Shoot! AI DNA V’s and Stargate will close the gap between a disastrous Warp Speed and the near future…SV40, DNA contaminants will be re-validated as anecdotal, very rare and of course safe and effective. The NYT have started the offensive already, Aluminum is good in the vaccines, next they will say SV40 and DNA cont. are good for you!
Most people's understanding of this novel vaccine type is that it works as follows:
Make mRNA coding for S protein
Make lipid nanoparticle delivery system
Profit
How it actually works from what we've uncovered:
Make mRNA coding for S protein
Make mRNA coding for mutant versions of CYP19A1 and CDKN1B in smaller amounts
Make sure that while delivery system for (1) mostly ends up in liver, most of (2) ends up in the gonads
Make sure form and quantity of additive upregulating LINE-1 reverse transcription activity makes it hard to detect among legit adjuvants
Effects from (2) integrated by (4) are recessive; mildly oncogenic effects in vaccine recipients unlikely to be noticed for many years
(5) recessive but since most of population vaccinated, in next generation female offspring have premature ovarian failure
The beef of this tip is that, in addition to the mRNA code for S spike, the vaccine vials will contain additional mRNA that codes both for a mutant version of CYP19A1 and a mutant version of CDKN1B. Both these mutant proteins are implicated in the female infertility issues.
Will Trump cure it all with mRNA personalized cancer vaccines at $500K a pop?
Is the DNA denial perhaps the evidence for the reasons why Trump is “throwing all his weight behind the mRNA technology and AI” as well as $500 billion to cure cancer and other genetic diseases?
Unless of course RFK Jr. hasn’t told him all the truth about vaccines, including the mRNA vaccines Trump himself spearheaded and proudly accepted the credit for???
It has just been announced $500K for a mRNA personalized cancer vaccine. Wow! Not bad…
When do you take it?
When you already have cancer, or when you are at “higher risk”?
The most effective inoculation model has always been to vaccinate everyone, but especially those who don’t need vaccination. So, it looks “cancer fearporn” is about to begin starting with the focus on the mRNA covid-19 vaccines that although saved millions of lives from SARS CoV-2 deadly virus with 0.2 mortality, but unfortunately in the process of saving millions of lives had some minor hiccups, like DNA contamination that may or may not lead to cancer. Since nobody can predict who of the mRNA vaccinated can develop cancer, it is best to vaccinate all those who can afford it…
What could possibly go wrong with this philanthropic effort built on safe and effective doctrine?
So, there is no escaping it now that the very notion of covid-19 vaccines DNA contamination with SV40 promoter is playing directly into the hands of Big Pharma who had been planning this situation for ages, way before the so-called covid-19 pandemic…
Now, they have a win-win situation…
Get some popcorn and a pet, sit back and watch as this nonsense unfolds…
"DeepSeek from China doesn’t seem to have drank the mRNA KoolAid. The country largely avoided the scam. "
Wait a moment, the entire US army was forced to become genetically modified and the Chinese not??? The wars go beyond the borders. Since I'm always extremely SKEPTIC about MANY things, and used the tool called WHATIF in molecular biology, here some thoughts:
No 1. remember how everything got 'made in China' across the globe?? What did it do to many?? Well ruin, contamination and complete economical dependence.
No 2. Given no 1, do you believe suddenly in a good intentions of a communist???
No 3. does AI give you food, happiness, future?
No 4. How to best even more isolate every single person in addition to what Iphones just did?? How to best isolate even every single company, bank, etc. whose work is BASED on computers???
No 5. WHATIF DeepSeek, SO CHEAP, is yet another Trojan horse???
That would be the END of this material world taken over by yet another material trash in fact. According to George Webb, DeepSeek does also DEEPdestroy, at least in connections with the current LA 'wild fires'...
Even if you have multiple computers todays Micro-Soft software immediately connects them all, including 'clouds', thus spreading the DEEPseek literally everywhere, seeking to destroy, maybe????
And there you have it.. a fact based account courtesy China’s latest gift to humanity… Deep Seek is a true wonder, defying the elitist technocrat gate established whereby creating Ai would cost Billions, the Chinese who did so, doing the project to utilise spare Processing capacity they had available… think side hustle, creating it with a collaborative team of circa 200 highly motivated and endowed with a high IQ and love of math, for less than USD$7.0millions, in the process making it open source, driving down the cost of searches to USD$0.30 per search average vs the USD$20.00+ per search the Western developers had salivated upon, no subscription required that requires payment as such.. like I said a gift to humanity… as it should be and China are nefarious, evil, not according to former Tik Tokkers especially those in the U.S who have found Chinas Little Red Book app, learning that all they’d been told about China was a lie, as they interact Gen Zers in China… the accounts and mea culpa tearful but a joy to view as you see human beings interact as human beings from differing cultures ought, with warmth, respect, a genuine desire to learn from each other… the Biden Tik Tok Congress approved on behalf of Israel, Tik Tok ban a massive own goal, the excuse of China spying a complete crock of 💩… serves them right, try selling the next War against China… not a hope now, 170million Americans registered the Red Book App … can’t see many of them or theirs volunteering to shoulder arms against Chinese… as it needs to be.. just saying
I know that some people will freak, thinking that AI will be the death of truth. Nope, it won't. DeepSeek has turned the tables. It means that anyone will have the ability to utilize AI very inexpensively since the product(s) will be open source that can operate on cheap, even old hardware. It has leveled the playing field. Will there be some kind of AI war? Sure in the short term because it scares the shit out of the elite psychopaths. Average Joes globally can access this powerful technology getting accurate answers to any question.
What are the hazards associated with injection 50-500B SV40 promoters wrapped in LNPs?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The potential hazards associated with injecting 50-500B SV40 promoters wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) would depend on several factors, including the biological function of the SV40 promoter, the delivery method, and the cellular response. Here are the key risks:
1. Oncogenic Potential
SV40 (Simian Virus 40) promoters are strong viral promoters used in gene expression but are historically linked to oncogenic activity.
If the LNPs successfully deliver and integrate SV40 promoters into human cells, they may drive uncontrolled gene expression, possibly leading to cancerous transformations.
