Systematic methodological flaws in DNA contamination assessment of mRNA vaccines: A critical analysis of Achs et al. (2025)

We have a new paper out dissecting the systematic errors in Achs et al. Like clockwork, the PubSmear mob has been activated and announced their intentions to find problems even before they have finished reading the work. 5cience ^TM in motion.

This isn’t new. Many of the PubSmears have announced that I am on their future target list.

What is interesting is that if our paper is pointing out flaws in Ach’s, you’d think a research integrity clan would want to read it and understand the work but their knee jerk reaction is to find flaws in our citations before they have even read the paper?

Odd bunch.

What should trigger any “Research Integrity” alarms is that the Ach’s paper makes multiple errors and all errors point in the same under measurement direction.

Some of these errors are irrefutable as we dug up the specifications of the instruments they used and the manufacturers claim the instruments are not fit to measure what Ach’s is claiming. This blows apart their entire section on Capillary Electrophoresis (CE).

Likewise their methods for Illumina sequencing are all mangled and provide no information on the fragmentation of the DNA.

The qPCR is equally a mess. The whole paper is a methodological trainwreck and all errors point in the “Safe and Effective” direction.

To add insult to injury, they didnt disclose their funding from Sensible Biotech (mRNA vax company). You would think a conflict like this would be at the top of PubSmears concern list but instead they are here to march in and defend it!

They also defended surgisphere and proximal origins so we shouldn’t get our hopes up. They are known to work hand and hand with RetractionWatch who facilitated Dr. Marschalek violated his confidential with the journal Autoimmunity and publish his confidential peer review of the Speicher paper.

Of course he only leaked his review and not our arguments which traversed his in the eyes of the editors.

In the process of this the leak, the geniuses at RetractionWatch forgot to scrub the metadata of the PDF file from Marschalek this exposing him as the leak and the violator of the NDA with Autoimmunity.

RetractionWatch didn’t contest this ethical breach and actually facilitated, albeit in a low wattage that exposed their source.

Ironically, RetractionWatch posted a whole article trying to Whitewash their failure to get ahead of the breach and in doing lied in their headline claiming Dr. Marschalek rejected the paper.

No such thing happened and the editors of Autoimmunity came forward claiming Dr. Marschalek never rejected the paper and just asked for edits which were delivered.

This admission didn’t convince RetractionWatch to retract their own fabricated story.

RetractionWatch for thee but not for me!

Many of the Achs errors were documented on their preprint server but were ignored for their final publication suggesting the authors are aware of the criticisms but had no answer for them and thus chose not to address them.

This is particularly odd behavior from Nature. Ach’s is a critique of our work and I highlighted their overt errors with my signature on them. This was in some dark corner of the internet but on Nature’s own preprint server back in October of last year. You would think an editor would pay most attention to the criticisms being advanced by the author Ach’s is targeting? Instead this preprint was fast tracked through Nature and their hidden conflicts of interest and errors ignored.

Our Oncotarget manuscript was submitted nearly 8 months ago. Since then we have further measured the amplicon size bias with SYBR Green and LIDAR.

There is a dense read on that problem in the below substack but the TL/DR is that the amplicon size alone can create a 16-32 fold under measurement of the DNA. This error is unique and independent of the 100 fold RNA/DNA hybrid problem we published on earlier (Journal of Independent Medicine) and thus can stack to offer a 1600-3200 fold error in measuring the DNA. Without knowledge of the methods the regulators use to qPCR this DNA, any assurances of it being under 10ng/ul is pure regulatory charade.

Maryanne Demasi, PhD distilled this dense read on her article here:

What if we’ve been measuring DNA contamination the wrong way?

Stay tuned.. We have a new qPCR method called LIDAR that will further dissect this problem.