TRANSCRIPT 113min COVID VACCINE ADULTERATION W/KEVIN MCKERNAN, BYRAM BRIDLE

TRANSCRIPT 113min COVID VACCINE ADULTERATION W/KEVIN MCKERNAN, BYRAM BRIDLE
                LISTEN TO 113min MP3
https://ia800302.us.archive.org/9/items/listen-to-113min-mp-3-covid-vaccine-adulteration-wkevin-mckernan-byram-bridle/LISTEN%20TO%20113min%20MP3%20COVID%20VACCINE%20ADULTERATION%20WKEVIN%20MCKERNAN%2C%20BYRAM%20BRIDLE.mp3   

Hi. Steve Kirsch here. I'm here with, doctor Kevin McKernan and professor Myron Breidl, And we're talking about this, plasmid, contamination in the vaccines, and I've got a lot of questions. I think you probably have a lot of questions. We're gonna go through them with these experts and get your questions answered.

And I'm gonna try to start with kind of the most serious and the the ones that, are on most people's minds, which is, you know, the press isn't making a big deal of this. The medical community is not in arms. Nobody's calling for the stoppage of these vaccines because the experts say there's nothing nothing to see here, and, and so there's nothing to worry about. So let's start off with that because that's the elephant in the room, because when I've talked to Kevin and and Byram about this, they say that this is very serious. You cannot write this off, and that these so called experts that they're saying there's nothing to see here.

It's all based on speculation, and this could be extremely, extremely serious. Is that correct, gentlemen? You wanna start? You wanna start? Sure.

Yeah. You're 100% correct, Steve. We we don't have you know, Kevin and and the others who have been, directly, producing this this these data. Right? Kevin Kevin made this discovery.

Lots of other labs have confirmed it. They I mean, we're lacking the data to definitively state what exactly could be happening biologically, which means, since Kevin and his colleagues are the ones who have generated and have the data, These other experts who are being asked, they do not have the data. They have no idea. Yet they can only speculate. What we do know, this is very, very, very, very important.

Health Canada. Right? The equivalent of the FDA, but in my country Canada, Health Canada has confirmed, and they seem to respond once Kevin reported his findings. They went and looked, and they have confirmed the presence of, the s v forty promoter in the plasmid bacterial plasmid DNA that Pfizer used to manufacture their shots. Canada has Health Canada's also confirmed that is a bioactive genetic sequence.

Right? Which means that it can do things in the body, and they can't definitively say or rule out the potential for harm, but they have admitted that it's bioactive if it should be contaminating the vials. Now we have data due to the work that Kevin did with, doctor David Speaker, a virologist in Canada, showing that all of the lots all the vials they looked at for Pfizer in Canada were also contaminated with this bacterial plasma DNA. So indeed it is there. It is being injected into people, and Health Canada has also confirmed that that was not disclosed to them by Pfizer.

And finally, they've confirmed that that is against the rules. It breaks the rules. So no. Nobody can say definitively that this can cause no harm. Nobody knows.

Kevin, you agree with that? Look at the bottom line. Your environment yeah. Position on this. And I'll just, one minor correction is I'm not a physician or doctor, so I I just wanna let everyone know that my physician here is really good.

I'm good at studying DNA. It's there. Alright? We've got that confirmed all over the world. 6 different labs.

We we would have it in 12 more labs. We've got a list of labs asking for these PCR kits. We couldn't supply them because we just didn't have enough of them. So we we we we've been we finally have them manufactured at some scale where we can give them out to more people, but, it's there in the vials. The next question is, is it in patient samples that have been injured?

Is it in patient samples that haven't been injured? We need to look at both populations to see what see what's going on here. So for those not familiar with what this bioactive molecule is, this SV 40 enhancer has been published, prolifically as being a tool used in gene therapy. So it takes DNA and drags it right to the nucleus in hours. We can also forward your audience other papers suggesting that when you do mammalian transfection like this, a subset of the cells, somewhere around 7 to 10% of the cells get permanently integrated when you bombard them with with, linear fragments of DNA like this.

So to say that this isn't an issue is really, I think willful misconduct. You you have to take a precautionary principle and say, no. Wait a minute. We don't know if this is an issue. We know there's DNA in there that shouldn't be that was never disclosed and never consented to.

We know it's in a transfection vehicle, and we know it has a sequence that drives it to the nucleus. Those three things are enough to ring alarm bells to stop. Stop and look to see if there's integration happening. Because if there is, there's a whole host of other complications that we have to begin looking at. So I I we go ahead.

Yeah. I mean, at a very minimum, the regulators should be warning the public. They should be saying, woah. We have a major problem here. We're looking into it.

You probably don't wanna if you don't need to be vaccinated, don't be vaccinated right now until we can look into this. Isn't that what the regulator should be doing right now? I'll comment from the perspective of Health Canada, Steve. Yes. How again, I can't emphasize this enough.

Health Canada has stated in an email, so it's it's publicly available. They've stated in an email that this is not supposed to be there, and they've confirmed that it's a bioactive molecule. It's not supposed to be there. The rules. I mean, if they want to maintain any, thread of of trust, in them by the public, They need to immediately put a moratorium on this.

They need to like, any other drug that would be found with a contaminant that was not disclosed to them would be, recalled immediately. That is exactly what should happen. So I actually disagree with you. I wouldn't say if there's anybody who doesn't need it, don't take it. I would say Health Canada, the onus is on you now.

You admitted this months ago, but you were wishful or or you at least were okay because Kevin's data was reserved to the US. It wasn't linked to your regulatory policies. But now Kevin and, David Speaker and others have shown that it applies to Canada's, vaccine files. So now the own the public knows this, and the onus is on you. You have a contaminant now that you have publicly disclosed to to everybody is not supposed to be there, was not revealed to you to you.

It breaks your rules. If I mean, this is the case, Steve. How many lies do you have to tell to be a liar? 1. Right?

So if if Health Canada wants to restore faith, they have to immediately recall this product. But they haven't. They've done nothing. Haven't. They've done nothing other than confirm it.

That's right. But I'm really confused on what they're waiting for. The adoption rate of these is so low. Like, what threat are they hanging it onto, to to keep them there? There's there's very minimal risk for them to pull these at the stage when no one's taking.

Very few people taking them anyway. I think it's important nonetheless that we push on this because there's children and pregnant women and a host of people that don't know this information that are getting hit with Yeah. Can I mention one more thing? Schools here at the state to hang them. Yeah.

Can I and can I mention one more thing, Steve, to to just based on what Kevin said? What's very important is Kevin and and David Speaker and and several other authors have this preprint that they just put out, which includes this Canadian data. But what also is included in there is very important because it box up what Kevin was saying. I agree. When I say that there's no, like, hard evidence of harm, I'm talking about those people who are saying there's nothing to see here.

Right? There is no problem. They have no evidence of that. Kevin like Kevin mentioned, there are lots of theoretical harms, lots of theoretical harms, lots of potential mechanisms whereby this bioactive genetic sequence could cause harm. That is in and of itself sufficient.

It should be sufficient in science to say we've gotta stop. We've gotta do the research now to definitively answer these questions. But get this, what they showed in this preprint article is that the batches, the Canadian batches, they were able to link them to adverse event reports and the batches that were most contaminated were associated with the highest number of adverse events that have been reported. There's a correlation there. Right?

So so in fact, there is some evidence, in the hands of Kevin and his coauthors, right, that does suggest harm. It can't be Irreparable harm, by the way. Right? Yes. And that that that correlation was was evident with Pfizer.

It wasn't evident with Moderna, but, you know, we we need more data. There there obviously could be confounders here, but this is what Verus is designed for is hypothesis generation. Yeah. We need to see signals like this. And there's there's other data that's not in the paper that is public that people should try.

If if you plot those on that on those charts, they'll reinforce this. Like, Philip Buchholz, lots weren't in this because they weren't from Canada. And, those those have even more DNA than what we found in Canada and higher adverse events. We also have another lot that's coming in, FL 0003 from Pfizer That is off the charts on DNA concentration and off the charts on adverse events. There are the lots that were in Germany.

There are so there there's a there's a couple other lots floating out there that all sort of reinforce this trend that higher concentrations of DNA are having higher adverse events. So I think as as more data rolls in, that chart will begin to reinforce itself in the Pfizer side. I don't know what's going on in the Moderna side. There's a lot of their different components to Moderna. They have lower DNA levels, but, their adverse events don't don't seem to be tracking with the DNA concentrations at the moment.

But we'll see if if if that changes when more when more data rolls in. Again, Moderna did not doesn't have a c 40 contamination system. So they're they're kind of on a different, playing field right now. Yeah. So the but but if if you're stuck in the middle here in terms of, hey.

Some experts say this and some experts say this, the data that you have is moving it towards the, hey, folks. This is very serious. It's not moved the data that we have. The the little data that we're getting suggests that this is much more serious than there's nothing going on here. If that in other words, if you had to to call the odds here, it's it's like if you were to call the odds about that this is a, that this is serious or very serious, would you give me 60 40 odds?

Would you give me 80 20 odds? What what is your what's your feeling if you were to if I were to ask you for a number? Higher. 9 95. Only because, we've got evidence there being a problem here.

It was not disclosed to the regulators. Theirs is on fire, and, we we we now see this contaminant in many, many vials internationally. So, I I I I don't think they should cause leave leave them any wiggle room here on on what needs to be done. This is a this is a hit the brakes moment. Okay.

Byron. Yeah. So my my comment so I'm I'm a scientist and a hardcore researcher. Right? So when you ask a question like that, I find it more difficult to put numbers on it.

I I I don't disagree with Kevin at all. So the way I would put it though as a researcher is you look at what the existing data is. Right? There's a research question that's been posed. So I view the question that you put to me as being a research question.

And then you say, okay. I look at the existing data. So what would be and and understanding the mechanisms and the existing data, you know, what would I predict? You know, in other words, what would my hypothesis be as I move in forward with this kind of experimentation that Kevin's going to do? My hypothesis would be that it's going to be found to be harmful.

Yes. Chris, what if I were to ask you for for odds, would you Kevin said 955. What's what are your numbers, Chris? Well, hi, Steve. Hi, Byram.

Hey, Kevin. It's good to see everybody. Chris, good to see you. Likewise. So I I I don't know yet because the because I I've pretty a lot of my research to this point has convinced me that the spike protein itself is toxic, but I differentiate that I think why what I'll call wild type spike protein, because there's a lot of them.

Right? There's the omicron spike and the delta and all that. Right? But that this thing, this miss obviously, probably grotesquely misfolded pseudo uridine out product that comes from the vaccines has its own toxicity profile. I think we've got good data to say that alone Absolutely.

Is doing something. And and now we've got this this plasmid on top of that. So I I don't know where to differentiate these these effects yet, but I can tell you, you know, it just did, an FLCCC, board retreat and, you know, I get to query, you know, Pierre Kory up close. Just talking with all the doctors there who are frontline treating people with vaccine injuries, it's just grotesque. I mean, it's a really wide ranging soup of conditions Yeah.

That that are that are hitting them. And and these are very long lasting, by the way. You know, people who got their their shots when it first came out, they are having new symptoms. Like, I know someone who got shot when the the shots rolled out, and, and and she was doing, you know, very poorly, then much better, then poorly, then better. And, you know, she's been better for a while.

And I just got a call last week that she lost the use of her legs and was fine before. Well, I've been waiting for the, all cause mortality data to die off because I thought, you know, correlation here, it should I was thinking it was gonna track with some lag, you know, the overall rate of vaccine boostering and uptake, and and and it it's just it just keeps going. You know? So I don't Yeah. Yeah.