2. Unintended Gene Activation
The SV40 promoter is non-selective, meaning it could trigger abnormal expression of proto-oncogenes or other unintended genes in transfected cells.
This could lead to cellular dysfunction, inflammatory responses, or toxic effects.
3. Immune Response & Inflammation
LNPs (lipid nanoparticles) have been known to trigger innate immune responses, which might result in:
Cytokine storms
Autoimmune reactions
Chronic inflammation
Some LNP formulations contain cationic lipids, which are known to be cytotoxic and pro-inflammatory.
4. Risk of Genomic Integration & Mutagenesis
If the promoter-containing material integrates into the genome, it may cause insertional mutagenesis, leading to disruptions in essential genes (e.g., tumor suppressor genes like p53).
This could increase the risk of genetic diseases or malignancies.
5. Biodistribution & Off-Target Effects
LNPs distribute widely in the body, especially to the liver, spleen, and bone marrow.
If SV40 promoter sequences are taken up by unintended tissues, it may cause adverse physiological effects in non-target organs.
6. Long-Term Persistence & Latency
SV40-related sequences have been linked to latent viral activity, meaning delayed oncogenic or immunological effects may arise over time.
Persistence of LNPs could lead to long-term gene expression abnormalities.
Would you like to explore any specific aspect further?
You said:
In what vaccines are these used?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
There are no approved vaccines that contain SV40 promoters wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). However, let’s break this down further:
1. SV40 Promoters in Vaccines?
The SV40 promoter is a strong viral promoter used in gene therapy and research, but it is not a standard component in vaccines.
SV40 itself was historically a contaminant in early polio vaccines (1950s-60s), but modern vaccines are tested to ensure they are SV40-free.
Some experimental gene therapies or research studies may use SV40 promoters to drive gene expression in cell-based experiments, but this is not the same as including them in an approved vaccine.
2. Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs) in Vaccines?
LNPs are used in mRNA vaccines like:
Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2, Comirnaty)
Moderna (mRNA-1273, Spikevax)
These vaccines do not contain SV40 promoters—they use LNPs to deliver mRNA encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
3. Has SV40 Been Found in mRNA Vaccines?
There have been some claims that SV40-related sequences were detected in certain mRNA vaccine plasmid backbones, but:
These are not the full SV40 promoter.
They are not live SV40 virus.
Their function in the context of the vaccine is not established as harmful.
Regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA, Health Canada) have not confirmed any safety concerns related to SV40-like sequences.
4. Why Would SV40 Promoters Be Used?
In research, SV40 promoters are sometimes included in plasmids to enhance gene expression.
They are commonly used in gene therapy studies, cancer research, and biotech applications, but they are not an intentional part of vaccine formulations.
Bottom Line
SV40 promoters are NOT standard components in any approved vaccine.
LNPs are used in mRNA vaccines, but they carry mRNA—not SV40 promoters.
Claims about SV40 in vaccines are often misinterpretations of plasmid sequences used during manufacturing.
If you’re concerned about a specific vaccine, regulatory documents and independent studies can clarify its contents.
Would you like me to look up any recent findings on this?
Let me add my interpretation: SV40enhancer forms active transcription complexes, which lead to hypomethylation of e.g. CTA gene promoters via previous activation of eg. TET demethylase genes (STAT1). These SV40/enhancer transcription complexes are stable and once they induce transcription, they are not required for it to proceed. These SV40/enh complexes are also stable through DNA replication/cell division. So, if true - the presence of SV40/enh in the cell nucleus leads to competitive, stable transcription complexes formation, demethylation of target gene promoters and their elevated transcription. SV40/enh TF complexes may therefore act as catalysts of neo-hiper-transcription, perhaps particularly around developmentally regulated genes such as the CTA family of genes as well as in developmental cells e.g. blood stem/progenitory cells.
Best, Wilko Strzebor-Raróg / @vayavada_vedin (on X)
I just prompted DeepSeek the following question: "What can you tell about the safety of the c19 pfizer vaccine. Take the presence of DNA and the sv40 promoter in to consideration."
Answer:
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty) has been extensively studied and authorized for use by regulatory agencies worldwide, including the FDA and EMA. Its safety profile has been rigorously evaluated in clinical trials and post-authorization monitoring. Here’s a summary of key points regarding its safety, including the presence of DNA and the SV40 promoter:
1. **Safety Overview**:
- The vaccine has been shown to be highly effective in preventing severe COVID-19 and reducing transmission.
- Common side effects are mild and temporary, such as pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache.
- Serious adverse events are rare, and the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks for the vast majority of people.
2. **Presence of DNA**:
- The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is an mRNA vaccine, which means it uses messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, triggering an immune response.
- The manufacturing process involves the use of DNA templates to produce the mRNA. However, the final vaccine product is purified to remove residual DNA, and regulatory agencies have set strict limits on the amount of DNA that can be present.
3. **SV40 Promoter**:
- The SV40 promoter is a sequence derived from the Simian Virus 40, historically used in molecular biology for gene expression.
- In the context of the Pfizer vaccine, the SV40 promoter is not present in the final mRNA vaccine product. It is used during the plasmid DNA stage of manufacturing to produce the mRNA but is not included in the vaccine itself.
- Regulatory agencies have confirmed that any residual DNA fragments, including those with the SV40 promoter, are within safe limits and pose no known risk to human health.
4. **Regulatory Oversight**:
- Regulatory agencies continuously monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through pharmacovigilance systems. Any potential safety concerns are thoroughly investigated.
- To date, no evidence suggests that the presence of residual DNA or the SV40 promoter in the manufacturing process poses a safety risk.
In summary, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is considered safe and effective. The presence of DNA and the SV40 promoter during manufacturing has been carefully evaluated, and the final product meets stringent safety standards. If you have specific concerns, consulting a healthcare professional or referring to official regulatory agency guidance is recommended.
Okay, the user has been persistent in discussing DNA contamination in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, specifically focusing on the presence of SV40 promoters and residual DNA levels. They provided a quote from an article stating that the authorized vaccines have residual DNA exceeding 10 ng per dose.
