More papers on DNA contamination emerge

'Quantitation' Quandary

It is no surprise that this topic is heating up.

Didier Raoult has been a covid champion. He has been relentlessly attacked by the Pharma NPCs despite his illustrious career. In what looks like a spare time paper, he confirms the DNA contamination problem in the vaccine and sequences the plasmid.

Yes, its a preprint and often the preprints don’t have the all the raw sequence data available but its a good start to get the message out as Pharma appears to now funding people to refute this.

Didier’s paper didn’t use RNaseA to zero in on the DNA contamination problem. This often lowers the values 10x which still doesn’t get Pharma out of the woods but here is an important paper that puts the RNaseA issue into context.

It’s a bit of “Belts and Suspenders”.

Yes… Technically you should erase the RNA to eliminate the cross talk but we know we are underestimating the DNA.

1)We doubt the LNPs are fully lysed and therefor most studies to date provide underestimate.

2)Georgiou et al. - as you fragment DNA it stains 70% less effectively.

So the DNaseI step in the vaccine manufacturing process is a great way to hide the DNA while making it more dangerous for integration.

This staining bias is nearly a log scale underestimate and makes up for the log scale inflation without the use of RNaseA. The right thing to do is RNaseA treat the sample and point to the Georgiou paper to remind people we are under-estimating post RNaseA treatment as we really dont understand the cross talk with N1-methyl-pseudoU and the secondary structure it forms.

This preprint also emerged this week from Germany.

Jikkyleaks had some interesting comments on their funding source but I haven’t had time to confirm or deny those and am choosing to just look at the methods alone.

I find it odd that the paper lied in the abstract. The regulation is 1:3030 DNA:RNA. This is very clear in the EMA documents and this group is in Europe.

This made me dig a little deeper.

Only 4 vials surveyed. Ive not seen the usual clowns critique this papers use of expired vials. That only occurs if they don’t like your results.

But this is the part that is just down right dishonest.

They are not measuring the vaccine. They are measuring how poorly Phenol/CHCl3 purification captures small DNA molecules. Great way to make an irrelevant paper.

Comes out swinging about Qubit bias only to introduce their own. We mentioned this in our Substacks. We have seen the same thing with CTAB preps, AmPure preps.. almost all of them on the market are designed to eliminate residual primers and small DNA molecules.

Even Venice.ai is aware of this.

This is why it is important to run Fragment analysis to know what it is you are measuring in the vaccine. It will radically change the methods you use for quantitation.

The authors do make use of some interesting spike-in experiments to get a handle on the cross talk but without a them running a 10bp dsDNA ladder through their prep, you have no idea what the loss is through the Phenol/chloroform step.

Of course this bullshit intro section tells you all you need to know.

Lets kiss up to the vaccine gods before we try to measure their risks. I know authors do this to butter up the Journals but they really need to stop. Have some stones and eliminate this narrative bias as it only weakens your paper to tattoo your pandemic bias in the intro. Most people versed in this topic stopped reading after this paragraph and the paper does have things we can learn from.

Then there is this head up your ass comment.

Sweet baby Jesus… Have they been in a bunker for 3 years.

This is so bad it must be intentional. If you EtOH precip your DNA after RNaseA treatment, all of the small DNA is washed away in the 70% EtOH wash. Look Mom- No DNA in the vaccines! Just be sure to use the term ‘quantitative’ in your paper many times and maybe people will believe you.

This is in fact what most people do to eliminate primer contamination prior to Sanger Sequencing.

It’s great that they used RNaseH but nuts that they follow it up with an EtOH precip. Why didn’t they just measure the sample with the RNaseA in it?

RNaseH is finicky and requires its own buffer. RNaseA works in water.

You can easily control for the impact of the RNaseA enzyme in the fluorometric dyes by spiking the RNaseA into the Qubit standards and remeasuring the standards with your 3ul RNaseA. Therefor RNaseA can be used in the actual Qubit reaction and you can monitor the reaction in realtime as a homogeneous assay. No prep needed between measurements which can alter your results. You can even monitor this reaction on a qPCR instrument in realtime if you set the instrument to monitor the SYBR channel.

The only thing this paper lacks are some pronouns and ‘lactating people’. That would have been the cleanest signature of “read no further”, we are here to defend the COVID regime at all costs and are shamelessly virtuous about it.

It has been refreshing to see RFK-Jr Take the helm of HHS. El Gato Malo nails it.

dear washington DC