These are really tricky signals to to do. Deceptive. And I I should clarify my point. Because I I wasn't saying 955 that it definitely harms people, sDNA. Just that 955 that it's gonna this is a material event in the disclosure process and that it's going to be legally significant.

Right. Okay. So so you that I agree with. Yeah. Okay.

Great. So Yeah. If I were asked about the legal, yes, I would say a 100%. A I mean, health from what I've seen from Health Canada, it's a 100%. Right.

So A 100%. So in other words, I mean, even the you know, like, best possible case, at a minimum, these regulators should be letting the public know, hey. We may you know, Houston, you know, we we may have a problem here. Right? That that they should be saying that at a minimum.

Now what they really should be doing is they should be saying, hey. Let's take these things off the market. Right? Would you all agree with that that they should be Yeah. Taking them off the market for now until they can investigate the harms?

I mean, that data was obvious years ago, but but this is just one more really large nail in the coffin. Yeah. So when you say years ago, you know, some people said, oh, hey. We knew in 20 21 that the s v 40, that there was s v 40 in the vaccines. Is is that or s v 40, promoter sequence.

Did we know in 2021 that s v 1? No. No. We didn't. So this was Kevin's discovery?

Yeah. The material they gave to the EMA, and I'm assuming this is what Health Canada has been given as well, annotated everything in the plasmid except the s v 40 region. So they were afraid of this. I mean, you don't go about annotating a plasmid with all the detail of the antibiotic resistance gene, the t 7 promoter, you know, the the spike protein, the the cut site they used to linearize it. I mean, they went and annotated this thing with all of these details except the most material piece, which is the s v 40 promoter that's active in a 1,000,000 cells.

So we that is show clear clearly hiding it. K. So they showed they showed the gene c they had the regulators had the s v 40 gene sequence. Right? The promoter gene that's So they had to have the entire plasmid sequence.

Okay. They had the map. In in the map, you sort of paint on the map what what the parts mean. There you go. And what they didn't paint was the s v forty region.

Although, they gave them the sequence so they can kinda slip it in, but they didn't spell out what it meant. Okay. So you see see see this is this is what Kevin's talking about. See, they it shows cut sites. It shows all the bioactive genes that are in here, everything.

And you can see all the labels. But they didn't have so they disclosed all kinds of things, but not that s v 40 enhancer. And and can I just tell you something? Just get it just really quickly for your listeners, Steve, because I think this is really important. Listen.

I've I've got the quote. This is this so you're listening to understand. This is what Health Canada, your equivalent of the FDA, said in an email. This isn't my words. This is what they said.

Listen. Health Canada expects sponsors to identify any biologically DNA sequences within a plasmid such as an s v 40 enhancer. And this is to be done at the time of submission. And then it says here that Health Canada says Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

It said that? Yes. Yes. Yep. And then and then they go on to say the sponsor, which of course is Pfizer, right, did not specifically identify the s v 40 sequence.

And then they say it was possible for Health Canada to confirm the presence of the enhancer based on the plasma DNA sequence submitted by Pfizer against the published SV 40 enhancer sequence. So, again, that's what we just talked about. They submitted the the the sequence as a data file. Right? So they have a computer file sitting there with the sequence.

They could see and then they looked at Pfizer's document after Kevin published his data, and they said, my goodness, Kevin found this, but it isn't listed anywhere on here. But we don't have the gene sequence, so we can go back. And Kevin's the expert on this. He can tell you. He could blast that in a publicly available database that beautiful one that your government offers.

And in a few minutes, you can show, bang, a 100% match up for the s v 40 enhancer sequence in the plasmid. That's what they did. Right. So so it's the equivalent, you know, so for the lay public. This is the equivalent of a like, a bill in congress where they have this long bill.

You know, it's 500 pages long, and they sneak in a little piece here that says, and now, we're gonna strip all power from the president or something like that. I you know? And they don't call it to anyone's attention. But they could say, yes. It was in the bill that you signed, but they didn't call it out.

Is that is that Well, it's not as simple as it's not as simple as that. As I just mentioned to you, the Health Canada himself has disclosed, Pfizer is required to disclose to them any bioactive sequence. So it's worse than that because it's not just that it got snuck in. Instead it got snuck in but it's equivalent of there being a rule. You cannot sneak anything else anything in without making it explicitly clear to us that you've inserted that.

Yes. Okay. So difference. Okay. So we have a diagram on the screen here, and this is, Kevin's, screen.

And this is if you there's a duplicate of this in in Kevin's video, testimony that was on the, the World Council For Health. And so if you wanna, go through this and explain this with a mouse, Kevin, that'd be awesome. Just to give you a sense of of of what they've so this is the plasma they gave to the EMA. I'm assuming this is what they gave to Health Canada. You can see they've annotated the spike protein here.

They've put in this f one element, this poly linker. They even annotated this little 5 base pair sequence known as the EMA 1104 eyesight. That's a restriction enzyme that cuts open the plasma and make it linear before they run an IVT reaction. They put the Ori in here. They put the CAN in here genes.

What's not in here is this whole region in here has no annotation at all, and this is where, now this this sorry, but these images are sort of mirror images of one another, so, you'll have to see that the neo can gene is over here in green, and here's the SV 40 region, which is not here. And what's really critical and they also they also left out the f one origin, which makes single stranded DNA, and I don't know if that's active in a million cells, but, you know, it's another region that they, that they left out. But, the most critical part here is this 72 base pair enhancer, this this tandem repeat here is published heavily for use in gene therapy. It drives DNA straight to the nucleus in ours, and, David Dean does a lot of work on this. So I think this is the reason they hit it is that they they probably started manufacturing this and realized, oops.

We left in a mammalian promoter. That's not good. That means this plasma DNA is active in mammalian cells, and it's not just active in the cytoplasm. It goes straight to the nucleus and that increases integration risk. And since we're dealing with LNPs, the stDNA is gonna get there uninhibited and, the this, it it probably got deleted from their disclosure.

In other words, I don't know why you would annotate something that's 5 bases down here and even a t seven, which is maybe 20 bases up here and a Kozak consensus sequence. I mean, you're getting down to fine level annotation of 5 base pair elements, and then you emit this a 366 region base, 636 base per region that's, like, probably one of the most functional regions of the plasmid. So to to me, it's clear someone hit something, based on on the details that are in this map. So it was intentional. It was intentional.

Is that what you're what you're I think when you put this You're speculating you're speculating, but you you speculate. I I wanna back up the speculation. People don't go into plasmas by hand anymore and annotate these things. They put them in tools like SnapGene, which is what I did. You download this for free off the Internet Yes.

Plug the sequence in, and it paints all of this stuff on there. So I would have to actively go and delete this stuff from SnapGene and then give it to the FDA. Yeah. And anyone can go to to SnapGene and do this, by the way. Yeah.

Yeah. Anyone I'll I have a I have a I have a something in my my substack that teaches people how to put a DNA sequence in the SnapGene, and they can put this in there and see that it automatically annotates all this stuff. And you'd have to actively go and delete the information, to to get rid of this stuff. So there there's no way in my mind that they that they just, oops, forgot about this. Any annotation program painted this, and someone had to actively go and delete it.

And and, Steve, I wanna back that up. So because I hadn't even thought of it from that perspective, Kevin. You're absolutely right. My my lab uses SnapGene as well because we we make virus vectored vaccines all the time. So there's all this cloning work that goes on, and, SnapGene is used.

And so I can confirm Kevin's Kevin's right. It would automatically label this. I never thought about that. Actually, it's a very interesting point. So they would actually have to have removed a default label.

Right. Chris? Comment? Well, I'm I I don't know how they could have left that out. Particularly, Byron, let me be clear about this.

That thing you read, they weren't just that was that was instructions given before COVID, before this vaccine came along where they said, for instance, you you need to call out s v 40, or is that something they put in after this? Nope. They they that's what they said even yeah. That's what they say. That's the important point.

Health Canada expects sponsors to identify any biologically functional DNA sequences within a plasmid such as an s v 40 enhancer at the time of submission. This was in existence prior to that because, of course, our our Health Canada looks they we they deal with gene therapies, and everything else. That that largely comes from the gene therapy, regulations. Right? They they they the rule is supposed to be that they be made aware of any potentially bio bioactive sequence Mhmm.

And any genetic material that's submitted to them to regulate. And, and if it's not, it breaks the rules, and my understanding was that that was supposed to prompt immediate recall. Well, but then but what's the chance that Health Canada or anybody else, the the EMA, the TGA doesn't have the doesn't have access to SnapGene? I mean, shouldn't this be minimally what they would do as part of their job? I think.

That's that's that's what I've learned from this, Chris. You're you're absolutely right. It raises for me a huge red flag because I can't definitively say whether they do or do not do that. But I'll tell you this, Chris, moving forward, I would certainly like to hope that every regulatory agency will do this in the future. I mean, to be that I mean, again, Kevin is the real expert on all this molecular biological work, but it seems to me that this should have been part of the quality control process.

Yeah. So so let me clarify something, for you, Chris, because the press release specifically called out the s v 4 s v 40 promoter. The press release did. But it's not in the Health Canada regulation that you must disclose the s v 40 promoter sequences such the as as the s v 40 promoter. In other words, what they wrote in the press release is a more embellished interpretation of their rules.

The rules didn't say you shall you shall always disclose if there's an s p 40 promoter sequence in it. No. No. No. But it did no.

But it's but it's bigger than that, Steve. It says they have to they have to disclose any biologically functional DNA sequence. Correct. So Correct. Which includes s v 40.

Right. Right. No. No. No.

But but the point is that the Health Canada regulations on the books do not specifically call out SV 40. When they wrote the press release, that's when they added the SV 40 because they're not mind readers and being able to predict the future here. They basically just said, you have to let us know about any stuff that's in there that is bioactive. Yeah. So in other words, the regulators yeah.

They're letting Pfizer submit their sequence, and then they're letting them submit their map of the sequence. And then you're they're just trusting. They're trusting them, having complete faith. To me, I agree with Chris. Where's the policing?

Really? We're gonna let the big pharma tell us exactly what's in there, and we're never gonna question this? We're the police. I will show you That's what it is. What it is.

Showed up to it. That should've shocked them if they had done opened up SnapGene. Can you guys see the screen? Yes. Yeah.

Alright. So this would have stood out to anyone, who opened this up in SnapGene, which is why the hell is there an open reading frame in both directions of the spike protein in in Pfizer? Like, that is a very long unexpected open reading frame. So that's an entire start codon to stop codon of a gene that runs the opposite direction of the spike protein on on Pfizer's vaccine. This would have been a major alarm bell if they just loaded the vector into SnapGene and looked at this.

I didn't do any work here. SnapGene highlighted this for me. Alright. This has been published too in other papers. This isn't some spooky thing that's come up in my computer.

Like, people have made note of this that the Pfizer plasmid, interestingly enough, can be read in the opposite direction without any stop codons for 1200 and, like, 30 amino acids or something. Alright? So that's gonna be a bioactive molecule. And now when you blast that, it it doesn't hit any human genes. I don't know what it is, but it's it's not it's not gonna be recognized itself.

So it's gonna it has a potential to make a very large open reading frame of non self material in the plasmid that's being injected into people. And this has been that would as well. This has been known since since how long? Since 2021? Ever since the the sequence came out, let me see.

