum. This thread is about Dr. Buckhaults' findings of dna in covid vaccines.

[LordEd]

This thread is about Dr. Buckhaults' findings of dna in covid vaccines.

Not quite. Findings of DNA in previously opened vials from a colleague without provided history to their source or exposures.

And not exactly findings. Presentation video thet doesn't seem to have any written study attached to it. Or at least hasn't been linked here.

[rustled]

This thread is about Dr. Buckhaults' findings of dna in covid vaccines.

Not quite. Findings of DNA in previously opened vials from a colleague without provided history to their source or exposures.

And not exactly findings. Presentation video thet doesn't seem to have any written study attached to it. Or at least hasn't been linked here.

Dr. Buckhaults explained the source, empty vials re-frozen from two batches of Pfizer vaccine. His in-person presentation didn't require a written study, and he explained why there's no published paper.

He also clearly explained how they sequenced the DNA they found in the re-frozen vials to figure out what the DNA was, and because it was plasmid DNA they knew where it came from.

He mentioned other scientists doing the same work had discovered lower levels of DNA in Moderna.

One of his primary recommendations was that regulators understand the potential risks posed by the presence of plasmid DNA in lipids in the vaccines, and ensure all booster batches are checked. With what scientists know so far, he would not have a booster until that happens because he understands the potential risk. Removing the plasmid DNA would, in his opinion, make the boosters safe for use.

He was also very careful to explain the potential risks to those of us who have had the Pfizer vaccine are at this point theoretical, but significant enough to warrant research to determine who is likely affected, how, and to what extent. As he said, this research may show there's no problem. He's quite open to that, and that is what he is hoping the research will show. Not doing the research is negligent.

Surely this scientific approach make sense to any reasonable person.

[the truth]

add this to the list people https://www.rebelnews.com/vial_contamin ... e=therebel

[Rejigger]

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.

Good questions. You're right, there's no reason to doubt him, but it's possible his colleague or a team member contaminated the vials.

Dr. Buckhaults states that he knows the DNA in the vials is the exact same DNA used as the template for the DNA transcription to make the mRNA, because he sequenced it in his own lab. It would have been better if the sequencing was conducted in a different lab because cross-contamination, whether intentional or not, comes to mind. That is, if I understand him correctly. It's odd that this wasn't brought up in the testimony. He does however, mention a colleague in Boston having "looked at a fair number of other batches" of vaccine. I'd like to know who else/how many others conducted tests. Maybe they don't want the heat, though (retribution is later discussed).

~

[Rejigger]

Not only does he believe in vaccine technology, but he would still have recommended this vaccine to his parents.

You left out that, Dr. Buckhaults, knowing what he now knows, probably would not have given the vaccine to his daughters (at 23:15), nor would he take it himself without first testing it because of the risk of harm. He referred to it as uninformed consent. The methods used in the vaccine's clinical trials ("Process One" at 11:20) - which is what was used to get the "emergency use authorization" - were NOT the same methods used during mass production of the vaccine.

He explains the risk to a person's health should foreign DNA get into their cells - such as death from cardiac arrest (at 4:50), which is not far-fetched as we know organ transplants, for example, require anti-rejection drugs because our own immune system would fight the foreign DNA of the transplanted organ (auto-immune at 6:08), resulting in death.

He also explains that once DNA gets into our cells, its' there forever and will be passed on to future generations. So, if his daughter is planning to have children, this may be another reason for concern specific to her.

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?

At 16:42 he speaks about his colleague in Boston who has found varying levels of DNA contamination in "a fair number of other batches."

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.

But also, one of the reasons for his testimony is to advocate for the removal of regulatory constraints that interfere with proper testing (19:40 onward) and the sharing of test results.

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.

He speaks to this at 26:30 onward. Funding is from the federal government and scientists can't risk going against the outcome that the feds want to see or they could pull funding for further scientific research. This has been discussed between yourself and others on this board repeatedly in other threads.

~

[Rejigger]

... 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.

Sounds like you're proposing the fox guard the henhouse. Pfizer and Moderna know this DNA is in their vaccine, as was explained, but they 'chopped it up' to hide it (which would have been done intentionally).

I doubt the group he was speaking to are the ones directing research, so one has to wonder what the point of it was.

He was speaking to senators because the government needs to figure out the regulations that will allow for increased safety with vaccine production and vaccine testing. This is very clearly addressed in his testimony.
Watch his testimony from 30:15 to 30:40 where he discusses "protection bubbles" and 31:41 to 32:00.

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.

One of the senators refers to Dr. Buckhaults as a whistle blower actually. Not sure why you're actively attempting to undermine his testimony. Are you adverse to learning the truth?

(at 30:05) "This is not terribly expensive to do these kinds of test. ... But it has to be in a system [where] professors are not going to be penalized for producing results that are counter to what the party line is supposed to be."

~