SV40 discussion with Dr. Peter McCullough

By now you have probably seen various news outfits build and destroy the straw man argument: “The SV40 virus is NOT in the vaccine!”.

Despite us being very clear about our sequencing detecting components of the SV40 virus, the media and fact checkers have gone into overdrive debunking and pre-bunking the claims of SV40 being in the vaccines.

This is a deliberate tactic to obfuscate the topic. Flood the zone with counter narratives that don’t address the actual concern but convince the less nuanced reader to look no further.

My favorite fact check came from an organization that still boasts about Kristian Andersen being on their advisory board. Kristian is notorious for lying to Congress on the lab leak topic.

He is known for changing his mind on the lab origin of the virus after a conversation with Anthony Fauci. His grant funding improved substantially after his rapid enlightenment on wet markets.

They even rolled out the queen vax proponent, Paul Offit, to assure everyone that they make mistakes, made them before, but this time it is different. Who better to serve Paul the loaded question than TWIV star Vincent R, famous for amplifying the Proximal Origin fraud.

None of these ‘scientists’ contacted the authors of the work that discovered this!

You would think Paul Offit would want to hear directly from the people who performed the study to understand what was found and what wasn’t found. Despite never having contacted us, they now claim to be experts on a topic where they haven’t performed the first step of investigative journalism. They did not pick up a pipette to perform any qPCR or sequencing.

You know who did contact us directly to understand the topic?

Dr. Peter McCullough.

And he spent a whole hour asking questions to better understand the nature of what we found.

More reproduction also occurred this week.

Dr. Buckhaults used a ligation sequencing kit on Oxford Nanopore to sequence the Pfizer vaccine.

One thing is obvious from the read coverage map is that the spike region (right) has lower sequence coverage than the plasmid backbone (left).

That is likely the result of T4 DNA ligase not tolerating RNA/DNA hybrids as templates. As a result it doesn’t ligate ONT sequencing primers onto these molecules as readily as it may ligate onto DNA that has no RNA complement.

Recall the spike region should have 100-3000x more RNA than DNA and this RNA hybridizes to DNA in the process of T7 polymerase synthesizing new RNA. There is a Substack discussing these R-Loops and how they are DNAseI and T5 exonuclease resistant.

Dr. Buckhault’s experiment did not use RNAse A to remove the RNA prior to ligating Oxford Nanopore Adaptors onto the DNA. We plan to repeat this experiment with RNase A to see if the coverage over spike corrects itself and if this sheds additional light on fragment sizes. We anticipate the DNA fragment sizes under spike RNA are longer than the DNA fragments found from the plasmid backbone that has no RNA shielding it from the DNAase I.

The fragment sizes measured by Nanopores are small but Nanopores preferentially load smaller fragments and we will need to run a calibration curve using an equimolar DNA ladder through the nanopores to measure this size bias (figure on sizing below from ONT). This may seem like a pedantic point but some of the guidelines speak to dsDNA contamination over 200 bases in size. As a result we have to employ tools that are calibrated to quantitate in this size range. Our qPCR assays were 105-114bp in length and will count molecules less than 200bp but also count molecules over 105-114bp.

While small fragments are unlikely to contain full length open reading frames, small fragments can do just as much damage integrating into a genome if they integrate into coding regions and create out of frame insertions. The SV40 Enhancer described by David Dean is only 72bp long.

A few sections of David Deans work on the 72bp SV40 Enhancer are provided below.