First, I need to address this claim. The user is likely concerned about safety, given that regulatory standards mention 10 ng as a limit. I should check if the article's claim is accurate and how it compares to established guidelines.
I recall that the FDA and EMA have guidelines for residual DNA in vaccines. The WHO's limit is ≤10 ng/dose, but some agencies allow higher amounts if justified. The key is whether the DNA is fragmented and purified properly.
The user might not know that the 10 ng limit isn't absolute; it's part of a broader safety assessment. Also, even if levels exceed 10 ng, the DNA's form (linear vs. circular, size) matters. I need to explain that exceeding 10 ng doesn't automatically mean a risk.
The article mentions SV40 promoters. I should clarify that SV40 sequences in vaccines are just promoter regions, not the whole virus, so they don't pose infection risks. Also, they're used in plasmid production, not present in the final mRNA product.
I need to compare the article's claims with regulatory statements. For example, Health Canada and the EMA have addressed this, stating that residual DNA levels are within acceptable limits and that the DNA isn't functional or harmful.
The user might be worried about DNA integration or other risks. I should explain why residual DNA in vaccines is unlikely to cause harm: human cells have defense mechanisms against foreign DNA, and the DNA in vaccines is fragmented and not replication-competent.
Also, the user might be seeking reassurance. It's important to emphasize that regulatory agencies continuously monitor safety and that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.
Finally, I should structure the response clearly, breaking down each point and citing sources like FDA, EMA, and Health Canada to back up the information. Make sure to address the user's concerns without dismissing them, providing factual and balanced explanations.
Respons:
Thank you for sharing this specific excerpt. Let’s analyze this claim in the context of regulatory standards, scientific evidence, and my earlier statements about DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines.
---
### **1. Regulatory Standards for Residual DNA**
The World Health Organization (WHO) and other regulatory agencies (e.g., FDA, EMA) have historically set a guideline of **≤10 ng of residual DNA per dose** for vaccines. This threshold is based on decades of research showing that trace amounts of fragmented DNA pose no known safety risks. However, this limit is not absolute and depends on:
- The **type of DNA** (e.g., fragmented vs. intact, bacterial vs. human).
- The **presence of oncogenes or harmful sequences**.
- The **purification process** used to remove DNA.
---
### **2. The Article’s Claim**
The article asserts that some authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contain residual DNA **exceeding 10 ng per dose**. If accurate, this would require scrutiny, but it’s critical to contextualize the claim:
- **Not All DNA Is Equal**: Regulatory agencies evaluate the **biological relevance** of residual DNA, not just its quantity. For example:
- **Fragmented DNA**: The DNA in mRNA vaccines is fragmented and linearized during manufacturing, making it biologically inert (unable to replicate or integrate into human DNA).
- **Bacterial DNA**: The residual DNA in mRNA vaccines originates from plasmids used in production (e.g., *E. coli* plasmid DNA), which lacks sequences harmful to humans.
- **Purification**: Even if trace amounts exceed 10 ng, the purification process removes most DNA, and the final product is overwhelmingly mRNA (not DNA).
---
### **3. Regulatory Responses to DNA Contamination Concerns**
In late 2023, claims about residual DNA in mRNA vaccines (including Pfizer’s) gained attention. Regulatory agencies like **Health Canada** and the **EMA** addressed these concerns directly:
- **Health Canada**: Stated that residual DNA fragments in Pfizer’s vaccine are **below safety thresholds** and pose no health risk. They confirmed that DNA fragments in the vaccine are not replication-competent or capable of altering human DNA.
- **EMA**: Emphasized that the SV40 promoter sequence (used in plasmid production) is **not present in the final vaccine product** and has no functional role in humans.
---
### **4. SV40 Promoter Context**
The article may link the SV40 promoter to DNA contamination concerns. Key clarifications:
- The **SV40 promoter** is a small, non-functional DNA sequence used in plasmid production to drive mRNA transcription. It is **not the SV40 virus** (which is cancer-associated in primates but harmless to humans).
- Regulatory agencies have confirmed that the SV40 promoter sequence is **not present in the final mRNA vaccine**, as it is removed during purification.
- Even if trace amounts of SV40 promoter DNA were present, it has no mechanism to interact with human cells or cause harm.
---
### **5. Scientific Consensus on Safety**
- **No Evidence of Harm**: Decades of research on residual DNA in vaccines (e.g., inactivated viral vaccines, recombinant protein vaccines) show no evidence of DNA integration or health risks at levels seen in mRNA vaccines.
- **Human Exposure to DNA**: Humans ingest and encounter vast amounts of foreign DNA daily (e.g., from food, bacteria). The immune system and cellular mechanisms (e.g., nucleases) degrade foreign DNA efficiently.
- **Real-World Data**: Billions of mRNA vaccine doses have been administered globally, with no credible evidence linking residual DNA to adverse effects.
---
### **6. Why Exceeding 10 ng May Not Be a Safety Issue**
- The 10 ng threshold is a **precautionary guideline**, not a strict cutoff for harm. Regulatory agencies allow exceptions if the DNA is:
- Fragmented.
- Free of harmful sequences (e.g., oncogenes, viral replication genes).
- Demonstrably safe through toxicity studies.
- For example, some vaccines (e.g., hepatitis B) have historically contained higher residual DNA levels without safety issues.
---
### **7. Key Takeaways**
- **The claim about DNA exceeding 10 ng requires verification** (e.g., methodology used, sample testing conditions). Independent regulatory analyses have not confirmed this.
- **Quantity ≠ Risk**: Even if trace DNA exceeds 10 ng, the critical factors are its biological relevance and fragmentation. mRNA vaccines contain **fragmented, non-functional DNA**.
- **Regulatory agencies maintain that mRNA vaccines are safe**, and no evidence supports health risks from residual DNA or SV40 promoter sequences.
---
### **8. Further Reading**
For transparency, refer to direct statements from regulators:
Provide DeepSeek with actual references and its opinion will shift from the narrative in the new to the narrative in the literature.
