20 Comments
User's avatar
Paula Chandler's avatar

These gross antagonists remind me of the expression “spiritual wickedness in high places”. Odd bunch indeed. Who’s afraid of real science? Keep up your amazing work, unsettling as it may be.

Richard Sharpe's avatar

Big Pharma is afraid of real science.

Brandon is not your bro's avatar

Bravo 👏🏻 !!!❤️❤️❤️💥💥💥 .

Vivien C Buckley's avatar

Because the corruption is so well entrenched in science, it’s anger making that no matter the evidence provided, they’re reduced to ad hominem’s and win the battle regardless. I hope the independent journals that have recently made their debut, will eventually be recognized as serious science. These people are ruthless and mimic the actions of big pharma, which is telling. Scum bags.

Ionedery2's avatar

Hide the truth. Offer money, prestige, acceptance and the illusion of certainty.

It seems to work well as a strategy to defer blame and absolve responsibility.

Some of us woke up though and we know how to recognize what is happening.

The truth will come out. The sooner the better.

DANIEL SANTIAGO RPh, PharmD's avatar

I agree with McKernan’s analysis. The methods used in the Achs paper have serious flaws that systematically under-measure residual DNA and that alone is a major concern.

But the broader issue remains: when a product uses lipid nanoparticles to deliver material into cells, residual DNA should not be present at all. Setting limits like “under 10 nanograms” is not good enough.

Just because current DNA-template manufacturing leaves residual fragments behind does not make them acceptable. Patient safety demands cleaner manufacturing processes, accurate testing, and standards that prioritize absolute purity.

Anandamide's avatar

Let’s not forget the LNPs are toxic in themselves.

We’ve been focused on the DNA because it’s a forensic marker for biodistribution. It shows up where the LNPs go but may be less of a toxicological concern than their wrappers.

LNPs on the other hand are nearly impossible to measure. No technique exists to find single molecule quantities like DNA.

You can’t amplify them.

DANIEL SANTIAGO RPh, PharmD's avatar

You may want to read The Offsc℞ipt Pharmacist Substack. She presents the argument that the entire conversation has been missing something important.

“The lipid nanoparticle, the foreign oily droplets (please not lipid bubbles!) that carry the mRNA into your cells, is not biologically inert. It is not just packaging or an inert truck. It is an active participant in what happens to your cells. And importantly, it may be doing things that no one designed it to do.” (Gutschi 2026)

https://mariagutschi.substack.com/p/what-our-paper-says-about-lnps?r=11t26u&utm_medium=ios

Richard Sharpe's avatar

Where have we seen regulators use seriously flawed papers to achieve their nefarious aims before?

Oh, yeah. The Surgisphere paper.

Marice Nelson's avatar

When there is so much money, liability via fraud, and loss of respect and public trust involved it is of little wonder that they hiring a hit squad to discredit critics

Rick Adam's avatar

The RT-PCR test, patent owner is Richard A Rothschild, you might ask him for comments about this matter.

Sean Arthur Joyce's avatar

Has anyone tracked the funders of PubSmear? I'm guessing there's Big Pharma money behind them.

Sandy K's avatar

Let's continue to restack this info!

Manuela Stocco's avatar

Nobody is open to speak out on central goals of COVID goals. They were many an not all linked to health problema, but also ti verify how to control people/mass through fear, blackmail and manipulated information

la chevalerie vit's avatar

I love science over "Science!"

VA's avatar

Excellent article as well as the links which jump off to even more information. Thank you.

Cute kitten picture and beautiful Gray/Black cat.

Rick Adam's avatar

Yes, by JD Rockefeller et al since 1910.