Discover more from Nepetalactone Newsletter
dsDNA variance in Pfizer Docs
Detractors are Reaching
As labs begin to reproduce the qPCR data on the vaccine contamination we should be aware of how much variance Pfizer presented to the EMA. Detractors of our work like to point out that the vials were not straight from Pfizer and therefor cant be trusted. These same detractors appear illiterate when it comes to reading Pfizers own disclosures on the topic.
On page 100 of this EMA report we can see how much dsDNA variance Pfizer recorded in just 10 cherry picked lots provided to the EMA.
You will find Table S.4.5-9 which showcases lots that have 1ng/mg to 815ng/mg of DNA/RNA. 330ng/mg is the arbitrary limit they came up likely based on Keith Pedens work at the FDA. This limit likely did not consider the potency of this dsDNA contamination if it was packaged in an LNP. Packaged dsDNA is more potent as a gene therapy.
We now know this DNA is packaged and transfection ready. Even lower limits should be applied if the DNA is packaged in transfection ready LNPs.
Dr. Bhakdi praises this work (MGC Grim Reefer assay) as being critical for understanding the risk of the dsDNA contamination.
Even with Pfizer being able to cherry pick the data they provided to the EMA for 10 lots, they see a 1 to 815ng/mg variance. If you were to expand this study to 100 or 1000 lots, you’d likely see another order or two of magnitude variance.
I had the pleasure of explaining this to Daniel Horowitz this week on the below podcast.
I also had the the opportunity to explain this to Dr. Steven Greer and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi.
Dr. Bhakdi raised an important point. Even though the dsDNA is packaged in an LNP and contains nuclear localization sequence from SV40 promoters, the sequence doesn’t need to be localized to the nucleus for problems to occur.
He correctly points out that even cytoplasmic transfection can present risks in dividing cells. During cell division, the nucleus disassembles and exchanges cellular components with the cytosol.
A brief description of this process is here.
According to Dr. Bhakdi’s description, you do not need nuclear localization for genetic manipulation to occur as the nucleus will disassemble in dividing cells.
Many have chimed in on this topic with interesting points regarding various jurisdictional definitions of gene therapy.
To put this into perspective.
C19 qPCR would quarantine you for detection of sgRNA with a CT <40. This is viral debris being detected outside your mucosal barrier in your nose.
The dsDNA contamination in the vaccines we are seeing is at a CT of 20. This is 1 million fold higher in concentration and its being injected past your mucosal defenses.
If the pandemic were managed with a CT <20, there would be no pandemic. This in fact lines up with Denis Rancourts and John Beaudoinswork on the topic.
So the cacophony of Karen conniptions is pure hypocrisy on this topic. Their unhinged fear mongering on the virus is never calibrated to the risk of their proposed solution.
And it is not just off my a few Furgesons.
It is off by a million fold.
Now some will argue that dsDNA and viral RNA is a false equivalency since the viral RNA is replication competent. This is false. The majority of the sgRNA you are detecting in a nasal swab in your nose is NOT REPLICATION COMPETENT as shown in Jaafar et al. It is just an RNA fragment that should have lower longevity in your cells than dsDNA contaminating fragments.
Import things to consider from Keith Pedens work at the FDA.
Is C57BL6 (mice) the right model for this? These lab mice have extended telomeres and are less prone to cancer.