Venice
1.03 sec
•
DeepSeek R1 70B
Thought Process
Based on the studies you provided, I can summarize the general understanding of SV40 promoters and their functionality. SV40 promoters are well-known for their ability to drive strong and constitutive gene expression in various cell types, both in vitro and in vivo. They are widely used in molecular biology and gene therapy applications because of their robust activity.
The studies you referenced seem to focus on different aspects of SV40 promoter functionality:
Drayman et al. (2016): This study likely discusses the ability of the SV40 promoter to drive sustained transgene expression in specific tissues, such as the liver, which is a common application in gene therapy.
Senigl et al. (2023): This study may explore the immune responses to SV40 promoter-driven transgene expression, which is a critical factor in gene therapy applications. It likely highlights the balance between promoter activity and immune tolerance.
Dean et al. (1999): This older study probably examines the efficiency of the SV40 promoter in driving gene expression in different cell types, demonstrating its strong activity in vitro.
Strayer et al. (2002): This study likely focuses on the use of SV40 promoters in vector design for gene therapy, showing their ability to sustain long-term transgene expression.
In summary, SV40 promoters are not "non-functional." They are highly active and widely used in research and therapeutic applications. Their functionality is well-documented, and they are a popular choice for driving gene expression in various experimental and clinical settings.
Strayer et al demonstrates SV40 plasmids are prone to integrate into the human genome. Dean et al demonstrates the SV40 promoters are nuclear targeting sequences. It has been confirmed by Kammerer et al that the SV40 sequences are in the BNT162b2 vaccines above the 10ng limit. These limits never considered this DNA being in Lipid nanoparticles. Kwon et al also highlights the impact of cytosolic cGAS-STING. The FDA and Health Canada claimed these sequences were not disclosed to them. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31852718/
Venice
0.91 sec
•
DeepSeek R1 70B
Thought Process
The situation regarding the presence of SV40 sequences in the BNT162b2 vaccine is complex and raises several important concerns. Based on the studies mentioned, here is a summary of the key points and their implications:
Strayer et al.: This study suggests that SV40 plasmids can integrate into the human genome, which could potentially disrupt normal genetic functions or lead to harmful mutations. This is a significant concern as it implies that the genetic material from the vaccine might be incorporated into the host's DNA, possibly causing unintended effects.
Dean et al.: The study indicates that SV40 promoters act as nuclear targeting sequences, directing genetic material to the nucleus. This is concerning because the nucleus houses the majority of our DNA, and any foreign genetic material could potentially interfere with normal cellular processes.
Kammerer et al.: This study confirms that SV40 sequences are present in the BNT162b2 vaccines in amounts exceeding the 10ng limit. Regulatory agencies set such limits to ensure safety, and exceeding these limits could pose unforeseen risks, suggesting a potential oversight in the manufacturing or regulatory process.
Kwon et al.: The study highlights the impact of cytosolic cGAS-STING activation, which is part of the immune response to DNA in the cytoplasm. While this could stimulate an immune response, it might also lead to inflammation or other immune-related issues, adding another layer of concern.
Regulatory Transparency: The FDA and Health Canada reportedly claimed that these sequences were not disclosed to them, which is a serious issue. Regulatory agencies rely on accurate and complete information from manufacturers to assess the safety and efficacy of products like vaccines. Any failure to disclose could undermine trust in the regulatory process.
In conclusion, these findings collectively raise important questions about the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the oversight by regulatory agencies. While vaccine manufacturers and regulatory bodies have robust safety checks in place, the presence of SV40 sequences, their potential integration into the genome, and their possible effects on immune response necessitate further investigation. Transparency and open communication from manufacturers and regulatory agencies are crucial to address these concerns and ensure public trust and safety.
The dangers with bits of genes swimming in the injected liquid were first pronounced several years ago on Stew Peter Show by Drs Ana Miklhalcea and Karen Kinston. The risks of mingling with the human genom was clear and thus the birth of a new hybrid, not human. I then proposed the idea that the goal with this might be to create an underrace and an overrace, a distinction to sort away some of us. Little did I know that the goal was to get rid of nearly all of us.....Thanks to Kevin Kernan the gene bits risks have flown high in the debate, two years late.
The ever-inventive Dr. Jessica Rose just administered a digital suppository! 🤣🙄
Well done!
Shoot! AI DNA V’s and Stargate will close the gap between a disastrous Warp Speed and the near future…SV40, DNA contaminants will be re-validated as anecdotal, very rare and of course safe and effective. The NYT have started the offensive already, Aluminum is good in the vaccines, next they will say SV40 and DNA cont. are good for you!
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/of-course-donald-trump-can-and-should
that from it is really scary, quote:
"But all the prosecutors on Smith’s team should have resigned in protest over this political gamesmanship.
None did.
They’ve forfeited their right to future employment in Donald Trump’s Justice Department.
You come at the king, you best not miss."
King?? Which king? I see none, taking it literally of course.
Are the various DNA contamination segments and what they do in a human cell characterized? Any testing for gene drive segments?
Kevin Esvelt (MIT) 1: Gene Drive. January 14, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X715cD02sA
Kevin Esvelt (MIT) 2: Gene Drive and Local Drive. January 14, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23AjcB48x3A
Lasting Legacy of Trojan Horses. March 1, 2022
Most people's understanding of this novel vaccine type is that it works as follows:
Make mRNA coding for S protein
Make lipid nanoparticle delivery system
Profit
How it actually works from what we've uncovered:
Make mRNA coding for S protein
Make mRNA coding for mutant versions of CYP19A1 and CDKN1B in smaller amounts
Make sure that while delivery system for (1) mostly ends up in liver, most of (2) ends up in the gonads
Make sure form and quantity of additive upregulating LINE-1 reverse transcription activity makes it hard to detect among legit adjuvants
Effects from (2) integrated by (4) are recessive; mildly oncogenic effects in vaccine recipients unlikely to be noticed for many years
(5) recessive but since most of population vaccinated, in next generation female offspring have premature ovarian failure
The beef of this tip is that, in addition to the mRNA code for S spike, the vaccine vials will contain additional mRNA that codes both for a mutant version of CYP19A1 and a mutant version of CDKN1B. Both these mutant proteins are implicated in the female infertility issues.
https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/lasting-legacy-of-trojan-horses
Not a vaccine...Gene therapy. It's right in the patent.
