Fact Checker Response

Ground Hog Day

Many fact checks have been written about the DNA contamination topic and I expect many more to follow given the recent announcement from Dr. Joe Ladapo.

I have addressed these all before on various forums but I will give particular attention to one authored by Ana Benacic in protest of the Croatian Parliament presentation I gave.

Ana Argument #1.

This is an old argument addressed many times before. The fact checkers just recycle these old arguments hoping they will fool people just waking up to the topic into passively ignoring the topic for another 6 months.

This was even addressed in the Croatian Parliament presentation she is attempting to critique. Did she not watch the presentation or just not understand it? This is a theme in her Fact Check. Many arguments she makes are pre-bunked in the presentation she is critiquing but she seems unaware of this?

The Croatian presentation is condensed as time was limited but there is no excuse when these exact points are raised and she fails to address them. She is simply hoping to capture the people who won’t bother to view the Croatian Parliament video back into their comfortable echo chamber. Her arguments will not survive the attentive viewer who views both sides of this evidence.

Summary from my June 14th Nepetalactone Substack on the topic.

It appears Ana didn’t do any homework here and has just parroted other debunked retorts on this topic. This is particularly lazy given what data has emerged since June 14th.

Since this time, Dr. Phillip Buckhaults reproduced the work with vials obtained directly from Pharmacy freezers. These have no chain of custody concerns. Did she not see this viral video? Is she hoping her audience hasn’t seen it either? This was also the case with vials from Dr. David Speicher. We also presented this to the FDA VRBPAC committee. This demonstrated the vials we sequenced and analyzed did not show evidence of RNA integrity loss.

The expiration dates on the vials didn’t keep the FDA from Fiat inflating the expiration dates on vials and using them on patients. The argument over the expiration dates of the vials always backfires on these fact checkers as it only alerts the readers to the fact that expired vials were used on people.

Why is Ana still circulating these easily refuted arguments which only raise awareness to the fraud going on with the Expiration dates on the vials? Is she really not aware of the expiration date expansion so common place with these vaccines?

Ana Argument #2)

The EMA was aware of Process 1 to Process 2 switch.

“There is nothing to see here.”

This implies that Ana isn’t aware of the fact that a 252 person bioequivalency study was requested from the regulators and never delivered by Pfizer. This was discussed in the Croatian Parliament presentation with Retsef Levi’s BMJ article. You will notice, she doesn’t address this.

To distract the reader from the failure to finish and publish the 252 person equivalency study, Ana brings in an Expert.

Notice the use of

“If the DNA is well purified and checked for mutations…something can always happen… but I trust they check everything” ? (paraphrasing)

This is a particularly damaging word salad from an expert as it effectively says nothing. The process that does not amplify the DNA from the plasmid, will have more background Endotoxin around. That is a fact. It will also have more plasmid DNA around. That is a fact.

“Something can always happen” and the EMA actually is on record demonstrating the DNaseI conditions in Pfizers process is not up to spec and need further action. I suspect the ‘Expert’ Ana recruited here has not read the EMA documents to know that the DNaseI digestion was highly variable and drew much criticism from the EMA.

I agree with Mocibob here. You are not allowed to change the process so when the EMA, the FDA and Health Canada admitted to the SV40 Promoter being in the vaccine but hidden by Pfizer… They should be livid as that omission was deliberate and we have the receipts. This intent to deceive was presented in the Croatian Parliament presentation. Commercial plasmid annotation software, by default, will annotate SV40. Someone at Pfizer had to actively delete the SV40 annotation and hand in a fib to the FDA. Ana does not address this but found an expert that underscores the concerns we raised regarding fully informed regulators..ie the knowledge and permission part above seems a wee bit lacking.

So Ana argument #2 rests on the EMA being aware of this but Ana is not versed on the facts that the equivalency studies designed to assess this process change were never completed and never published. These agencies have admitted to being deceived and are now being told by the liability free Pharma that the deception is of no consequence. And they are buying this story?

Ana Argument #3)

This is a citation free assertion.

One citation Ana is lacking is that of the CEO of Moderna who filed a patent on a method to eliminate DNA from mRNA vaccines because those DNA contaminants present risks of insertional mutagenesis and cancer.

This was well described in the Croatian Parliament presentation but Ana preferred to pretend this contradicting and very damning citation didn’t exist as it blows up this argument.