The first sequence that came out was from Andy Fire's lab. They did RNA sequencing, and all they published was, they didn't find any vector. All they published was the spike protein region, and I think somebody, since then I have to take up the right author on this. I'm forgetting their name. Had noted that there was a an open reading frame in the opposite direction on the spike protein that was uninhibited due to their codon optimization.

But everyone wrote it off being like, well, single stranded RNA, you'll never have that strand around. Don't worry about it. But now now we know there's DNA in there. That strand is around. And, it that that's a that's another bioactive molecule that should have stuck out to any regulator who who, like, put this into SnapGene and open this.

They said, alright. There's s v 40. They didn't tell us about that. There's an f one origin that makes single stranded DNA. They didn't tell us about that.

And what the hell is this in a 1200 amino acid ORF doing here in the opposite direction on spike that's not part of the of the of the of the virus? The virus doesn't have this. This is a this is a code on optimization artifact that shouldn't be there. Wait. Wait.

Wait. This is a is this on the antisense strand? It is. Yeah. It's on the other strand.

So, you know, we we don't know if it's going if it's got a promoter or not. But Would would the bacteria have read that and created RNA that's So that this is this is a really good question is how do you how do you predict internal ribosomal entry sites, which is not there aren't good computers programs to look for irises, internal ribosomal entry sites. This is a place where ribosomes bind down and and and move. Now the the second question is, will it make RNA off of this? Well, there's an s v 40 promoter over here, which is a this this 70 2 base pair piece is a bidirectional promoter.

It makes RNA both directions off this molecule. So it it will it will make an RNA that goes this long. The the question is, will the ribosomes read it? Because we don't know if there's a Kozak consensus sequence anywhere in here. We don't I I didn't see one, but I'd ask others to go and look, because I've been told the iris elements are hard to buy to to bioinformatically predict.

But either way, you know, even if you chop all this stuff up and it integrates, you're gonna end up getting these little open reading frames that are likely to be in frame, that get integrated and have a short peptide that's nonhuman that could get displayed in cells. Right? It's it's just something that and you're doing code on optimization. This is a flag. Like, you you don't wanna have the opposite strand be fully coding because, it's just it's more noise in the system.

So it creates risk? It creates risk, and it's a sign that no one looked at this. Someone gave so Pfizer gave them the the the the sequence. They put it in a file, and that was the end of the story. Right.

And and nobody's asking, like, why did you do this, and how come, you know, this is there, and why, you know, aren't you do some why aren't you doing something to fix this? Why why are these components needed? You can you can pull up Moderna stuff and see they don't have these things. So you're like, okay. One one manufacturer doesn't have as many risks as the other.

You know, are these necessary? What's the point? Yeah. Okay. So let's take this down from there because I So that's interesting because Pfizer's been pushed the hardest, right, globally.

Yeah. And and the other thing in here to to keep in mind, right there, that's the promoter. The AMP bar promoter is the promoter that Moderna uses. Pfizer has it too. So all of this stuff here is just all risk, no gain.

You don't need it. Duplication. Yeah. I I I I agree. Like, my my understanding is, correct me if I'm wrong, Kevin, but but the ideal plasmids to be using for this are the ones that are stripped down to the the minimum For a number of bioactive sequence that are needed.

Right? No activity mammalian cells. Right? Just get rid of anything that that's that's essentially, create complications. Right.

So I I just got a quick question. For that sequence that you were just describing, because that's a concern for me as well, are there any sequence similarities to any known human protein that you're using or apart thereof? Send you this this I'll send you the sequence board. I I quickly blasted and didn't get any any hits that that that that were of interest or made or made any sense, but I've been told that I shouldn't just rely on NR and BLAST. There could be other protein databases I should be go searching for to see if there's something else that comes up.

Yeah. If you mind, send it to me. I'd like to have a look. So Because you're right. Because if if that gets expressed, that could be, like, that's something that the immune system will definitely respond to.

So I it would be very bioactive. And this all links back to, I think, what what Chris was saying as well. And and you, Steve, with this, idea of the timing with this especially this new information, I've been swapped with questions from people, like what are the safety implications? And a lot of people have done their research and recognize that this bacterial plasma DNA can be very long lasting. Like Kevin said, especially if any of it gets integrated, then it's gonna be there for the rest of the cell's life.

And it to me, it links to what you was talking about about adverse events long term. And I've I've said to people when they asked me, I said, you know, I wish I could tell you, but I can't predict what long term consequences would possibly be because we don't know. We haven't been able to study this. But but that's what we have to highlight here. Right?

These plasma DNAs, we were told the modified RNAs would be gone quickly, like, within 36 hours in the body. We know that's not true, but these plasma DNAs, like, Kevin can confirm, plasma DNA, bacterial plasma DNA, is a very robust molecule. And that you know, so it's this kind of stuff that could potentially be a mechanistic explanation for the things you are observing, Steve. Right? Why things could be happening well after having received shots?

So the the the question is why is it there? You know, why is it in the vaccines at all? Is it just because, well, this was the expedient, and we needed to get it out quickly, and our manufacturing process kinda left it in, and we didn't do anything to clean it up because we knew the regulators wouldn't look? Or, like, what is the rationale for all of these things being kind of in there? Because they're all they all create risk.

Why are they there? Why do you think they are there? I mean, I suspect it was warp speed type of activity. I I don't I can't get in people's heads and understand intentions, so I don't know that this is, like, nefariously put in there. I think when people move very quickly, I suspect Pfizer's vaccine or their their plasmid, the idea behind that plasmid was, hey.

We could express this in mammalian cells, and that could be very helpful for us to study what type of proteins made. So let's put it in a vector that works in both bacteria and mammalian cells. That way, we can shuttle it back and forth, and and there's all types of more biochemistry we could do. That makes total sense to me that someone would do that, and then I'd probably graduate into the vaccine. Yeah.

If you're a researcher working on the spike protein, you wanna put it in a in a plasma that has some universality to it. You can study it in mammalian cells in it and and then amp it up in bacteria. But that's using human beings as guinea pigs in your experiment. Right? Well, I'm I'm suggesting they were probably they they had the interest of maybe putting this in HEK cells or something else to see.

Okay. Let's express the spike protein in mammalian cells and then mass spec it and see what see how it glycosylates or whatever. Vaccine that is given to that is given in billions of doses. They they should they should have removed it, but they probably just ran with the research plasmid and and use that as the as the production plasmid looking. Yeah.

I concur I concur with with, Kevin. Right? We've all been told. We were all assured that no corners were cut. But I agree with Kevin.

It makes sense. What what he said is exactly that's exactly how you would design something for the research stage. So to me, this was for the preclinical and translational research phases. And to me, this is probably exactly what Kevin said, an example of the warp speed rate at which these were developed coming out in the fact that they weren't didn't have the time to redesign the plasmid, like Kevin said, for the clinical use. Right.

Right. Now this this is making sense. Thought they could get rid of it all. Right? Oh, we're just gonna erase that.

So we're gonna cover our tracks, and no one will know that we use the research plasmid. Exactly. And and so, Kevin, I've got a quick question for you. I think it's very important, Steve, because I just like to get confirmation from Kevin because I respect his expertise in this as being far greater than mine. Because it was it was confusing to me.

So so I'll disclose. I sat on the advisory committee for graduate student over the past couple of years who was developing an mRNA vaccine for use in poultry, actually. And, of course, are the we advise that after the the mRNA was made, so it wasn't the modified RNA, but after the mRNA was made to get rid of the DNA. And they use DNase, you know, an enzyme that can digest it, and they had no problem getting rid of it. So I was very confused at first, but then I saw a paper recently suggesting that the issue here is with these modified RNAs that you get all of these odd, like, multi strand, in fact, like DNA and RNA, combinations and stuff, and and apparently, it makes it very difficult to actually get rid of the DNA.

Is that true? It does. In fact, if if you look at Moderna's, RNA, they have a a hundredfold more spike DNA than they have vector DNA. So when their DNAs goes to town, it it clears out the backbone of the plasma, but it can't digest the spike DNA as well, and that's presumably because there's a lot of spike RNA that's protecting the DNA from nucleus activity. So when t when t seven makes RNA and you're and you're putting in these modified nucleotides that alter the melting temperature of the RNA and they're very they're really sticky, what happens is you get a a triple helix.

You get an RNA an R loop, which is an RNA DNA hybrid, and some nuclease are good at resolving that and some aren't. They they they use DNase 1. If you go through it just simply through NEB's catalog, you would not use that. You would use DNA XT, which is actually designed to get rid of our loops. So there's other nucleases that could be using to clean this up, but I I think people should know that this is a very fixable problem.

And and I think even if they fix it, I don't think they're out of the woods. Well, I just wanna emphasize the fact that this this moves so quickly that they use, like they they use the first enzyme you would pick, which is DNase 1, but there's many other enzymes that have been that have been evolved to actually do a better job at solving this problem that they never got to. Okay. So I wouldn't be expecting to make it very quickly. So, Kevin, that that's I find it very interesting.

I didn't realize that that so it's interesting that you've identified other d, DNA's that could be used to more effectively get rid of this stuff. So with that, my understanding is looking at your preprint article, your your your very recent one that you just released a few days ago, that, it was the first evaluation of Moderna's newest booster. And I'm I'll I'll tell you, I I so I know I I I of course, I work closely with David Speaker who who was doing a lot of research. I told him I'm a 100% convinced they will fix the problem and got rid of it. But yet it's still there.

The DNA contamination is still there. So there's the question then if like, because there's somebody like you, they could have called you up and and and pick your brain about, okay, you've identified see, this is what research does. You identify a problem and you can come up with potential solutions. So why do you think they wouldn't have got rid of that? Because then then they could say, oh, for all this stuff you're raising, they could say moot.

It's all moot point. Right? It's all the historical shots. We fixed it. Yeah.

We fixed it. Think as long as they have a liability waiver, everything's moot and and irrelevant. So there's no motivation for them to fix this, which is why we really need to lean on the regulators to to push on this because they've given them a hall pass. So they're they're they're just gonna keep claiming it's safe and effective until, until one of their family members call it. Risk if they change it.

Right? There's Okay. So this is the interesting thing though. To then do another clinical trial, and they'd be back to square 1. So why change it?

But this is the interesting thing. So what you just raised, Kevin, is this legal indemnity that they have, which I was just sharing with Steve the other day that I read a very recent ruling in Michigan. Right? But it was a guy who got badly injured after getting remdesivir, and it was a lot that was known to be contaminated with tiny glass particles. Right?

It had been recalled, but it was given to him anyways. The hospital hadn't returned their their batch at that point, and he launched a lawsuit, it went to court. 1 of the and and Gilead Sciences who manufactures the remdesivir was named at the lawsuit. They immediately claimed the legal indemnity, but a court in Michigan just ruled that it was it was interesting. They agreed it's a Gilead Sciences.

They agreed. Yes. You have legal indemnity for the approved components of your product. Right? That ingredient list.

You should not include the product. Indemnity for contaminants. Last one is And and so would that not apply here to to Pfizer? I think so because they didn't include when you look at their ingredient list, there isn't any DNA on it. Exactly.

Exactly. It's not on the list. I remember we we both spoke at the World Council For Health, you know, a few days ago as well, and I I showed the, the the so we had a freedom of information request to confirm, right, what Health Canada actually saw. And Health Canada has now, through a Freedom of Information request, released it. And we also have confirmed definitively to Health Canada on their approved ingredient list.