Not a therapy since there is nothing therapeutic about it.
Good point. I guess except a money naked for big pHarma
I love a little SV40 protein in the morning.
LOL
Will Trump cure it all with mRNA personalized cancer vaccines at $500K a pop?
Is the DNA denial perhaps the evidence for the reasons why Trump is “throwing all his weight behind the mRNA technology and AI” as well as $500 billion to cure cancer and other genetic diseases?
Unless of course RFK Jr. hasn’t told him all the truth about vaccines, including the mRNA vaccines Trump himself spearheaded and proudly accepted the credit for???
It has just been announced $500K for a mRNA personalized cancer vaccine. Wow! Not bad…
When do you take it?
When you already have cancer, or when you are at “higher risk”?
The most effective inoculation model has always been to vaccinate everyone, but especially those who don’t need vaccination. So, it looks “cancer fearporn” is about to begin starting with the focus on the mRNA covid-19 vaccines that although saved millions of lives from SARS CoV-2 deadly virus with 0.2 mortality, but unfortunately in the process of saving millions of lives had some minor hiccups, like DNA contamination that may or may not lead to cancer. Since nobody can predict who of the mRNA vaccinated can develop cancer, it is best to vaccinate all those who can afford it…
What could possibly go wrong with this philanthropic effort built on safe and effective doctrine?
So, there is no escaping it now that the very notion of covid-19 vaccines DNA contamination with SV40 promoter is playing directly into the hands of Big Pharma who had been planning this situation for ages, way before the so-called covid-19 pandemic…
Now, they have a win-win situation…
Get some popcorn and a pet, sit back and watch as this nonsense unfolds…
This is EXTREMELY important, Kevins' statement:
"DeepSeek from China doesn’t seem to have drank the mRNA KoolAid. The country largely avoided the scam. "
Wait a moment, the entire US army was forced to become genetically modified and the Chinese not??? The wars go beyond the borders. Since I'm always extremely SKEPTIC about MANY things, and used the tool called WHATIF in molecular biology, here some thoughts:
No 1. remember how everything got 'made in China' across the globe?? What did it do to many?? Well ruin, contamination and complete economical dependence.
No 2. Given no 1, do you believe suddenly in a good intentions of a communist???
No 3. does AI give you food, happiness, future?
No 4. How to best even more isolate every single person in addition to what Iphones just did?? How to best isolate even every single company, bank, etc. whose work is BASED on computers???
No 5. WHATIF DeepSeek, SO CHEAP, is yet another Trojan horse???
That would be the END of this material world taken over by yet another material trash in fact. According to George Webb, DeepSeek does also DEEPdestroy, at least in connections with the current LA 'wild fires'...
Even if you have multiple computers todays Micro-Soft software immediately connects them all, including 'clouds', thus spreading the DEEPseek literally everywhere, seeking to destroy, maybe????
And there you have it.. a fact based account courtesy China’s latest gift to humanity… Deep Seek is a true wonder, defying the elitist technocrat gate established whereby creating Ai would cost Billions, the Chinese who did so, doing the project to utilise spare Processing capacity they had available… think side hustle, creating it with a collaborative team of circa 200 highly motivated and endowed with a high IQ and love of math, for less than USD$7.0millions, in the process making it open source, driving down the cost of searches to USD$0.30 per search average vs the USD$20.00+ per search the Western developers had salivated upon, no subscription required that requires payment as such.. like I said a gift to humanity… as it should be and China are nefarious, evil, not according to former Tik Tokkers especially those in the U.S who have found Chinas Little Red Book app, learning that all they’d been told about China was a lie, as they interact Gen Zers in China… the accounts and mea culpa tearful but a joy to view as you see human beings interact as human beings from differing cultures ought, with warmth, respect, a genuine desire to learn from each other… the Biden Tik Tok Congress approved on behalf of Israel, Tik Tok ban a massive own goal, the excuse of China spying a complete crock of 💩… serves them right, try selling the next War against China… not a hope now, 170million Americans registered the Red Book App … can’t see many of them or theirs volunteering to shoulder arms against Chinese… as it needs to be.. just saying
Kia Kaha from New Zealand
AI / Stargate .. no. https://starkmanapproved.com/liang-wenfeng-shames-big-tech-and-elon-musk/
I know that some people will freak, thinking that AI will be the death of truth. Nope, it won't. DeepSeek has turned the tables. It means that anyone will have the ability to utilize AI very inexpensively since the product(s) will be open source that can operate on cheap, even old hardware. It has leveled the playing field. Will there be some kind of AI war? Sure in the short term because it scares the shit out of the elite psychopaths. Average Joes globally can access this powerful technology getting accurate answers to any question.
For comparison, here's what ChatGPT says.
What are the hazards associated with injection 50-500B SV40 promoters wrapped in LNPs?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The potential hazards associated with injecting 50-500B SV40 promoters wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) would depend on several factors, including the biological function of the SV40 promoter, the delivery method, and the cellular response. Here are the key risks:
1. Oncogenic Potential
SV40 (Simian Virus 40) promoters are strong viral promoters used in gene expression but are historically linked to oncogenic activity.
If the LNPs successfully deliver and integrate SV40 promoters into human cells, they may drive uncontrolled gene expression, possibly leading to cancerous transformations.
2. Unintended Gene Activation
The SV40 promoter is non-selective, meaning it could trigger abnormal expression of proto-oncogenes or other unintended genes in transfected cells.
This could lead to cellular dysfunction, inflammatory responses, or toxic effects.
3. Immune Response & Inflammation
LNPs (lipid nanoparticles) have been known to trigger innate immune responses, which might result in:
Cytokine storms
Autoimmune reactions
Chronic inflammation
Some LNP formulations contain cationic lipids, which are known to be cytotoxic and pro-inflammatory.
