A gene jock explains the problem in the Pfizer vaccine

[Rejigger]

Listening to and understanding the concerns of dna found in covid vaccines, brought to attention by Dr. Buckhaults, seems secondary in importance to attacking his (Dr. Buckhaults) integrity by some. Why is that?

Good question. Why would anyone be against testing vaccines to ensure they're safe? I can only believe it's about money.

Who has attacked Dr. Buckhaults, or his integrity?Do you have quotes to that effect?

Senator Corbin (at 33:40) speaks to the doctor about any future retribution or harassment he may face. This is a sad reality.

~

[Rejigger]

There have been studies on plasmid DNA in covid 19 vaccines.

DNA vaccines hold several advantages that can make them a suitable vaccine against newly emerging pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 virus

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8629371/

Thanks for this.

Dr. Buckhaults speaks about the use of DNA and how it needs to be removed towards the end of the vaccine-making process. The study you've quoted also states this same necessary microfiltration and clarification under the heading "Production of DNA vaccines"

"...Then, several steps of purification such as contaminant precipitation, plasmid precipitation, chromatographic purification (anion exchange chromatography, followed by hydrophobic interaction chromatography and sometimes by size exclusion chromatography) are employed for the removal of contaminants (e.g., host proteins, endotoxins, RNA, genomic DNA and linear and open-circular forms of plasmid DNA)."

Also, Dr. Buckhaults speaks about "naked DNA" and its use in non-mRNA vaccines in his testimony (at 17:10) and how it's not a problem because there's no mechanism for it to get inside the cells.

DNA can only get into our cells if it has the mechanism to allow for that - liposomes/lipid nanoparticles/lipid shells. Knowing this, I found it interesting that the same regulatory threshold that allows for DNA in non-mRNA vaccines (dead virus) is being used for mRNA vaccines. In non-mRNA vaccines, there's no risk of DNA getting into a person's cells because the vaccine doesn't have the necessary lipid shells to deliver the DNA into our cells. The same can't be said for mRNA vaccines (at 16:50).

~

[Rejigger]

You want governments to regulate research? Shouldn't the researchers be free to choose whatever research they deem is warranted?

Scientists do the research, but this is about the findings and the risk that scientists face when the findings are counter to what the drug companies and government want them to be. I think you already know this from the many discussions surrounding the pandemic. Again, at 33:40 the senator addresses retribution and harassment the doctor may face as a result of speaking about the research he's done.

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

Yes, he speaks to this at 28:48 with respect to funding and the impact it has on "true independence" in scientific research.

~

[Jlabute]

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.)

Thanks Rustled. I watched the whole video and consider it shocking but expected in retrospect. This sort of risk is what many people suspected. This risk that a variable count of dna plasmid particles can contaminate dna and cause cancers in the future. Another reason to not mandate untested vaccines especially to the young, but maybe only for the elderly. It takes time for cancer to germinate.

I hope his stem cell studies go forward to see to what degree recipients have been infected. A possibility many people are permanently mutated. I think he should be a little more direct and forceful with dumb politicians. Bonnie Henry wanted everyone buck-shot.

[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.)

Thanks Rustled. I watched the whole video and consider it shocking but expected in retrospect. This sort of risk is what many people suspected. This risk that a variable count of dna plasmid particles can contaminate dna and cause cancers in the future. Another reason to not mandate untested vaccines especially to the young, but maybe only for the elderly. It takes time for cancer to germinate.

I hope his stem cell studies go forward to see to what degree recipients have been infected. A possibility many people are permanently mutated. I think he should be a little more direct and forceful with dumb politicians. Bonnie Henry wanted everyone buck-shot.

You're welcome. To me, it's important to keep in mind he believes strongly in the technology itself. I watched it twice to get a better grasp of the step that should have been taken to eliminate the DNA (instead of the short-cut used). I liked his "hobbit" analogy and his "the house was on fire" acknowledgment, and his use of Hanlon's razor. At least a few of the politicians at the hearing seemed to grasp enough to recognize the significance of what went wrong, and the importance of ensuring regulatory bodies under their authority provide the regulatory tools to do the testing to find out what (if anything) this means for all of us who were injected with the vaccines containing DNA in a form that could cross into our own cells' DNA.