There's no plasma DNA, and now they've admitted that with that and in addition, like so even even if there was that there, still one can argue the s v 40, like Kevin said, was not disclosed. So that's not an approved. So even if that were okay, they were okay with some plasma DNA. They weren't okay with the s p 40. So the way I look at it legally, I don't know how Pfizer can possibly escape legal indemnity here.

Well, I I think they're gonna they're gonna go, Chris. One possible way though, with glass particles, you have the contaminant and you have the harm. They might say, well, there's no harm from this. So so can I rewind just a bit? Because we were talking about the the possible harm that this might come from this.

Well, you don't know. It's hard that that there's harm is the is the issue. Well well so but they're gonna try and evade that. So let me just play devil's advocate here. So so they're gonna say, oh, you know, they're not replication competent.

And even if they were, they're they're actually only in bacteria, and there's no bacteria in your deltoid, etcetera. So so how can you can you lay out the the how would this stuff get uptake and and and do the harm? Yeah. I think you're right. They're gonna they're gonna point out it's all broken up.

It's within the limits, and, the limits are at 10 nanograms per microliter and less than 200 or over 200 bases, and we meet all those criteria. And there's there's some there's some lots that don't meet that criteria. And depending on how you measure them, there's a big debate on that, but let's put that aside. I think what wasn't considered in those regulations is that the DNA being encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles, that they were assuming, like, a 10 minute half life of DNA in the blood, which I I agree with them. If it's just injected, it's gonna get eaten apart, and and it it probably won't have it'll it'll be an adjuvant is what they'll say.

It's every every contaminant they find eventually graduates into an adjuvant category. And so they'll they'll they'll they'll pin it on that as, look. It's it's doing a little interferon response over here. That could be good for you. So but but the fact that it's that we know it's in the LMPs means it's materially different than what they evaluated in the past.

And we've seen even some FDA guidance from, it's Kilman, I think, is a paper paper we reference, or Clinman, we we referenced in our in our recent preprint that shows, if there's any of these bioactive pieces of DNA, they they're not cons the the the limit doesn't go to 200 bases. They're worried about 7 bases. Even as small as 7 bases that can integrate and disrupt a gene is a problem. So we really have to focus them on this isn't about naked DNA. This is about transfection con competent DNA going in that's bioactive that could get to the nucleus and create a genotoxic event, and you did no studies on genotoxicity.

These were waived. So you can't say that there's no genotoxicity because you gave them a hall pass on genotoxicity. And now we have a mechanism that could induce this. So we we we this needs to be looked at. But I I agree with you, Chris.

I think they're gonna go into exactly what you said is they're gonna say, there's no evidence of harm, safe and effective, all these people passed it. And, by the way, these nanogram limits, we put in place, mean means that we're okay. It's important that people know those nanogram limits were were a thousandfold lower before the Reagan NCV, what is it? The NCVIA Act. The the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, they were at 10 picograms before that.

They put that in place, and then the the the nanogram or the the DNA contamination guidelines ballooned a 1000 fold in 10 years. So, there's there's it used to be a much lower limit, and the limits that they designed were based on host cell genomic DNA, which at, you know, at 10 nanograms, you're talking about, like, 1200 copies of the human genome. That's not a lot of copies. Ten nanograms of this material is, like, 200,000,000,000 pieces of DNA with active phosphates and hydroxyls. This is this is material that's that's ready to to to to cause some harm or the or at least get ligated into something.

So, but I I do wanna bring up one one point that Chris is punching in here because I've I've I've this this is a good, it's a good devil's advocate position here. I've heard this from others online too, which is, hey. Any any cell that gets transfected with spikes gonna be dead. Right? So why do you care if there's if it's dragging other crap along for the ride?

And I've I've kinda pushed back on that being like, well, is that true? Is it is it binary? Is it any cell that gets transfected dies? Because if that's so, how come it shows up in, like, breast milk and plasma and exosomes and all this other stuff, like, a year later. And I don't know that it's a 100% kill rate on transfection.

I I think there's there's a population that seems to limp along for a long period of time. Oh, yeah. And those are the ones we have to worry about for tumors. But I I is that your understanding, Byron? Because I'm not as, dialed in on the immunology front here.

Well, I so I can give you one example right off the bat. Immuno privileged sites would not be susceptible to being killed off. Right? So we're talking about Yeah. Yeah.

More more people don't remind me of that. Yeah. Places like the the testes, ovaries, the the eye, the the central nervous system, you know, etcetera. So there's lots of tissues, and and and this is the interesting thing too Because I was gonna say then it then the question becomes, what's the biodistribution of this DNA? And that also links to what you are asking, Chris, because this is interesting.

So even what you were saying, Kevin, I I agree. If this is free in the blood, it is going to be degraded. But remember, in the blood are phagocytic cells, like the monocytes you were talking about, and there's also macrophages that can be in the blood be just before they get it go into tissues, and they can be dendritic cells. These are what we call the phagocytic cells of our our immune system, and these cells can't it's not they're not really efficient, but they could take up naked bacterial plasma DNA. But this is the thing, that uptake is dramatically amplified when these things are bound to lipid nanoparticles.

And we're talking cat ionic lipids that are making up these lipid nanoparticles. So based on the charge of the plasma DNA, it can efficiently bind to those, cationic lipid nanoparticles. And so this raises 2 questions that there are are problems based on what you brought up, Chris. First, a while back you were saying, how do we differentiate between harms due to spike and harms due to things like the containing plasma DNA? The easy answer would be if all the plasma DNA was free floating in there.

Right? You then you remove the lipid nanoparticles with the modified RNA. You just have that plasma DNA and you administer that, right, say in an animal model versus the whole, dose and see what the effect is. But the problem is, like Kevin said, they're married to the lipid nanoparticles, which are married to the modified RNA, which expresses the spike. So we can't parse this out very easily.

But my concern then, Kevin, is because they're associated with these lipid nanoparticles, that means they get distributed like the lipid you know, where to wherever the lipid nanoparticles go, which go to some of these areas. Yeah. I think I think if you look at the biodistribution studies of the of the luciferase mRNA, that's where all the DNA is going. Because I don't think this DNA is on its own. I think it's actually hybridized to the RNA, and it's going into the cell as a DNA RNA hybrid.

Just because the DNA RNA hybrids are more stable than DNA DNA hybrids. So there's that that thermodynamically, that's what's gonna happen. It's those 2 are gonna be stuck together. There's a higher concentration of the RNA than the DNA. So all the DNA is gonna get pulled out of solution to the RNA, and it's gonna get presented to the cell as a DNA RNA hybrid.

Yeah. And you see, and see and and the way that's a concern, Kevin, is is because when it's phagocytic cells, phagocytic cells will often travel, especially to pick things up to lymph nodes and so on. So they would be susceptible, I believe, to killing, eventually once there's an immune response mounted against the spike protein. But what you're talking about then is that we're talking about any cell being able to take these up. So wherever those lipid nanoparticles go.

You'll you'll notice the regulators spend a lot more time diving into the double stranded RNA numbers and the DNA numbers. And that's because those double stranded RNA is is is induces all types of, you know, mayhem inside the cell. But I don't know that we have as much information on what happens with DNA RNA hybrids. I imagine those look pretty ugly to the cell as well. That's that's a that's a a less studied field.

So, that that now they're doing something really weird measuring the double stranded RNA, which is another area we wanna dig into. I mean, they're they're using some ELISA assay to quantitate that, and that should all be done, I think, with next generation sequencing. Because when when we look at this through an RNA sequencing process, we see all types of Watson strand RNA that shouldn't be there under the spike. When you do RNA sequencing, you should get all Crick Crick Strands, which are sent strands. Right?

Because the t seven makes 1 RNA. But when you do RNA sequencing, you don't see that. You see all types of sequence coverage on the wrong strand, which means there's a lot of double stranded RNA in there that hasn't been accounted for. And the assay they're using is something that I don't know if anyone has ever validated that on on RNA that has this methyl it's methyl decorated like this, and there's 800 more methyl methyl groups on this RNA. I would imagine that Eliza's probably never seen that before and might be undercounting it.

So, I I think there's a lot of other aspects in here that need to be dug into outside just the DNA contamination. I I agree. And, Kevin, I I wanted to just, highlight one other thing, one thought about what what you raised, about how they might try and make the argument, right, that that this DNA contamination could potentially serve as a as a adjuvant. And you're absolutely right in the sense that our immune system, for obvious reasons, right, for fighting off bacterial pathogens is very good at recognizing bacterial DNA, and it's a potent stimulator of the immune system. But, like and I'm thinking for example of of of the fact that these shots are being administered to women who are pregnant.

One of the things you always, always, always want to avoid in somebody who's pregnant is anything that would cause systemic inflammation. Because stomach inflammation means it could potentially in it it, have an influence on the reproductive tract. And so what's interesting is a way to agree with this argument about, you know, maybe it's a good thing because it can serve as an adjuvant, if was like a traditional shot and it stayed in the in the muscle or stayed isolated there and to the regional and local lymph nodes because you want that inflammation, that's the danger signal to draw the attention of the immune system. So you bring in those phagocytic cells to pick up the RNA, make the spike protein, and go and show that spike protein to all the cells in your lymph nodes. That's good.

But if what but the problem is you get the and when you this plasma DNA that can be highly, you know, stimulatory distributed again throughout the body with the with the wide distribution we know is typical of lipid nanoparticles, Now you're talking systemic inflammation, and to me, you can't make the argument. When you're promoting systemic inflammation, you can't promote, in my mind as an immunologist, that that is a good adjuvant. To me, an adjuvant that promotes systemic inflammation is a very bad adjuvant, particularly in cases of pregnancy, for example, is a classic one. Right. Right.

Don't eat cheese, but take one of these shots. That's that's the logic we were we were given. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's it's it's incredibly I don't know.

What's the irresponsible for the CDC to tell women to take a shot which causes systemic inflammation? What else is crazy about this is is they're all well aware that the next generation sequencing field just went through this whole transition off of, amniocentesis to using noninvasive, prenatal testing. So, like, 3% of the DNA circulating in maternal bloodstream is actually the fetal geno genome. So you sequence the mother's blood, and you can get the entire genome of the kid. Alright?

That means there's exchange of small DNA between the mother and and the child. So this is a vaccine. DNA is going systemic. I would bet it's going into the into the child, either through the lipid nanoparticle or if it's even naked in in in the blood. It's it's probably there's probably some exchange there.

And, they know that they no longer do amnios now because they can sequence kids through through the mother's bloodstream. You don't have to, like, stick a needle and have a 1 in 500 death rate with, with amnio. Alright? So there's there's known communication in in between mother and child here, and I I would bet on this these LMPs getting there. And you know what, Kevin?

I'm I'm so glad you brought that. I had never thought about that as well. But you know what? I I actually have taught my students for years about the fact that technically, mothers are what we call chimeras, for that very reason. Right?

A chimera is a combination of 2 different individuals. We usually think of it like 2 different species, but same thing with people. So a mother does have a tiny genetic component of the of their baby, that that stays with them. I never thought about it though from the reverse direction. You're right.

So that's the this is why it's important to get scientists together discussing these things because I I totally agree with that concern. That's a major concern. So if we had a CDC scientist on this call who would defend that, yes, it was the right thing to do to give this vaccine to pregnant women. What argument could they possibly use in light of what you just said To defend The only thing that I can think about. Argument because, you know, we're never gonna have this discussion.

Right? Because the CDC scientist is never going to be allow themselves to be questioned because that's not what they do. They censor us. They do not answer any of our questions. If they were here, how would they how could they respond to what you just said?