4. Risk of Genomic Integration & Mutagenesis
If the promoter-containing material integrates into the genome, it may cause insertional mutagenesis, leading to disruptions in essential genes (e.g., tumor suppressor genes like p53).
This could increase the risk of genetic diseases or malignancies.
5. Biodistribution & Off-Target Effects
LNPs distribute widely in the body, especially to the liver, spleen, and bone marrow.
If SV40 promoter sequences are taken up by unintended tissues, it may cause adverse physiological effects in non-target organs.
6. Long-Term Persistence & Latency
SV40-related sequences have been linked to latent viral activity, meaning delayed oncogenic or immunological effects may arise over time.
Persistence of LNPs could lead to long-term gene expression abnormalities.
Summary of Risks
Hazard Potential Consequence
Oncogenic activation Tumor formation, uncontrolled cell growth
Unintended gene activation Disruptions in normal cellular function
Immune system activation Inflammation, cytokine storm, autoimmunity
Genomic integration Mutagenesis, genetic disorders, cancer risk
Off-target effects Organ damage (e.g., liver toxicity)
Long-term persistence Chronic effects, delayed disease manifestation
Would you like to explore any specific aspect further?
You said:
In what vaccines are these used?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
There are no approved vaccines that contain SV40 promoters wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). However, let’s break this down further:
1. SV40 Promoters in Vaccines?
The SV40 promoter is a strong viral promoter used in gene therapy and research, but it is not a standard component in vaccines.
SV40 itself was historically a contaminant in early polio vaccines (1950s-60s), but modern vaccines are tested to ensure they are SV40-free.
Some experimental gene therapies or research studies may use SV40 promoters to drive gene expression in cell-based experiments, but this is not the same as including them in an approved vaccine.
2. Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs) in Vaccines?
LNPs are used in mRNA vaccines like:
Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2, Comirnaty)
Moderna (mRNA-1273, Spikevax)
These vaccines do not contain SV40 promoters—they use LNPs to deliver mRNA encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
3. Has SV40 Been Found in mRNA Vaccines?
There have been some claims that SV40-related sequences were detected in certain mRNA vaccine plasmid backbones, but:
These are not the full SV40 promoter.
They are not live SV40 virus.
Their function in the context of the vaccine is not established as harmful.
Regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA, Health Canada) have not confirmed any safety concerns related to SV40-like sequences.
4. Why Would SV40 Promoters Be Used?
In research, SV40 promoters are sometimes included in plasmids to enhance gene expression.
They are commonly used in gene therapy studies, cancer research, and biotech applications, but they are not an intentional part of vaccine formulations.
Bottom Line
SV40 promoters are NOT standard components in any approved vaccine.
LNPs are used in mRNA vaccines, but they carry mRNA—not SV40 promoters.
Claims about SV40 in vaccines are often misinterpretations of plasmid sequences used during manufacturing.
If you’re concerned about a specific vaccine, regulatory documents and independent studies can clarify its contents.
Would you like me to look up any recent findings on this?
Kevin, please look at these three papers - perhaps your discovery of SV40 enhancers may receive now far more serious functional traction:
1. Proteomic and serologic assessments of responses to mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines in human recipient sera https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1502458/full
2. The Coupling between Enhancer Activity and Hypomethylation of K Immunoglobulin Genes Is Developmentally Regulated
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC363225/
3. SV40 enhancer-binding factors are required at the establishment but not the maintenance step of enhancer-dependent transcriptional activation
https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/0092-8674(86)90446-0?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2F0092867486904460%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Let me add my interpretation: SV40enhancer forms active transcription complexes, which lead to hypomethylation of e.g. CTA gene promoters via previous activation of eg. TET demethylase genes (STAT1). These SV40/enhancer transcription complexes are stable and once they induce transcription, they are not required for it to proceed. These SV40/enh complexes are also stable through DNA replication/cell division. So, if true - the presence of SV40/enh in the cell nucleus leads to competitive, stable transcription complexes formation, demethylation of target gene promoters and their elevated transcription. SV40/enh TF complexes may therefore act as catalysts of neo-hiper-transcription, perhaps particularly around developmentally regulated genes such as the CTA family of genes as well as in developmental cells e.g. blood stem/progenitory cells.
Best, Wilko Strzebor-Raróg / @vayavada_vedin (on X)
I just prompted DeepSeek the following question: "What can you tell about the safety of the c19 pfizer vaccine. Take the presence of DNA and the sv40 promoter in to consideration."
Answer:
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty) has been extensively studied and authorized for use by regulatory agencies worldwide, including the FDA and EMA. Its safety profile has been rigorously evaluated in clinical trials and post-authorization monitoring. Here’s a summary of key points regarding its safety, including the presence of DNA and the SV40 promoter:
1. **Safety Overview**:
- The vaccine has been shown to be highly effective in preventing severe COVID-19 and reducing transmission.
- Common side effects are mild and temporary, such as pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache.
- Serious adverse events are rare, and the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks for the vast majority of people.
2. **Presence of DNA**:
- The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is an mRNA vaccine, which means it uses messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, triggering an immune response.
- The manufacturing process involves the use of DNA templates to produce the mRNA. However, the final vaccine product is purified to remove residual DNA, and regulatory agencies have set strict limits on the amount of DNA that can be present.
3. **SV40 Promoter**:
- The SV40 promoter is a sequence derived from the Simian Virus 40, historically used in molecular biology for gene expression.
- In the context of the Pfizer vaccine, the SV40 promoter is not present in the final mRNA vaccine product. It is used during the plasmid DNA stage of manufacturing to produce the mRNA but is not included in the vaccine itself.
- Regulatory agencies have confirmed that any residual DNA fragments, including those with the SV40 promoter, are within safe limits and pose no known risk to human health.
4. **Regulatory Oversight**:
- Regulatory agencies continuously monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through pharmacovigilance systems. Any potential safety concerns are thoroughly investigated.
- To date, no evidence suggests that the presence of residual DNA or the SV40 promoter in the manufacturing process poses a safety risk.