Watching it the second time I realized his area of expertise is cancer genetics, and cancer would be less of a risk for the elderly than for younger people (hence he's not a hard "no" on his mother getting a booster that may also contain the plasmid DNA).

A geriatric geneticist may have concerns about how the introduced DNA might affect (for example) dementia. While it's some small comfort to think he likely would have heard from one of his colleagues in that field if there was significant potential for that, there's no reason to assume anyone working in geriatrics fully understands the risks until that risk has been properly examined, too.

[Jlabute]

You're welcome. To me, it's important to keep in mind he believes strongly in the technology itself. I watched it twice to get a better grasp of the step that should have been taken to eliminate the DNA (instead of the short-cut used). I liked his "hobbit" analogy and his "the house was on fire" acknowledgment, and his use of Hanlon's razor. At least a few of the politicians at the hearing seemed to grasp enough to recognize the significance of what went wrong, and the importance of ensuring regulatory bodies under their authority provide the regulatory tools to do the testing to find out what (if anything) this means for all of us who were injected with the vaccines containing DNA in a form that could cross into our own cells' DNA.

Watching it the second time I realized his area of expertise is cancer genetics, and cancer would be less of a risk for the elderly than for younger people (hence he's not a hard "no" on his mother getting a booster that may also contain the plasmid DNA).

A geriatric geneticist may have concerns about how the introduced DNA might affect (for example) dementia. While it's some small comfort to think he likely would have heard from one of his colleagues in that field if there was significant potential for that, there's no reason to assume anyone working in geriatrics fully understands the risks until that risk has been properly examined, too.

He does believe in the technology. I think most people do but worried about lack of long term testing. I can see why doses need to be kept frozen seeing RNA has a short lifespan. New vaccines will be filtered and Governments will have to advertise their ‘improved safety’ highlighting how ignorant they were in the first place. Ten or twenty years from now will there be a global spike in cancer cases? Who knows,, hopefully not. The Liberals and NDP thought the risk was acceptable even for children.


Point of Interest. Here is the plasmid DNA kit from Agilent.

https://www.agilent.com/en/product/auto ... kit-365704


Then, get your fragment analyzer.

https://www.agilent.com/en/product/auto ... tem-365721

[rustled]

He does believe in the technology. I think most people do but worried about lack of long term testing. I can see why doses need to be kept frozen seeing RNA has a short lifespan. New vaccines will be filtered and Governments will have to advertise their ‘improved safety’ highlighting how ignorant they were in the first place. Ten or twenty years from now will there be a global spike in cancer cases? Who knows,, hopefully not. The Liberals and NDP thought the risk was acceptable even for children.


Point of Interest. Here is the plasmid DNA kit from Agilent.

https://www.agilent.com/en/product/auto ... kit-365704


Then, get your fragment analyzer.

https://www.agilent.com/en/product/auto ... tem-365721

"Request quote"!

Looks like testing for 500 samples in a single kit, if I'm reading it correctly? That's a little more than a buck a sample (CAD) when not buying in bulk. Economies of scale.

I liked what he said (IIRC) about tests should be done in several unrelated labs (all of which would already be equipped with a fragment analyzer?) for the best quality assurance of the research, and to provide reassurance to the public.

[Jlabute]

He does believe in the technology. I think most people do but worried about lack of long term testing. I can see why doses need to be kept frozen seeing RNA has a short lifespan. New vaccines will be filtered and Governments will have to advertise their ‘improved safety’ highlighting how ignorant they were in the first place. Ten or twenty years from now will there be a global spike in cancer cases? Who knows,, hopefully not. The Liberals and NDP thought the risk was acceptable even for children.


Point of Interest. Here is the plasmid DNA kit from Agilent.

https://www.agilent.com/en/product/auto ... kit-365704


Then, get your fragment analyzer.

https://www.agilent.com/en/product/auto ... tem-365721

"Request quote"!