Yeah. Just really quickly, because I can't I I put thoughts into the minds of these, theoretical, hypothetical people who would potentially speak to us. But what I do know is, you know, their job is to take a balance. Right? And you start piling up the benefits on one side and the risks on the other, and they're they you know, their job is supposed to be if the risk outweigh the benefits, you don't move forward and vice versa.

So to me then, what they do is the the the the risk just keep piling up massively the problem is that, you know, they're gonna argue this was super dangerous, but that's sort of gone out with, work that's showing the infection fatality rate is much lower than it was anticipated, etcetera. But you know what I mean? That's what they're gonna try and do, Steve. They have to. Yeah.

If they're gonna counter this, they're gonna have to get that pile on the benefit side as high as they can to outweigh the ever mounting risks. Risks. Yeah. And I and by the way, I just published on my substack a a study of a VA paper. It was published in JAMA, and it basically showed that there was no hospitalization difference when if you were hospitalized for, COVID versus if you're hospitalized for influenza.

Vaccination breakdown for both vaccines was identical in the two groups, which means neither vaccines work to prevent hospitalization. And as, Byram, as you and I discussed, if there's no hospitalization benefit, there is nothing in biology that shows that you can have a mortality benefit. So if your hospitalization benefit is 0, your mortality benefit is 0 as well because it has to be less than the hospitalization benefit. There are no exceptions in biology that you were aware of. I mean, there's a deeper issue here as well is is the CDC conflicted.

Right? Do do do they have a motivation to actually push vaccines? I mean, certainly, there's a lot of other vaccines run through there. And then don't they have a separate slash fund that Farmer can fund that, is involved in funding like shots heard around the world? I so that and and that I think Bill and Melinda Gates can pump money into.

It's not really under their budget, but it's they're under control of it or under influence of it. So they they do have upside funds coming in. So I I don't I don't know that we're gonna get honest answers from conflicted organizations. No. No.

We won't. To the end page. They have $400,000,000 in royalty from Moderna. They're not going to give us an honest answer. If we go to the FDA, they've got issues and that the PDUFA Act funds half of their budget.

This is they're getting directly funded by the companies they regulate. So none of those are gonna come to the table and give us an honest answer. They're gonna come and say safe and effective, and the virus is really dangerous. Yeah. Yeah.

And just to and just to confirm for for your Canadian listeners, Steve, it's very interesting. Health Canada, historically, you know, was primarily funded by taxpayers, and I learned during the this declared pandemic that that had completely switched. So prior to the some some years prior to this declared pandemic, Health Canada cried foul. They were looking at and they were so jealous of your regulatory agency, right, that they said to our government, look, they're getting they they have way bigger operating budgets than we do, proportionately even. So that we because they're getting all this money from the big pharma.

We are paying all these They can charge them all these huge fees to review their submissions. And so Health Canada, prior to this, switched over to your system so that the majority of the operating budget for Health Canada also comes from their review of Big Pharma. And I've actually looked, at the at at their list. It reads like a it reads like, an advertisement pretty much for a service industry. Right?

Where where Yeah. The first submission to Health Canada is a freebie. It's a freebie. Right? How often are you gonna reject the freebie if you still if you want the paying business.

Right? Etcetera. Just a free trial. Yeah. But but I'm telling you so what I can yeah.

What I can confirm to you is Health Canada gets the vast majority of their operating funds from the very pharmaceutical companies that they are asked to regulate just like yours. So I agree a 100% with Kevin. I believe that this is a global problem, the one that he's just risen, raised. Yeah. And I can tell you, I've talked to a former CDC employee, and they told me that the directive was a shot in every arm.

That was their priority. It wasn't about safety. It was about get the vaccine distributed. It was all about the marketing and convincing of people to take the shots. It was not about their their mission was never protect the public safety, safety, safety.

It was get these shots in every arm. So do we have, in your opinion, your expert opinion, do we have an adulterated vaccine here? I talked to doctor Malone. He said, what we have here is an adulterated vaccine. Agree or disagree?

Kevin? Yeah. I mean, I I'm I'm new to this field, but it's from what I've read very recently, it sounds like it fits that category. Chris. Oh, absolutely.

It does. And, I would say because of all the excellent work being done by by everybody on this call and and the things that I've been seeing, they're starting to lose badly in this particular story. We're getting close to this part of the story, which is, called common knowledge where everybody knows that everybody knows something. Right? And so this is when the story can turn very quickly.

And, you know, just this morning, I I had a flood trying to keep up, Steve, with what you tweeted out and and other pieces coming out, and then there was that New Zealand minute, MP saying that they had just done a private statistical analysis and discovered that in one location, during one day, all 30 people who were vaccinated at this one location in New Zealand, all 30 were dead. And no news coverage of that. Right, Chris? No. No.

Well, it's, you know, it's making the making the the circuit out there. And so this is the kind of we're talking here, gentlemen, about a very comprehensive set of failures that are very difficult to explain individually, but collectively you go, how did they not put this into, you know, this gene reading thing? How did they not understand this? How did they not like, it's just there's so many collective failures and and, you know, when talking we're just talking about the reproductive issues, Byron. I got a strike on YouTube because in 2021, I was trolling around on some Facebook groups and women were talking about all of their menstrual irregularities.

Right? Just data. So I put that up there and got an instant strike on YouTube, for that, and and and now we know well, of course, that's a thing. They can't have missed that in their, 60 day post marketing surveillance study in Pfizer. You can't have missed it, and it's not in there.

They talked 1223 deaths, but we vaccinated millions of people. Some people die. Just random. That's true. You know, they talked about little myocarditis, but they didn't mention the menstrual irregularities.

They can't have missed it. It's too strong of a signal. So that was willful for sure. You know? And so we have just willful act after willful act after willful act, but but hearing that, you know, Canada, for for, the health authority up there to basically be saying, you didn't tell us about s v 40.

This is kind of an exciting moment because that that feels like CYA time. Somebody's backing up and saying, uh-oh. You got a problem. Uh-uh. I I I totally agree.

And I'm wondering if the the the health candidate in some way try and get themselves off the hook by sort of, admitting this up front, and and then it was the US that's you know, in the US where all the contamination was discovered. I don't know. But you're you're right, Chris. So so in short to your question, Steve, yes. This is an adulterated vaccine.

There's no question. And and and, Chris, I also got slammed for the, bringing up the potential about these menstrual issues. Right? That was remarkable. To me, that's a a a great example because way after the fact, finally, in the US, right, your CDC said, okay.

Let's, let's cert let's fund some studies to see if this actually happens. So people didn't want that, but the that's a classic example of, yes, the public rollout. The people in the public rollout became the guinea pigs. And then, yeah, you're right. There's been the, multiple peer reviewed published studies now showing definitively that was the case.

I agree with you. They had to seen it before. And that's my whole point that I like, this stuff keeps accumulating so much. All these risks, all these harms, all of the these misdeeds or mistakes, whichever one they are, because if it's the latter, then it shows that our our regulatory agencies I mean, like I said, I'm a vaccinologist. I I still continue to publish, I mean, my goodness, I'm a vaccinologist.

I I still continue to publish, vaccine papers, but the amazing thing is what people have to start recognizing. Right? Those people who accuse us of disseminating misinformation, all of us have actually been the ones fighting to keep people's to be able to maintain people's faith in vaccines. That's why I've spoken up, Steve, is to protect my field. And now I'm reading you were seeing all over the place.

Pfizer, Moderna crying foul now because nobody will take these, you know, their shots anymore. The left take has been so low, and they're losing their 1,000,000,000 of profit. And, and now but worse, we're seeing uptake of all the other vaccines. So I I just just before we got on this call, I was just finishing, reading. You might be interested in looking at this, Steve.

A CDC study. Right? So from your country, they were looking at pregnant women, and the CDC is very upset because their cutting edge data right now show that uptake of, other vaccines, other vaccines by pregnant women is plummeting. Yeah. And they believe it's because, it was very interesting.

They only got one expert to say, I think, what they wanted to, but they found one expert who was willing to who said that they believe the reason it so they everybody admitted that it's because a vaccine hesitancy is skyrocketing. And then one person said, oh, that's all that's because of the spread of disinformation. So all of us here, plus all of our colleagues and everything else, I think maybe they have to start waking up and recognizing that when you have a product a good product, as I say, will always sell itself. And when you have a product that is as crappy as this, and there's been all these problems, and they're still emerging, and they will continue to emerge for who knows how many years to come, you have to start admitting that the the misinformation gurus are the ones who have destroyed the field of vaccinology, and they're the ones for the skyrocketing vaccine and hesitancy. And I say to anybody who's vaccine hesitant right now, you deserve to be and you should be.

And the onus now is on our regulatory agencies to earn our trust back. And you know how they can do it? By being very transparent and honest in all of their regulatory processes moving forward, and showing us very transparent, very well executed, extremely well designed scientific studies to back up their products. That's what I say. Uh-uh.

Well, explain one more thing they they need to do. You admit where you went wrong, you explain how you went wrong, and you explain the steps you've taken so that you don't do that again. Right. And, also, you know, the very first thing that Health Canada should have done is they should have hauled Pfizer in and said, how did the SV 40 promoter get deleted from those charts that you gave us? How do you explain that?

You know, this is like the first move is is just just to say, hey. How did this happen? Nobody's asking that question. Is nobody's asking the question. Right?

Congress isn't asking it. Health Canada's not asking it. The New York Times isn't asking it. Nobody's asking that question. I'd love to ask Pfizer that question, but they never return my calls for some reason.

Steve, did you did you see the interview with Freeman, in the FDA? Yes. I did. And I talked with Joe after after I saw that. I think that was it on doctor Drew that that they, they aired that.

Right? And he should Yes. Yeah. So an interesting detail on that is that they they they only consider the adverse events they saw in process 1 as being things that they will then correlate with process 2 to adverse events. Right?

So if they had a different process 1 that didn't have endotoxin or plasmid in it and they get some set of symptoms, may maybe for some reason, menstruation doesn't show up in there. I doubt it, though. I bet it did. They then move forward with process 2, get a host more adverse events, but they can write them all off saying, well, we didn't see him in the first process, so we're not gonna count him in the second. Correct.

That's a made people's goal. They have to get rid of that. That's a disaster. Correct. I to totally agree.

And and we're we're just just to give people context, I think we're talking about this. There was an episode of doctor Drew. Joe Freeman was was on doctor Drew. He revealed that he had a recording of a conversation that his team did with the FDA. His team the the short story is his team spoke he spoke with his team after the call, and the team was absolutely appalled at how the FDA, does science.

Is that fair is that a fair recap? Yes. Yeah. They they they were not, they were breaking all their own rules. It's it seemed as if it was obvious that you have to correlate adverse events in in in a certain way, and they were basically saying, we're not gonna do it the obvious way.

We're gonna do some type of observational thing that we can fudge later. And it was it's worth it was worth watching. It was just a train wreck. Yeah. Yes.

It it was it's very it it was definitely highly recommended. If you wanna understand how the FDA works, watch that doctor Drew episode with Joe Freeman. That's insane to me. That's like saying, you know, we drop somebody off a stepladder on the moon, and we saw a certain number of injuries, and those are the only ones we look for when you drop people off of stepladders on the earth. Yeah.

Totally. You know? It's But but they justify it, Chris. Chris, the way they justify it is they say that, look. You know, the the the the first, process 1 was done in a randomized trial, so we could identify what the real signals were from the fake signal.

So when you see process 2, since we didn't have a randomized trial, we really can't assess whether those things were real signals or not because we don't have a control group. That's essentially backed up in warped science. Right? Yes. Warp science.