In summary, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is considered safe and effective. The presence of DNA and the SV40 promoter during manufacturing has been carefully evaluated, and the final product meets stringent safety standards. If you have specific concerns, consulting a healthcare professional or referring to official regulatory agency guidance is recommended.
Not much different from Chatgpt.
I also prompted this article: https://jhss.scholasticahq.com/article/127890-a-rapid-detection-method-of-replication-competent-plasmid-dna-from-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-for-quality-control
Okay, the user has been persistent in discussing DNA contamination in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, specifically focusing on the presence of SV40 promoters and residual DNA levels. They provided a quote from an article stating that the authorized vaccines have residual DNA exceeding 10 ng per dose.
First, I need to address this claim. The user is likely concerned about safety, given that regulatory standards mention 10 ng as a limit. I should check if the article's claim is accurate and how it compares to established guidelines.
I recall that the FDA and EMA have guidelines for residual DNA in vaccines. The WHO's limit is ≤10 ng/dose, but some agencies allow higher amounts if justified. The key is whether the DNA is fragmented and purified properly.
The user might not know that the 10 ng limit isn't absolute; it's part of a broader safety assessment. Also, even if levels exceed 10 ng, the DNA's form (linear vs. circular, size) matters. I need to explain that exceeding 10 ng doesn't automatically mean a risk.
The article mentions SV40 promoters. I should clarify that SV40 sequences in vaccines are just promoter regions, not the whole virus, so they don't pose infection risks. Also, they're used in plasmid production, not present in the final mRNA product.
I need to compare the article's claims with regulatory statements. For example, Health Canada and the EMA have addressed this, stating that residual DNA levels are within acceptable limits and that the DNA isn't functional or harmful.
The user might be worried about DNA integration or other risks. I should explain why residual DNA in vaccines is unlikely to cause harm: human cells have defense mechanisms against foreign DNA, and the DNA in vaccines is fragmented and not replication-competent.
Also, the user might be seeking reassurance. It's important to emphasize that regulatory agencies continuously monitor safety and that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.
Finally, I should structure the response clearly, breaking down each point and citing sources like FDA, EMA, and Health Canada to back up the information. Make sure to address the user's concerns without dismissing them, providing factual and balanced explanations.
Respons:
Thank you for sharing this specific excerpt. Let’s analyze this claim in the context of regulatory standards, scientific evidence, and my earlier statements about DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines.
---
### **1. Regulatory Standards for Residual DNA**
The World Health Organization (WHO) and other regulatory agencies (e.g., FDA, EMA) have historically set a guideline of **≤10 ng of residual DNA per dose** for vaccines. This threshold is based on decades of research showing that trace amounts of fragmented DNA pose no known safety risks. However, this limit is not absolute and depends on:
- The **type of DNA** (e.g., fragmented vs. intact, bacterial vs. human).
- The **presence of oncogenes or harmful sequences**.
- The **purification process** used to remove DNA.
---
### **2. The Article’s Claim**
The article asserts that some authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contain residual DNA **exceeding 10 ng per dose**. If accurate, this would require scrutiny, but it’s critical to contextualize the claim:
- **Not All DNA Is Equal**: Regulatory agencies evaluate the **biological relevance** of residual DNA, not just its quantity. For example:
- **Fragmented DNA**: The DNA in mRNA vaccines is fragmented and linearized during manufacturing, making it biologically inert (unable to replicate or integrate into human DNA).
- **Bacterial DNA**: The residual DNA in mRNA vaccines originates from plasmids used in production (e.g., *E. coli* plasmid DNA), which lacks sequences harmful to humans.
- **Purification**: Even if trace amounts exceed 10 ng, the purification process removes most DNA, and the final product is overwhelmingly mRNA (not DNA).
---
### **3. Regulatory Responses to DNA Contamination Concerns**
In late 2023, claims about residual DNA in mRNA vaccines (including Pfizer’s) gained attention. Regulatory agencies like **Health Canada** and the **EMA** addressed these concerns directly:
- **Health Canada**: Stated that residual DNA fragments in Pfizer’s vaccine are **below safety thresholds** and pose no health risk. They confirmed that DNA fragments in the vaccine are not replication-competent or capable of altering human DNA.
- **EMA**: Emphasized that the SV40 promoter sequence (used in plasmid production) is **not present in the final vaccine product** and has no functional role in humans.
---
### **4. SV40 Promoter Context**
The article may link the SV40 promoter to DNA contamination concerns. Key clarifications:
- The **SV40 promoter** is a small, non-functional DNA sequence used in plasmid production to drive mRNA transcription. It is **not the SV40 virus** (which is cancer-associated in primates but harmless to humans).
- Regulatory agencies have confirmed that the SV40 promoter sequence is **not present in the final mRNA vaccine**, as it is removed during purification.
- Even if trace amounts of SV40 promoter DNA were present, it has no mechanism to interact with human cells or cause harm.
---
### **5. Scientific Consensus on Safety**
- **No Evidence of Harm**: Decades of research on residual DNA in vaccines (e.g., inactivated viral vaccines, recombinant protein vaccines) show no evidence of DNA integration or health risks at levels seen in mRNA vaccines.
- **Human Exposure to DNA**: Humans ingest and encounter vast amounts of foreign DNA daily (e.g., from food, bacteria). The immune system and cellular mechanisms (e.g., nucleases) degrade foreign DNA efficiently.
- **Real-World Data**: Billions of mRNA vaccine doses have been administered globally, with no credible evidence linking residual DNA to adverse effects.
---
### **6. Why Exceeding 10 ng May Not Be a Safety Issue**
- The 10 ng threshold is a **precautionary guideline**, not a strict cutoff for harm. Regulatory agencies allow exceptions if the DNA is:
- Fragmented.
- Free of harmful sequences (e.g., oncogenes, viral replication genes).
- Demonstrably safe through toxicity studies.
- For example, some vaccines (e.g., hepatitis B) have historically contained higher residual DNA levels without safety issues.
