Inside the minds of the people who called our science and data "mis/disinformation"

You are going to want to read this to the end. There appear to be "differences of opinion" in the attempts to "allay our fears".

The emails that you can get from FOIA requests are the best of all for me: you can really see the inner thoughts of people from reading their words that they assume no one will ever read.

Their intentions.

Their typos.

Their processes.

Truth.

A series of FOIed emails found their way to my own email desk that are particularly telling with regard to the process that particular Australian Health Government Officials and Therapeutic Goods Administration-ers (TGAers) used in order to respond to our recent findings regarding the residual DNA issues in the modified mRNA-LNP injectable products, and the TGA’s subsequent response.

To whet your appetite, here is a sample of the attitude of one Dr/she/her who serves in the Laboratories Branch Medical Devices and Product Quality Division.

She/her goes beyond calling our credible work “misinformation”, and goes for the gold with calling it “disinformation”. This means she is stating that we are intentionally lying.

Disinformation refers to false or misleading information that is deliberately spread to deceive or mislead people.¹

Rebekah Barnett wrote her own excellent piece on these FOIed emails, and you can read that below. Kevin McKernan’s is coming too. We’re going to “compound the interest” in this BREAKING story. I am such a nerd.

BOMBSHELL: Australian drug regulator knows DNA fragments in mRNA vaccines can enter nucleus and integrate into genome, internal emails show

Now you all know that I studied HIV and know all about reverse transcriptase and integrase. Both genes are carried by the virus whereby the former allows it to convert itself to DNA, and the latter allows it to integrate into our genome. This is why HIV can effectively hide from our immune responses - it plays peek-a-boo in the playground of our genome and is “found” only when it goes down the slide of cell activation to be transcribed and translated into new virions, ready to party.

Never mind. You get the idea. So yes, integrase helps with integration of foreign DNA but is NOT required. We all know that and have been harking it from the mountain-tops for quite a while now. All you need is cell division, and/or those pesky nuclear SV40 shuttles and/or those non-homologous end joining or homologous recombination events. Besides this, speaking of reverse transcription, it is published that LINE-1 can act as a reverse transcriptase to convert modified mRNA to DNA.² Begs some questions, doesn’t it?

The health.gov officials got the Biological Science Section (BSS) (Scientific Evaluation Branch) involved in building their responses to “allay fears in the public” because ‘[integration] [isn’t] actually something to worry about’.

Here’s the gist of the part of the conversation they had internally, and why they had to have this conversation. The turn-around for FOIAs was fast, eh?

First of all, nice reiteration of the blatant falsehood that the data and science being brought forth is “misinformation”. Second of all, it’s so ironic that they secondarily refer to our work as “flawed” and base this reference on the fact that residual DNA cannot affect the genomes of humans by integration of said residual DNA fragments, or following reverse transcription of the mRNA. The Australian Government (Department of Health and Aged Care) and the CDC maintain this claim on their websites up to and including today.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/myths-facts.html

Source: https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/is-it-true#can-covid19-vaccines-alter-my-dna

I thought it was really funny on the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care website: Is it true? Get the facts on COVID-19 vaccines, that underneath the “Can COVID-19 vaccines alter my DNA” question, they address the question of whether or not the injections can connect us to the internet. You can’t make this stuff up.

The health.gov officials had originally penned the following:

“Any residual DNA in the vaccine cannot integrate into human DNA without an enzyme called integrase. Integrase is not present in mammalian species. Instead, integration of viral DNA into host genome can occur naturally in viral infections from retroviruses (e.g. HIV), which make retroviral integrase.”

So what did they conclude following a back-and-forth with the BSS on the subject matter of the requirement for integrase for integration events of foreign DNA fragments to ensue? Here are three important quotes:

“In regard to the statement re DNA integration and the need for integrase suggest this may need to be softened as understand, although unlikely, there are alternative mechanisms for DNA integration.” ME: Yes, we the public are pretty fragile, so go easy on us. We can’t handle the truth.

“We agree with comments raised by BSS that the original dot point on the role of integrases should be deleted. There are papers implying that other enzymes/mechanisms are involved in integrating SARS-CoV-2 sequences into the DNA of human cells.” ME: Yes. We know.

“Thanks, with regard to the integration issue, foreign DNA can integrate into chromosomal DNA in the absence of an integrase in mammalian cells. This comes from the DNA damage/repair literature where breaks in DNA are repaired through processes called non-homologous end joining or homologous recombination. Exogenous DNA can potentially be incorporated using these processes.” ME: Yes. We know.

Alright. Let’s move on.

New territory, eh? Well then may I suggest you take the words and works of genomics expert Kevin McKernan, molecular virologist David Speicher, molecular biologist and cancer geneticist Phillip Buckhaults, cancer immunotherapist/ medical oncologist Angus Dalgleish and biochemist/immunologist/computational biologist Jessica Rose, as a start (and Maria Gutschi, David Wiseman, Byram Bridle, etc…)? We know a thing or two about this subject matter and have collected a literal stack of compelling data.

Ok here’s where it gets nitty gritty, as my favorite math prof. used to say. There’s an oopsie admission of a CMV promoter in here. This is significant because Kevin McKernan recently found a CMV promoter in a cancer biopsy sample from a person who died of cancer following 4 Pfizer COVID-19 shots.

This admission follows a series of paragraphs addressing what “acceptable DNA amounts” in therapeutics manufactured using DNA plasmid/E. coli systems are based on, and what these people claim that these levels should be. By the way, you should also know that the limit was regarding “quality” rather than “safety”, and this is pertaining to the WHO’s reported acceptable limit.

And here’s the money shot.

The plasmid for expression of the Pfizer mRNA was based on what now? Holy. Cow.

There are plenty of these vectors listed in Addgene and they are specifically used in biotech as mammalian expression vectors (type of plasmid) to introduce genetic material into mammalian cells to express specific genes/gene products (protein) for subsequent study. Why on Earth would a mammalian expression vector with a CMV promoter have been selected for production of modified mRNA in a bacterial system for subsequent use in a therapeutic based on a lipid nanoparticle delivery system in the context of an injectable product aimed against a respiratory virus?

I was asking back in April 2023 why there was an SV40 promoter enhancer in the plasmid sequenced by Kevin McKernan but this is new to us.

In the bottom left corner, I blew up the little box pertaining to expression vectors and their uses to make the point that mammalian promoters are not required in the plasmid E. coli system used to produce modified mRNA. The T7 promoter is just fine.

At the end of this page of the FOIA document list, there are some questions listed that bear answering:

Yeah. Is there any data on whether residual DNA is encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles? My question would be: Well how do you think it got in there if not by this route? They should read my work on DNA:RNA hybrid formation due to N1-methylpseudouridine substitutions.

Here are some more screenshots:

Here’s the comment from the BFF, I mean BSS.

The last thing I want to pick at is their comment about adverse events.

Lack of evidence of adverse events, eh? Hmm. How about the 12,082 reports filed to the U.S.-based Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database from Australia with a 6% death rate? Only 70% (N = 8,564) of these foreign reports have age data, but look at the distribution. Lots of young people in there.³

I’ll leave it at that for now. Let’s see what Kevin McKernan’s Substack about this is like.

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

2. Aldén M, Olofsson Falla F, Yang D, et al. Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Curr Issues Mol Biol.. 2022;44(3):1115-1126. Published 2022 Feb 25. doi:10.3390/cimb44030073

3. This is an amendment from my previous graph posted: forgot to change the ages to numerical values.