Yes. Yes. And also, Kevin or Steve, remember that's after they've removed, people from the study like Mady De Gey because they were outliers and didn't meet the Oh, right. Right. No.

Requirements for inclusion in the safety data. Right? Right. And this this this, reanalysis paper that was published in, in in this journal, peer reviewed journal recently where they reanalyzed the this is a bunch of people, associated, doctor, Naomi Wolf's team, and they basically found that with the same thing I did, and and I think, you know, Chris realizes as well, is that there were way too many wait. Sorry.

Way too few deaths reported from the 22,000 in each cohort, and they ex they pointed out the same thing I did is if you do a if these were truly representative real people, they would have died at a much higher rate, like, 5 times higher rate than they actual based on mortality rate was wrong? Died. Yeah. Based on normal mortality rates. And so they said, oh, yeah.

Yeah. About 80% of the people who died were lost to follow-up. And I'd also was but by my understanding, did the paper also disclose, Steve, there was also a something wrong with the timing as well that there was there was this, this odd nonrandom clustering of deaths as well? Because like you said Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. You expect a certain a certain natural mortality. And with natural mortality, you also expect a certain amount of randomness, but there was a lack of randomness is my understanding as well in the reported deaths. Yeah.

And, well, it was, like, 33.7 times higher cardiac events in the treatment group versus the placebo group as one of the things that they they discovered for Yeah. You know, Steve? Yeah. So it I'll tell you a quick story directly related to that. Myself and several Canadian colleagues found that as well, and we we put together this manuscript.

Right? I still have the manuscript. I tried publishers I tried publishing this a long time ago. We made those observations. We made the observations about the the red flag with the cardiac stuff.

Because, you know, if you, where they put all this data, right, they kind of hid it in their supplementary data. Right? Very few people. Like, when you have the physicians the average physician, when they're quoting when they go to quote a paper, they they pull up the paper. They look at the abstract.

They might look at the concluding paragraph. That's it. They don't look at supplementary data. We look there. And, yeah, you're absolutely right.

There were more cardiac deaths, and there was no all cause mortality benefit whatsoever. Right? Never mentioned in the abstract. Yeah. Yeah.

Exactly. So but so we published a paper outlining all of these anomalies, and and so was I I was so glad to see this paper recently published. It was also frustrating because we could not get one single journal to send, basically, the same findings. Right? A year and a half ago, we we could not get the same findings to to go out to any reviewer.

No journal would send it out for review. It was considered far too controversial. But to me, this is showing. Right? Things are shifting because things that were not allowed to be published, even reviewed for potential publishing a year and a half ago, now are and I think that's because the scientific journals are also recognizing if they wanna maintain any sets of integrity, right, and the eyes of scientists who are looking to publish, they better start allowing the real data to come out.

And Steve, what what are the odds that these journal publishers know somebody who's been harmed or killed? Oh, gotta be super high. There's, you know, there's no way. You know? Pretty much everybody is is, not and, I mean, maybe not everybody, but the it is very high.

Yeah. And and the Pfizer advertising dollars are probably plummeting. I mean, I'm I'm in Massachusetts, and I'm hearing of layoffs. So that means they're you know, the the advertisement and the when we launched the solid system, the sequencer, back then in, like, 2008, it was, like, $10,000 a page for a full page ad in science. Right?

These guys have, you know, tons of pages in those magazines all year round. So there's a lot of money coming in from the advertisers into these journals that, I'm sure is starting to be, you know, thinned out a little bit with the the stock compression going on with both of the both of the companies. Yeah. Kevin makes a good point, Steve. I I also just read of, hundreds of people being laid off at Pfizer.

And I wonder what those people think having supported Pfizer so much over the past few years and and their their success and everything. It might be interesting if you could round up some of these Pfizer employees are being let go now. They might potentially have some interesting stories to tell. I I hey. I'm I'm I'm here.

You know? There's a contact me link, on my my Twitter, on my pitter twinned pit my I guess it's x now, my pinned tweet on x, and people can contact me, that way. But speaking of the press and and, and stories, have so let's start with FDA, CDC, WHO, EMA, Health Canada, have any of these health authorities contacted any of you guys about this, especially Kevin? Because Kevin was the one who who spotted it initially. Have have have any regulatory authority ever contacted you and say, hey, Kevin.

We'd like to have a briefing and no. No. No. It's been it's been a flurry of fact checkers calling with demands that I answer them in 48 hours or 24 hours. And here are all the accusations they have of why why this work is wrong.

There's even one group funded by the Wellcome Trust that wrote a whole article on why, DNA gets degraded so quickly in inside of the inside of a body that it never gets into a cell. So they completely just omitted the fact that, hey. These could be in the LMPs and get and and and the whole thesis of their argument of the article was was gone, And the article is really long. It's like, it took this person more time to write the article than to go run the DNase experiment that we did to prove her wrong. You know, so and then she's funded by Wellcome Trust.

They have more DNase than I could ever dream of. Right? So I was gonna say you're you're fortunate, Kevin. If you were given 24 to 48 hours, I was often given 3 hours. I will often receive an email in 1 in the afternoon, and the deadline was 5.

Yes. Yeah. And and and you probably learned this too that when you do, get provide them with robust answers and and lots of robust primary scientific data, Miraculously, those fact checks never get published. No. It never gets into the it's the same thing that's happened to me, Byron.

What a coincidence. I I fact checked the fact checkers in in 3 separate ones. I did Reuters, AP, and and Politico. And every one of these fact checkers, when you dig down, they were formerly a journalism and student at Brown. They like, there's no science.

Like, none of them have any science background whatsoever. No. Never. Some of them have needs to to to I mean, I know Reuters, there's I think they share a board member with Pfizer. Right?

I think that the CEO of Reuters is on on the board of Pfizer. Yeah. Yeah. And then some of the fact check checkers, you you dig into their their their funding, and it's, you know, the one was, I think, health feedback, who used to be, like, climate feedback. So they were in the the climate change grift and moved into this.

So they're you know? Never never never take health advice from a Malthusian. Right? It's it's a it's a bad idea. But Yeah.

Yeah. Sadly sadly, though, just to share with you guys, because I've been called as an expert witness in a quite a number of, court cases that are related to COVID 19. And sadly, those fact checks come up prolifically in court. It's it's sad how much influence they have on the court process. Oh, yeah.

One of the biggest early ones from from AP was by, Dupuy, Beatrice Dupuy. Right? Formerly, fashion editor at Teen Vogue. Right? There you go.

That was her that was her other Totally qualified. Totally qualified. Yeah. So so I've taken the habit of just post the stuff online and answer it before they have a chance to even read your response. That way, everyone sees the transparency.

Here's the email. Here's my response. Here's what yeah. Here's what I sent. No one can answer it.

I do. Are you not hiding anything? So let me just summarize. In the entire world, not a single health authority from anywhere in the entire world has contacted any of you guys to ask for more information to discuss this, explain it, whatever. We want to hear your point of view.

No. I even brought it to the FDA and presented it with the 4 minutes they gave me at their Virbac meeting back in June, and they immediately ignored it and moved on to the x b b 1.5, you know, fear point they had to they had to perform. Yes. Well, the same thing happens to all of us who present at FDA meetings. It is like talking into a black hole.

The only advantage is that the public watches it, and so you can communicate with the public. But it appears that none of the members of any of these committees is ever listening to anything that is said by the public at any of these public speaking opportunities at their meetings. But they tell me here in Canada all the time, the FDA does, that, they use that to tell me that they've done lots of public consultation. Yes. That seems like a very good thing to me.

Yes. Yes. And and you couldn't tell it from any of the questions or any of the remarks happening after any of these public sessions because it nothing that is ever said in any of the public sessions is ever integrated into a question or a discussion or even a remark from any of the participants in any of the panels. I have never seen an exception to that rule. Okay.

So let's talk about the press though, because I asked you, have has anyone from any of the public health authorities asked talked to you guys and reached out to you? Surely, surely, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and all the mainstream media. These guys must be hammering you, Kevin. Your phone must be ringing off the hook because they want to talk to you about this story and the significance of what you found. No.

I've I've been getting, the alternative media. Yes. So, you know, whether it's for Rebel News or Epic Times or, you know, Jan Jan picked it up. Peter McCullough picked up picked this up. You you have on your vaccine network, the the safety or research, group that you have, Steve.

But, no. I'm not I'm not seeing anything from from any of the the the legacy, dinosaur media. Chris or, Byram? Any contact? So, Yeah.

By the way, I I I I always struggled with that term, Kevin. So I've actually switched it now. I I've got my my own term I use. I call it integrity media. So so so yeah.

I've been contacted by by some integrity Media, but no others. And, again, I just want I just wanna highlight for your listeners just how egregious Who who are you contacted by? We we we we have we have state funded, media in our country as well. It's known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. And this but this is what amazes me because I could maybe you could understand in the United States why why they they might not.

But there's no excuse in Canada right, like, at this moment because, like I said, I can't emphasize this enough. 2 days ago, it was revealed. Health Canada themselves saying that that Pfizer duped them. Right? I I mean, that's exactly what they said.

Pfizer duped them. News. You would think that that your your national keep you know, major, tax funded news agency would wanna make sure every Canadian knew. Because guess what? If if if Health Canada was duped, then every Canadian was duped.

Right? They have not mentioned it at all, and they have had several days now to do so. To me, it's absolutely, you know, egregious. And, it's I mean, we're lost. Parliament?

That that was was it Andrew Briggans' work in parliament? Did you see his talk on, Thursday or Friday? He brought up all the excess mortality. It was empty. It was a completely vacant chamber.

Yeah. Yeah. Anytime. Any any, MP does that. Right?

Anywhere, in the world, it seems they're talking to an empty, parliament. But, hey, in Canada I mean, I don't know if you saw. I mean, our our our yeah. Yeah. If anybody talks about that in parliament, it'll be empty.

But I don't know if you saw, but our entire parliament gave a a a genuine Nazi a standing ovation, a few weeks ago, you know. I did notice that. I did I saw that. But They were all present to give him a standing ovation. My goodness.

And and and and and and the trucker poor truckers for the Freedom Convoy were literally labeled as terror as terrorists. And now we got the Hamas going on. And I don't know if you guys saw as well, but literally an email was found circulating through our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation saying you cannot call Hamas terrorists, but they could call our truckers terrorists. Canada's lost people, folks. I'm telling you.

You have the best chance in the US right now of seeing us out of this complete and utter disaster. Who is the standing ovation for? I forget his name, but, we we we our our whole parliament host host hosted Zelensky, right, from the Ukraine. And, yeah. And they introduced a a fellow who, and he he I forget his name, but he yeah.

He's so what happened is interesting in history because they switched their name. The name of his unit, it was a Nazi unit for the SS. Right? German SS. They switched their name at the end of the war to the Ukrainian division to hide the fact that they were this Nazi division, And so our every parliamentarian stood up to gave him a standing ovation in our parliament.

Meanwhile, history shows that the regiment that he served with, not only was it a Nazi regiment, but in a couple of different countries, actually fought fought and killed Canadian soldiers. Yep. The actual Nazi. That was Jaroslav Hunka. Right?

He was a it was a little bit embarrassing on that that old thing. Hey, Steve. I can answer your question. In my in in the 3 plus years now that I've been doing this COVID coverage, I've never been contacted by Legacy Media once. Wow.

