Would Australians have consented if they knew the potential risks?
The bombshell discovery of DNA contamination in mRNA Covid shots has shocked and alarmed scientists around the globe. They are calling on regulators to urgently stop the injections and conduct a full safety evaluation.
Following Kevin McKernan’s initial discovery earlier in 2023, his findings have been independently verified by several internationally recognised labs around the world including Dr Philip Buckhaults and Dr Sin Lee. These results were again confirmed most recently in Germany when biologist Dr Jurgen Kirchner tested various batches of the Pfizer product (Comirnaty) at his laboratory in Magdeburg and discovered DNA contamination that he claims exceeds regulatory levels by a factor of 200-350. Dr Kirchner followed up with a letter to Health Minister Karl Lauterbach on 20 August 2023, attaching the results of the findings. The official reply from the ministerial office was unimpressive, to say the least:
’(…) the Federal Ministry of Health has no evidence of possible DNA contamination in the Covid-19 vaccine Comirnaty (BioNTech/Pfizer) that has been marketed in Europe and Germany (…) From a local perspective, there is therefore no need for further action.’
This lack of alarm has frustrated members of the scientific community who ask, ‘Under what regulatory system doesn’t this lead to immediate withdrawal from market?’
You might think ‘well this is all overseas’ and therefore not relevant to Australia. Well, dear reader, you may change your mind when you learn that the Covid mRNA injections are manufactured in just a handful of facilities around the world, and none of them in Australia. This concerns us too.
Many worry that DNA contamination in the mRNA vaccines could bring with it a truckload of serious risks and potential adverse outcomes, including the possibility of genomic integration. That is, the DNA in the injection becomes a part of the DNA of a person’s cells.
The repeated and verified finding of DNA contamination has alarmed scientists from different disciplines and, as McKernan notes, ‘It is important for readers to see where various divergent voices agree.’ Despite being a proponent for the mRNA platform, Buckhaults describes his alarm at the finding, ‘…and the possible consequences of this both in terms of human health and biology.’ In testifying to the Senate he adds, ‘But you should be alarmed at the regulatory process that allowed it to get there.’
World-renowned Professor Wafik El-Deiry, Director of the Cancer Centre at Brown University and known for his work in identifying genes associated with cancer, added his voice to the conversation stating Buckhaults’ testimony was ‘good science raising concerns about contamination of Covid mRNA vaccines with DNA’. He adds:
[Buckhaults] explains how pieces of naked DNA allowed in protein vaccines at a certain threshold was not so problematic in a different era but that with encapsulation in liposomes they can now easily get into cells. If they get into cells they can integrate into the genome which is permanent, heritable, and has a theoretical risk of causing cancer depending on where in the genome they integrate. There is a need for more research into what happens in stem cells and I would add germ-line, heart, (and) brain. I am also concerned about prolonged production of spike for months with the pseudouridine in the more stable RNA.
‘Blood clots, myocarditis, cardiac arrests, and other adverse effects are documented,’ adds El-Deiry. Many believe there’s an urgent need to quantify this problem as DNA is itself prothrombotic and could be the cause of some of the rare but serious side effects like sudden death from cardiac arrest.
Dr Janci Lindsay, a biochemist and molecular biologist, agrees with these concerns and has spent months calling for the shots to be suspended. Alongside the identified risks of genomic integration, autoimmunity, and cancer, Lindsay says other possibilities include gut bacteria (E. coli) taking up DNA plasmids and becoming ‘perpetual spike factories’ or incorporating the antibiotic resistance gene. There is another potential issue Lindsay highlights, ‘If there’s that much (DNA) plasmid in the shots, there’s a very good chance that there’s bacterial endotoxin in the shots… bacterial proteins which can cause anaphylaxis and even death.’
You may wonder, how the DNA and other potential contaminants got into some of these products. Well, it all comes down to the manufacturing process, as discussed in a recent BMJ article. The clinical trials involving around 40,000 people were conducted using injections manufactured via ‘Process 1’ which involved in vitro transcription of synthetic DNA. This is essentially a ‘clean’ process. However, this process is not viable for mass production, so the manufacturers switched to ‘Process 2’ which involves using E. coli bacteria to replicate the plasmids. Getting the plasmids out of the E. coli. can be challenging and may result in residual plasmids, and possibly bacterial endotoxin, in the vaccines. Australian Professor Geoff Pain provides extensive details on these endotoxins.
With the highest rates of adverse events and injuries we’ve ever seen for a ’provisionally approved’ product, you would think any regulator worth their salt would be jumping in to ensure that what has been discovered overseas isn’t so in Australia. But it seems the burden of proof is falling on everyone but the regulator.
From the very start, countless medical and legal professionals have called out the ethical disaster of ‘un-informed’ consent and these experimental injections. Informed consent requires a full discussion of the known and potentially unknown risks of any medication or treatment. This, and the coercion, manipulation, and mandates applied to the Australian people, made informed consent impossible.
How many Australians, I wonder, would have agreed to receive an injection that potentially contained DNA with all the inherent risks described?
None, is my guess.