Looks like testing for 500 samples in a single kit, if I'm reading it correctly? That's a little more than a buck a sample (CAD) when not buying in bulk. Economies of scale.

I liked what he said (IIRC) about tests should be done in several unrelated labs (all of which would already be equipped with a fragment analyzer?) for the best quality assurance of the research, and to provide reassurance to the public.

The fragment analyzer is about $100,000+. So ya' gotta' really want it.

[rustled]

Yup!

I wonder if the same fragment analyzer would be used to examine what's happening with our cells, post-injection with vaccines containing plasmid DNA?

[Jlabute]

Yup!

I wonder if the same fragment analyzer would be used to examine what's happening with our cells, post-injection with vaccines containing plasmid DNA?

Good question. I am not sure how the machines work or what they are capable of.

Extracting DNA from cells/blood is a separate process. Then, sequencing. There can be a wide chasm between detection and identification. The Agilent 5200 Fragment Analyzer is used for down-syndrome detection and other various hospital DNA tests. It does DNA assessment and genomic DNA detection and all that... looking at the functional block diagram, it appears to use electro-phosphorescence and digital imaging to detect genomic material which would be identified by known or trained genomic libraries, is my guess.

I find it funny that all the people who protest GMOs and push for early use of mRNA vaccines, are now GMOs themselves. lol.

[rustled]

Good question. I am not sure how the machines work or what they are capable of.

Extracting DNA from cells/blood is a separate process. Then, sequencing. There can be a wide chasm between detection and identification. The Agilent 5200 Fragment Analyzer is used for down-syndrome detection and other various hospital DNA tests. It does DNA assessment and genomic DNA detection and all that... looking at the functional block diagram, it appears to use electro-phosphorescence and digital imaging to detect genomic material which would be identified by known or trained genomic libraries, is my guess.

I find it funny that all the people who protest GMOs and push for early use of mRNA vaccines, are now GMOs themselves. lol.

Yeah, that's pretty ironic.

For those of us dealing with a growing lump of as-yet unexplained origin (and our incredibly sloooowwww medical system's plodding responses), though, the question of whether or not the plasmid DNA is up to something that should be stopped is really not so funny.

We do live in interesting times.

[Jlabute]

Yeah, that's pretty ironic.

For those of us dealing with a growing lump of as-yet unexplained origin (and our incredibly sloooowwww medical system's plodding responses), though, the question of whether or not the plasmid DNA is up to something that should be stopped is really not so funny.

We do live in interesting times.

I agree. Interesting times. A little too interesting. The original video is a good find. I hope contamination issues are addressed. It will take a long time to understand what has happened and claims of vaccines creating "turbo cancers" is starting.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-wil ... or-cancer/

[rustled]

I agree. Interesting times. A little too interesting. The original video is a good find. I hope contamination issues are addressed. It will take a long time to understand what has happened and claims of vaccines creating "turbo cancers" is starting.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-wil ... or-cancer/

Gorski's very defensive and very sarcastic in his attack, IMO - incredible hubris, particularly compared with Buckhaults' humility. He claims to have "debunked" Buckhaults:

What he’s blathering about sounds scary but is incredibly unlikely. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/202 ... -vaccines/

"Very unlikely" =/= impossible. That was no "debunking", only a difference in opinion on whether or not the small likelihood Buckhaults explained deserved investigation.

What is he SO afraid of, that he's willing to vilify anyone who says "we should look into this possibility"? Or is it strictly hubris?

The scientific community is rife with politicking, and he himself is an example of this. Buckhaults, however, left the politics entirely to the politicians and did not speak in "black and white" or "us vs them" statements. IMO this speaks volumes about which of the two scientists has greater credibility.

[foenix]

*removed*

[Silverstarqueen]

DNA fragments(in trace amounts), explained, and why those monitoring vaccine safety don't see a problem. (from a scientist, no politics).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Lmz9oHNek