Not once. How about by fact checkers? They come along from time to time, and I've had hit pieces, of course. You know? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. That's it. Let's let's talk about these, these test kits, Kevin. You know, because with the first thing that these were after stopping the after putting a halt on the vaccine, the first thing that these regulators should be doing after that, after saying, look.

Okay. You know, put the brakes on. No more vaccines until we investigate. The next thing they should be doing is investigating and finding out what the heck is going on, but they're not doing any investigations at all. Right?

But you are. You, Kevin McKernan, private citizen private US citizen Kevin McKernan is basically offering test kits. You had 500 test kits for pathologists. It's the there already been, 6 labs that have been ordering your test kits. And Yeah.

These test kits are We actually have more if, where we need to scale it scale it up. But, basically, we were supplying people with our own stocks, and we bled those out after all the demand showed up, giving them around to to labs. And they're mostly testing vaccines just to see if there's a vaccine problem. But now that everyone sees that's real, a a larger demand has been coming in for looking at the blood supply, looking at monocytes, looking at sperm, looking at all types of tissues. So, we're just in the process now of trying to scale that up so we can get, test kits out to to people with CLIA labs and can do human subject research.

We we that's where our limits stop. We used to have a CLIA license. We don't anymore, so we can't do human subject research here. But there's plenty of labs out there that can, And, there's a lot of, you know, patients knocking on our door that we're trying to push that direction to people who are cap accredited and CLIA accredited to to run, testing on on, on on biopsies, if you will. But, yeah, I'm not holding my breath that the government's gonna run and do this.

I mean, this is like them investigating. I mean, it's the NIH. This is our job. The public's job is the is to protect the public. It's not the it's not the CDC's job.

The CDC's job is to inject you. It's the public's, it's our individual job to go and find out how serious this is, by by testing, blood. And so this is simple blood test. You just get a blood blood draw, and your and the test and you test the monocytes, in the in the blood. And also look at more than just more than just blood, but that's Right.

That's an obvious I know. I know. That but that's the easiest. That's that's the that's the simplest and easiest. We should look at saliva and and sperm and other things that that don't require a needle.

So there's that that's there's other noninvasive ways that may then may show up, but we don't know yet. Right. Yeah. I I was gonna say you you you're right, Steve. What what what you've recognized basically is the the new medical principle that we are have adopted, right, which is the inverted precautionary principle.

That's the formal name. And and also I would point out that The inverted precautionary principle. Yeah. Kev Kevin has has raised another good point. Again, that I agree with 100%, and I never really thought about it from though from a, from a policy perspective.

Right? This is yet I mean, why they haven't already, because of because of the demonstration of pre flow floating spike protein, the long term, the long lasting survival of the, modified RNAs, etcetera, this adds another kink to it. Right now, we have contaminating plasma DNA, including with the Pfizer shots, component that was never disclosed and definitely is not supposed to be there. Clear so like you said, clear clearly these are adulterated. We need there needs to be, a ban on using blood from people who have received these shots, right, from our blood suppliers.

Because and and and to me, that that again is very simple research if they would just acknowledge it. Right? I what what we need to do is we need to get to get those who provide blood, you know, services for hospitals and surgeries, etcetera. Right? The transfusions and so on.

We need them to look at do it like they do for anything else where the blood supply might be It's a screening. It's a screening. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.

Screen. Exactly. Just screen so as I say screen for the the vaccines, the components thereof, which would now include this plasmid DNA, and what I call the the derivative or derivatives. In this case, because the spike protein isn't in there, I call that a derivative. Right?

It gets produced. It's like a prodrug. Right? It gets produced in the body after it goes in. So that needs to be included.

Spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, modified RNA, and now add to the list, bacterial plasma DNA, and you monitor it in the blood over time. And just like anything else, you determine what's the washout period. The now the scary thing for me is that washout period might be very long. Right. But we need to determine it.

Like, how long might it be, Byron? I'm not and the research I wanna say again. The research is very easy and simple to do and inexpensive. Let's do the research, and then I'll be able to tell you. Well, we have all the the in the cell paper, the germinal centers had, detectable mRNA 60 days post.

That's as far out as they looked. Yeah. But, again, they'll argue that that's the germinal centers and not the blood. Right? As long as it's sequestered in other tissues.

You guys have been out of plasma. Alright? And then the spike protein lasts even longer. Didn't Patterson find it out, like, past 200 days or something? I think it's Yeah.

Like what? Over a year, I believe. Yeah. I know. I know.

I think it could it could be pretty scary. That a lot. Yeah. I guess my point is I don't think it's a washout period that washout period might make it. If you imagine if you start proposing a washout period that could become 100 of days for a blood supply where the vast majority of your population, right, has got these shots.

That would, that would be devastating to the medical industry. But but we have to start having these hard conversations. Right? People, again, it's about 4% doing the research. Right?

It's a yeah. It's about a 4% I mean, if somebody's happy to receive blood that's contaminated with bacterioplasmid spike or whatever, fine. But at least allow people to know. Right. Yeah.

So so I wanted to ask about this quantitative PCR to detect DNA, but a fluorometry to measure RNA that manufacturers had managed to mislead the regulators regarding the presence of DNA in the vials. Do you think that is deliberate, Kevin? You know what I'm talking about. Right? Do you think it's deliberate?

Yeah. Anyone who uses these tools knows that this occurs, and so, so for the audience who's not familiar with this, if you go through the EMA's, documents that Pfizer disclosed, they use some technologies to measure the RNA because they're they're held to an RNA DNA ratio in the EMA, which is different than the FDA. The FDA just has a total amount of nanograms of DNA, but the EMA has a ratio. And so they measure the RNA using a technique using UV spec or fluorometry, which vastly elevates the amount of RNA you have. And then they use quantitative PCR, which only measures specific pieces of DNA.

It's very, very specific, and and you get log scales less DNA using this. So by by being able to cherry pick these different tools, you can present the regulators whatever you want. And this is what we tried to display in our most recent paper is that we showed, hey. Here's the quantity of PCR number. They're under the limit.

And if you put them on the fluorometer that that Pfizer was using we don't know the exact instrument they're using, but they use ribobrine, which is a dye that we're really familiar with. If you put on that, it's a 100 fold higher. Right. So, if you wanna basically choose your own adventures to the regulations, let them just pick different tools. Now the the interesting thing about this is is if you had to design quantitative PCR to measure the amount of DNA, you have the primers you need to measure it, the RNA with RT PCR, yet they didn't do that.

And that would be the more logical thing to do is to measure the RNA and the DNA with the same damn tools so you're normalized. You have you can measure that the the RNA with qPCR. You can measure with RT qPCR. You measure the DNA with qPCR. Yes.

The RT PCR gives you RNA and DNA together, and you the the the, the qPCR gives you only DNA. Those that's all you need to sort this problem out. And what they did instead is they said, we don't like that answer, so we're gonna inflate the RNA with the fluorometer and then sneak in this qPCR for the DNA. That way, there's a huge spread and we pass the test. Correct.

So the point is that they gained the whole, way that they tested in order to pass the test so they could say, oh, look. It's de minimis. Yeah. And that's and and that's happening, I I think, across the board, that they're they're approaching the regulators with, okay. You have a limit here.

We're gonna find a test that gives us the lowest answer possible and and then give you the data. Now the second thing to know is when they give data to a regulator, the data the regulators just look at it and go, okay. Did you pay your user fee? Okay. We believe the data.

Give me the user fee. There there there's no actual they don't actually test it. They just they just say, okay. We've well, you have this unpaid. We never believe you.

Thank you very much. And So so so you know what, Steve? You're making me very mad and from same reason why Byron brought up. I'm a scientist. I care.

And what you this is just such a perversion. Right? But I was getting really annoyed when we lost the ability to define herd immunity and suddenly vaccines. We didn't know what those meant anymore, and we couldn't distinguish between a case and an infection. Like, every step of the way, this thing I love, which is science, which is based on a shared understanding, Reality is hard enough without making it harder.

And they're just taking all the stuff that we this is captured territory that we just gave up. Right? The ability to understand things in common because we use standards and references that that's captured territory. I'm just yeah. Sorry.

That's my editorial for the moment. It's yeah. Yeah. And I wanted I wanted to over overlay something on this. What what, Kevin?

I I wish we could, like, take that clip of Kevin. Just just answer your question there, Steve. And show that in every court case related to COVID 19 as an example of this is this is what a real expert looks like. Why? Because what happens is I've observed this so much in court, and it drives me absolutely stark raving mad because everybody the whole thing about court cases, right, is who is the expert?

How do you determine who the expert is? What's their limitations on the expert? Right? Are we gonna qualify this person on an expert as an expert? And the courts, right, being laypersons, they they just see something.

They see that that the EMA data, like you were just asking about Steve. Right? Like, the the Kevin was asking. They said, well, look. The EMA is showing that this is just fine.

Right? But the real act and then and then you have the fact checkers and everybody else who then keep citing that and quoting that. But then you have Kevin McKernan, right, who can break down the methodology and explain exactly why those data are are not trustworthy. Right? And it takes it over to the realm of we have to stop in our court saying, oh, the EMA said this.

Right? Who is the EMA? What who exactly and how exactly? And that's what I keep trying to get to people. Your real experts are the ones who don't just read the abstracts and the concluding paragraph.

They're the ones who actually read the materials and methods section, which is dry and boring and difficult to go through, but but because they understand the methods and then they are the ones who then assess based on if the appropriate methods are used, the data can then be trustworthy. And then you still have to evaluate the raw data, not the interpreted version. But like Kevin has pointed out, if you're using the wrong methods, there is the the data are wrong, which means the conclusions are wrong, which means the people who are quoting the final line in the abstract are wrong. You're honestly, if we if our courts work this way, I would love that, Kevin. We could just package that up and before every court case starts, show that what you just did with Steve there, right, to the judges.

This is how you identify a real expert in court. Yes. If we if if only. Happy to help. Thank you.

Appreciate the compliments. But, I this is what I do every day, so and I think anyone else who's in genomics knows this. Like, if you if you wanna get a really elevated number for a manuscript, use UV Spec and a fluorometer. If you wanna get a really conservative estimate, use coopcr. So it's, these are And if you're not a rocket scientist, you mix both.

Yes. Yeah. Exactly. If you work for a drug company, you need to use both. 1 for this and the other one for that.

Yeah. So long since I, was, you know, since I went public with the biodistribution data for Pfizer's shots. And but just to brought to my attention, Kevin, a fact check that I that happened way back then where they were arguing, look, here's a peer reviewed publication showing this guy is wrong, showing that, that the that these shots stay in the muscle and the local and only go to local lymph node. And I you know what? I went to that paper, Kevin.

So this is two and a half years later. I saw this, and I went to that paper. And you know what it was? It was a different vaccine, first of all, altogether. And and and get this, Kevin, Chris, and Steve, do you know what tissues they looked at to look at the biodistribution?

They looked in the muscle, a muscle biopsy, and the local lymph node. They didn't even look at any other tissues. So it's easy to conclude. It only goes to those two places. If you only look in those two places, they can't Only look if you, And your listeners have to understand, Steve, because I honestly think that they're very confused.

Right? We hear all these experts on one side saying something. We hear all these experts on this side. Who the heck do I listen to? Well, you listen to the people who can explain the science just like Kevin did.

Absolutely. You know, and and, this reminds me that I first heard about, what was going on with these, vaccines, because I was on a, CCC call with, Byram. And Byram was all excited that day, and he was saying, hey. I just got these results, back from the Japanese government, and it shows that the shots don't remain in the arm like like we thought. The the biodistribution is huge.