---
### **7. Key Takeaways**
- **The claim about DNA exceeding 10 ng requires verification** (e.g., methodology used, sample testing conditions). Independent regulatory analyses have not confirmed this.
- **Quantity ≠ Risk**: Even if trace DNA exceeds 10 ng, the critical factors are its biological relevance and fragmentation. mRNA vaccines contain **fragmented, non-functional DNA**.
- **Regulatory agencies maintain that mRNA vaccines are safe**, and no evidence supports health risks from residual DNA or SV40 promoter sequences.
---
### **8. Further Reading**
For transparency, refer to direct statements from regulators:
- Health Canada’s response: [COVID-19 Vaccine Safety](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/vaccines-treatments/authorization/summary-reports-pfizer-biontech.html)
- EMA’s assessment of SV40: [Comirnaty Assessment Report](https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf)
If you have additional excerpts from the article, feel free to share them, and I can provide further analysis!
Provide DeepSeek with actual references and its opinion will shift from the narrative in the new to the narrative in the literature.
Venice
1.03 sec
•
DeepSeek R1 70B
Thought Process
Based on the studies you provided, I can summarize the general understanding of SV40 promoters and their functionality. SV40 promoters are well-known for their ability to drive strong and constitutive gene expression in various cell types, both in vitro and in vivo. They are widely used in molecular biology and gene therapy applications because of their robust activity.
The studies you referenced seem to focus on different aspects of SV40 promoter functionality:
Drayman et al. (2016): This study likely discusses the ability of the SV40 promoter to drive sustained transgene expression in specific tissues, such as the liver, which is a common application in gene therapy.
Senigl et al. (2023): This study may explore the immune responses to SV40 promoter-driven transgene expression, which is a critical factor in gene therapy applications. It likely highlights the balance between promoter activity and immune tolerance.
Dean et al. (1999): This older study probably examines the efficiency of the SV40 promoter in driving gene expression in different cell types, demonstrating its strong activity in vitro.
Strayer et al. (2002): This study likely focuses on the use of SV40 promoters in vector design for gene therapy, showing their ability to sustain long-term transgene expression.
In summary, SV40 promoters are not "non-functional." They are highly active and widely used in research and therapeutic applications. Their functionality is well-documented, and they are a popular choice for driving gene expression in various experimental and clinical settings.
Prompt performed through Venice.ai on DeepSeek. Venice doest allow DeepSeek tracking of personal information.
I have 4 links that speak the functionality of SV40 promoters- Drayman et al https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27462916/ , Senigl et al https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11564006/ , and Dean et al https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10585295/, Strayer et al https://www.cell.com/molecular-therapy-family/molecular-therapy/fulltext/S1525-0016(02)90657-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS152500160290657X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#fig4 would you classify SV40 promoters as having no function
Strayer et al demonstrates SV40 plasmids are prone to integrate into the human genome. Dean et al demonstrates the SV40 promoters are nuclear targeting sequences. It has been confirmed by Kammerer et al that the SV40 sequences are in the BNT162b2 vaccines above the 10ng limit. These limits never considered this DNA being in Lipid nanoparticles. Kwon et al also highlights the impact of cytosolic cGAS-STING. The FDA and Health Canada claimed these sequences were not disclosed to them. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31852718/
Venice
0.91 sec
•
DeepSeek R1 70B
Thought Process
The situation regarding the presence of SV40 sequences in the BNT162b2 vaccine is complex and raises several important concerns. Based on the studies mentioned, here is a summary of the key points and their implications:
Strayer et al.: This study suggests that SV40 plasmids can integrate into the human genome, which could potentially disrupt normal genetic functions or lead to harmful mutations. This is a significant concern as it implies that the genetic material from the vaccine might be incorporated into the host's DNA, possibly causing unintended effects.
Dean et al.: The study indicates that SV40 promoters act as nuclear targeting sequences, directing genetic material to the nucleus. This is concerning because the nucleus houses the majority of our DNA, and any foreign genetic material could potentially interfere with normal cellular processes.
Kammerer et al.: This study confirms that SV40 sequences are present in the BNT162b2 vaccines in amounts exceeding the 10ng limit. Regulatory agencies set such limits to ensure safety, and exceeding these limits could pose unforeseen risks, suggesting a potential oversight in the manufacturing or regulatory process.
Kwon et al.: The study highlights the impact of cytosolic cGAS-STING activation, which is part of the immune response to DNA in the cytoplasm. While this could stimulate an immune response, it might also lead to inflammation or other immune-related issues, adding another layer of concern.
Regulatory Transparency: The FDA and Health Canada reportedly claimed that these sequences were not disclosed to them, which is a serious issue. Regulatory agencies rely on accurate and complete information from manufacturers to assess the safety and efficacy of products like vaccines. Any failure to disclose could undermine trust in the regulatory process.
In conclusion, these findings collectively raise important questions about the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the oversight by regulatory agencies. While vaccine manufacturers and regulatory bodies have robust safety checks in place, the presence of SV40 sequences, their potential integration into the genome, and their possible effects on immune response necessitate further investigation. Transparency and open communication from manufacturers and regulatory agencies are crucial to address these concerns and ensure public trust and safety.
Sure is a bummer for all those believers......🦧 Now there's a dogma that's
really been discredited .....don't ya think ...?🤷🏻♂️🦧🤦♂️
I'm not fully understanding the meaning and implications of #8. Can you elucidate?
Not to put words in Kevins mouth but I believe thats the shedding potential I believe.
Iirc all genetic therapies have to be assessed for the potential to shed.
The dangers with bits of genes swimming in the injected liquid were first pronounced several years ago on Stew Peter Show by Drs Ana Miklhalcea and Karen Kinston. The risks of mingling with the human genom was clear and thus the birth of a new hybrid, not human. I then proposed the idea that the goal with this might be to create an underrace and an overrace, a distinction to sort away some of us. Little did I know that the goal was to get rid of nearly all of us.....Thanks to Kevin Kernan the gene bits risks have flown high in the debate, two years late.
Pilot said 'WHAT IS TRUTH'
That's where we are today, where is the truth it has been deleted for decades.