You don’t have to just take Moderna’s word for it.

Lim et al has a great paper on the topic of insertional mutagenesis

So how does Ana resolve these conflicting statements? Moderna claims there is a risk. Lim et al claims there is a risk. This was all presented clearly to her in the Croatian Parliament presentation. She ignores this and finds an ‘Expert’ to say otherwise in a citation free statement! Doesn’t get anymore dishonest and lazy than that.

Next Ana goes on to make an appeal to FDA authority by citing a quote from them that acknowledges that McKernan and Buckhaults were correct. There is in fact SV40 in the Pfizer vaccine! She does this without any recognition that this admission from the FDA destroys her first argument that we used expired vials. If the vials were so expired, why did they force the FDA, the EMA and Health Canada to all agree that SV40 promoters are in the Pfizer vaccine?

The FDA makes an error here and is diverting the readers attention to there being no SV40 ‘protein’. As our Croatian Parliament presentation showed, you do not need DNA to encode for proteins for it to be a risk.

The contaminating DNA contains a 72 base pair Nuclear Targeting Sequence (Dean et al). So the FDA assumption that this DNA remains in the cytosol has been clearly pre-bunked.

To add insult to injury we also presented that some of the DNA is over 3kb in size and will code for entire proteins. In this case we have a piece of DNA detected in the vaccines highlighted in Blue on the plasmid map below that codes for the entire Neo/Kan antibiotic resistance gene and its SV40 promoter.

The FDA brings up an animal model without any discussion of what type of DNA was contaminating this experiment. Did it have SV40 promoters that have nuclear targeting sequences? Are they aware that this sequence also binds the Tumor Suppressor Gene p53?

Drayman et al demonstrate this. This was also in the Croatian Parliament presentation but was conveniently ignored by Ana?

This argument continues to claim there is no signal for genotoxicity in 100s of millions of individuals. This is an odd statement to make given very few autopsies are ever performed and there are plenty of papers linking BNT162b2 to cancer. What they really mean is that no one is looking and therefore they have plausible deniability, despite the papers above that continue to publish.

It is worth highlighting their claim that the sequence is inactive and has no functional role.

The ‘Fragments’ have a Nuclear Targeting Sequence, bind p53 and is required to drive antibiotic resistance in the plasmid. You can not make plasmids in the manufacturing process without antibiotic selection so this sequence is clearly active. If its not active, why is it there and hidden from regulators?

This statement is a flat out lie from the EMA. You cannot produce plasmids without the promoter for the antibiotic selection gene. We never claimed the whole virus was present so this is a straw man argument.

Ana then quotes the EMA admitting that the SV40 Promoters were hidden from regulators and that this deceitful conduct is justified because the sequence is non-functional. They are clearly never going to address the Nuclear Targeting literature by Dean et al or the p53 binding from Drayman et al.

Has the EMA made these measurements themselves or are they relying on liability free Pfizer to be honest? Given Pfizers history of dishonesty, this seems like a time when regulators should trust but verify.

Next up is David Gorski who refers to other Vaccines that don’t use LNPs as a proxy for safety of these vaccines. David also misquotes our work. He selectively zeros in on the qPCR data which we know and Moderna knows under estimates the quantity of DNA in the vaccines. When using fluorometry we get 10 fold higher readings. This was also explained in the Croatian Parliament presentation but Ana chose to ignore this, again.

“No evidence that these fragments can act as insertional mutagens”. Moderna’s CEO has patents that state otherwise as does Lim et al. The refutation to this argument was presented in the Croatian Parliament presentation and yet again Ana ignores what was presented and proceeds to write upon a topic that pretends this data doesn’t exist?

Yes, the DNA will enter the nucleus if it contains Nuclear Targeting Sequences. There is some suggestion of continual monitoring of this problem from the regulators but no real evidence that they do anything but ask Pfizer for some numbers on paper and automatically agree on them.

Then their ‘Experts’ are circulated to conjure up more appeals to peer review. 50% of Peer reviewed papers can’t be reproduced. Our work has been reproduced and even verified by 3 public health agencies. Peer review is irrelevant at this point as reproduction trumps peer review. The only contest is how much DNA is present and is it a clinical risk?

Why wont they just cut to the chase on the topic? Why won’t they show this data of continual monitoring and ZERO genotoxicity to end this debate? Was it performed by independent labs or are they just taking the manufacturers word on the topic?