It caused all reproductive organs and and all this, and this is this is kind of what what really lit a fire under me. And once he told me that, then I called up, Robert Malone and got Malone involved in this, and, you know, things kicked off. We went on, Brett Weinstein's, Dark Horse podcast and and and, of sort you know, the rest is history there. But it was Byram that was, really the spark, that really got me started when when he discovered that information, from the, Japanese, regulator that Pfizer had given, to the Japanese regulator that he had gotten under, FOIA. But the other thing I wanna mention is that it was Byram also that pointed out to me that, hey.

We have adult or we have contamination here, and and then he pointed out this this Michigan case where the, the contamination of the, of remdesivir, says that, hey. You're liable for that. And so it was Byram actually that got me to, to write that. Basically, that was the impetus for me writing the tweet saying because I checked with the lawyers, and they said, yeah. He's right.

That, he's correct, that this is this is, and I talked to to Rob Malone. He said, yeah. This is this is called adulteration. That's the the term that you should use, and he agreed. And so this is what led to this tweet that now has, I don't know, 4000000, 5000000, views.

It'll probably be a lot more by the time most people are are reading this. And so I wanna I wanna credit, Byram again for not only getting me started in this, but also as really the he had the insight because he knew about that Michigan case, and he knew about the contamination. He put sort of 22 together. And, of course, Kevin, you know, for his spectacular work in in in finding this and and always wanna credit Chris because he's just such a a conveyor of truth and and knows how to communicate these discoveries to people in a way that they can understand. I mean, all you guys are are awesome, but I I I definitely wanted to to make a call out to to Byron because he was really the, impetus and and inspiration, for that that tweet that I I I put out yesterday.

Well well, thank thank you, Steve. But but I I I I told this David speaker who who's, you know, my my very close colleague who's been working very closely with Kevin and and to confirm what Kevin has been finding. And I said to this this to David the other day, and I said it, about him and Kevin, that the to me, so when when to me, the the biggest wake up call, you know, prior was seeing that biodistribution. Right? And a lot of people thought, you know, like, it wasn't like the biodistribution itself was novel to me.

It was the fact that we were told that I was publicly told that wasn't happening, and then it was. And and we were told there were proprietary aspects of these shots that couldn't be disclosed. So I thought, okay, one of those proprietary aspects is they've somehow found a way to tweak these lipid nanoparticles so they no longer get distributed through the body. But the reality is, I've been following this technology, and in the almost 2 decades leading up to it, they'd always been disseminated broadly. So it was that that what was to me was remarkable was the the obvious lying, and that was a big wake up call.

But to me, this is this is very different. To me, when I saw Kevin's data and especially with the work that he did with David, to me, this was the second big whoopsie moment. Right? Whoops. This is a big whoopsie.

And I I I say this is a bigger whoopsie because the other stuff they could write off in certain ways, but this is a huge whoopsie now where we have a major world health regulatory agency saying we have confirmed this whoopsie. And it is a whoopsie. That we're doing that. And and, you know, and to have that now, and this to me is the first time I believe, like like like we've had all these shocking, revelations. But to me, this is a revelation that, and all right should it should be the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned for these shots and you're getting in a worldwide moratorium until the science to catch up because who couldn't argue now?

Like, that's why I I I point out, like, if you're gonna start like, you you you could call Kevin, a misinformation spreader. You call Chris that, you, Steve, and me. But now they have to call Health Canada. Like Health Canada has basically said Kevin McKernan is absolutely correct. Right?

So they have to call them a misinformation spreader now, and they've been pushing these shots as hard as anybody, including your FDA and CDC. So to me, this is huge. This yeah. Kevin has found the biggest whoopsie. That is gonna be the hardest for every for the all the people pushing this narrative to shoot down.

We've gotta push this forward. Right. It has to this has to end it. I mean, if anything is gonna end it, I mean, this is the biggest nail in the coffin right now. This has to end it.

Right? You guys agree? It's over? I agree. I've told Dave David speaker again, and he gives all credit to to Kevin as well because Kevin was a scupper, and and he's been, working with Kevin on this.

But in terms of David's context here in Canada now, I've nicknamed I've nicknamed this, work that he's just done with his preprinted article that everything. It's it's, it's the classic David versus Goliath. And, again, his name's David Speaker, so that's where I've come up with that. Yeah. He's, he's got diamond hands too, and he deserves plenty of credit because, you know, what we did is in a vacuum, and there's no reason for him to believe it until it reproduces.

In this circumstance, with the way peer review is behaving, where everything is getting rejected, this would have never got reproduced if people didn't step up to to do it. And the people who step up to do this second get less credit usually and and just take just as much risk. So David is it's David's in the limelight for good reason because, he he he he's, he stepped into fire where he knew it was gonna be. When I ran into this, it was an accident. I didn't know that I was stepping into this, the horseshit, if you will.

He willingly did, and that's a that's a that's a it takes a little bit more courage than what I had to, run into. Chris, what do you what's it it it it is this is this it? Is it going is this the beginning of the end here? Are they gonna is the FD what do you think is gonna? So so let me ask you.

What do you think is going to so and and we should make this the last question because we've been been here for, close to 2 hours now. But here's here's the here's the question, is what is your prediction for what is going to happen? What is the FDA gonna do? What is the CDC gonna do? What is the New York Times going to do?

What is CNN gonna do? You know, like and what is mainstream medicine gonna do? So the three thing, mainstream media, mainstream medicine, and the mainstream medical authorities. Predictions. Kevin, we'll start with you.

What do you think will happen? I think media will ignore it. Medicine will quietly, stop administering these, and what was the third one? The regulators? Yeah.

The regulators. I think the regulators may take this opportunity at the circskate patch. Hey. You didn't tell us about this. It's time to throw Pfizer under the bus.

See how it's throw Pfizer under the bus. And what about the lawmakers? That's the 4th one. I think the lead the the lawyers are gonna go crazy with this. The lawmakers know that I know congress People in congress.

Oh. Oh. Will they investigate? Will they call for hearings, or will they they just ignore this? I have a feeling there there there will be other distractions that continually emerge to take the attention in congress off of this, whether it be Israel, Ukraine, or something else.

I think I think they wanna wash their hands on this, so I don't know. Maybe. Electing a speaker, like, for example. Okay. Byram, 4 4 different, 4 different Yeah.

So I I agree. I don't have anything to add to what Kevin said, in terms of those four specific things. All that it that it will put on top of it is if the the these organizations that do not respond to this and do not take it seriously will lose a lot of public support and a lot of public respect and deservedly so. Absolutely correct. Chris, you think the FDA is gonna gonna pull the plug on the vaccines?

What do you think for regulators, congress, media, and doctors? They will they will ignore this as long as possible because that's what they've been doing. I believe, however, that there is real blood in the water this time. And for that, I have to put on my market hat, looking at the stock prices of Moderna and Pfizer. There's some big money sneaking out the back door on those, and and they usually know what's going on.

So I think there's real trouble here. There's clearly, there's been, some willful acts have been committed. And, you know, I I don't take this from the from the data side. I love the data. Data is necessary but insufficient.

We have to you have to win the the mind share. So that's this common knowledge game again. So the prediction is that they'll ignore it, but when they don't all of a sudden, it's gonna be so fast. The media and politicians are in the same crowd for me. They are the least bold people on the planet.

You know, Congress will grab the flag and run up the hill for, like, the last step, you know, after Right. After everybody else has already done the work, you know, and then claim credit. Right? So so once the winds have shifted, I think watch out, because I do believe that that there's a huge amount of pent up energy because everybody knows somebody who's been injured or killed by these things at this point. Yep.

And that's that's devastating. Yes. So I'll make a prediction. I you know, I'll I'll I I I'm gonna guess that basically nothing's gonna happen. They're going to ignore this, but we're going to continue to do the research.

And as soon as we show that this stuff integrates into your DNA, the shit will hit the fan, and then it will be. Then everybody will go and try to say, yes. Let's get them, and everyone's gonna go on the offensive against everybody else. The FDA will say, no. How we didn't know.

We were told by experts. Congress, we didn't know. We were told by experts, and everybody will shift over to supporting this, and they will put the blame on everybody else. What do you think? Yeah.

Well, there's there is one concern I have with, so I do think you had a tweet the other day, Steve, that, oh, the you know, no one's gonna no one's gonna investigate this. I actually think the NIH will fund something like this because they have $400,000,000 of royalty on the line, and the conclusions will be written ahead of time. So we do have to be aware of that. That that if this does if the tide turns, who are we gonna trust to do this work? It can't be the people who have conflicts in in this.

No way. No way. No. And and if they do if they do and they try and publish that stuff That's really gonna bite them in the butt. Yeah.

Yeah. Because, I I think they'll have great difficulty doing so, and encountering countering this story. You know, approximate origins. Making it obvious in their experimental designs. Yeah.

Proximate origins is a perfect example of how they, you know, continue to, to climb. In fact, my friend, Sar Wolf, who's who's paid me half a1000000 on the on the COVID vaccines, he he's got a bet going with a guy who's who believes that the who believes, natural origin story. So SARS says there's no way this is natural origins. And, and so they've got a $100,000 bet, going. Well, it's a 200,000 100100 grand on each side on that one.

But, you know, yeah, they've been keeping that going. And, of course, you know, that vaccines don't cause autism and and all these other, myths, that have been going around for for decades and get decades. I mean, they're gonna keep this thing going for as long as they can, but I think the shit's gonna hit the fan pretty soon. That's my prediction. Excellent.

Well, I've gotta get back to you. Words? Okay. So Any last words? I I so last words, Kevin, Byram, and Chris.

Yeah. Give us if if anyone's interested in screening patients or interested in these PCR tools, contact me. You can find me on Twitter or on my substack at, nipedalactone newsletter. And What what what what is the best way to contact you to to to get the kits? Kevin.mccernan@medicinal genomics.com or or hit me up on Twitter.

1 of the 1 of the 2. And, we'll, eventually have them up on our website. But right now, it's early stage, so we don't have them on our website. But, there, there's there's been a backlog of demand. We just got a large lot in, so I think we can satisfy some of that.

But we we wanna understand if, there's, there's other areas that that that need this for, you know, like the blood supply. Like, you guys brought up as an important point, to screen that, then we have tools for it. So, that's what I'm running off to do is I gotta go check on some of these loss that just came in, and, I think that's the next step. We just gotta see where is it. And, if it's nowhere, then we move on, but we should fix the regulatory structure that allowed this to happen because it'll happen again.

But if we find it, then we have a group of people that probably need to be sequenced very deeply to see if there's an integration event. Just finding the signal and PCR, step 1, that it could be episomal. It may not be integrated. But we we first need to screen patients that are that that, are are of of concern. And if they're positive on this PCR test, then those will be candidates for sequencing.

But with that, I'll pass it off. Thanks, man. For for me, I'd say, great seeing you, Chris and Kevin and Steve. Thanks for, all your advocacy and making sure that honest, truthful science gets disseminated as far and wide as possible. Thank you, Byron.

Likewise. And and thanks thanks to everybody on this call. You've all been tireless, perhaps none more so than Steve. True bulldog in this and just keeping at it when most other all other humans would have given up. So thanks for keeping on it.

A lot of appreciation for what everybody's brought here. So I'll do what I can to communicate it, and, just great work, everybody. Yep. Excellent. Well, thank you all for, for being here and taking the time out of your day to, to chat with me about it and and talk about these issues.

It's it's super important. Thank you so much. Alright. Everybody. Bye, everyone.