Evidence of DNA Contamination in Pfizer Vaccine

[Danderman123]

On 9/25/2023 at 7:44 AM, owl sees all said:

Seems to me that anyone posting anything that is not 100% in line with CDC, WHO or government policy, get jumped on and called names.

 

Why call someone an anti-vaxxer just for bringing information to the table? This would suggest that certain entities are afraid of people doubting what they have been told to believe.

Here is the problem with anti-vaxxers and Covid Deniers (they use the same tactics):

 

Reliance on a single, unconfirmed scientific study;

 

Taking scientific conclusions out of context;

 

Relying on random remarks by a scientist;

 

Reliance on low quality clinical studies (small sample size, non-random patient selection, etc).

 

If you are going to rely on a single unconfirmed report, then I have some Mexican aliens for you.

 

[sirineou]

On 9/22/2023 at 7:50 AM, fondue zoo said:

So what's it going to be?   Superfluous third nipple or some form of superpower?

 

Sorry everyone, we accidentally activated some "junk" DNA and now you will all self rejuvenate indefinitely, and grow a third nipple.

 

 

Since my vaccination my super power and secret ident is:

The Procrastinator!! 

There is a bomb? I'll get to it!! EVENTUALLY!!!!

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

I apologize for not being fully accurate, but this discussion is actually a big nothing-burger as already in June 2021 it was revealed that the mRNA in the jab does NOT stay at the injection-site. Pfizer knew this all along as it was addressed in their Bio-distribution report that was part of their submission report to have their product approved. 

Note that that fact itself was not challenged by the Fact-Checkers but they obfuscated the issue by disputing whether it was the spike-protein or its lipid coating that was actually distributed in the body and whether that posed any risks. 

 

Not only were you not accurate, it was a complete false claim.

 

I wondered why you were trying to make it such a big thing out of this nothing burger and I'm still waiting for proof of your claim :

 

"main issue was whether the mRNA stayed at the injection site as Public Health authorities told us"

Edited September 25, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[PremiumLane]

3 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

The main issue was whether the mRNA stayed at the injection site as Public Health authorities told us, or whether it was distributed through your body. 

This Lancet study confirms that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is NOT confined to the injection site but spreads systemically and is packaged into breast-milk EVs.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(23)00366-3/fulltext?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Before you sable down the above:

Yes, the researchers 'believe' (their words) that breastfeeding post-vaccination is safe.

And yes, your very specific statement might well be true (no detection of serum in breastfed infants), but the fact that mRNA is NOT confined to the injection site and widely distributed in the body of those that took the shots cannot be denied.

It is safe, so what is the problem?

[PremiumLane]

3 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

The main issue was whether the mRNA stayed at the injection site as Public Health authorities told us, or whether it was distributed through your body. 

This Lancet study confirms that the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is NOT confined to the injection site but spreads systemically and is packaged into breast-milk EVs.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(23)00366-3/fulltext?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Before you sable down the above:

Yes, the researchers 'believe' (their words) that breastfeeding post-vaccination is safe.

And yes, your very specific statement might well be true (no detection of serum in breastfed infants), but the fact that mRNA is NOT confined to the injection site and widely distributed in the body of those that took the shots cannot be denied.

and you do know that the immune reaction to ingested mRNA is zero even for non-trace amounts?

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Which vaccine did you have?

 

How long did the symptoms persist?

Pfizer, and 2.53 years and counting.  When asked by friends, I have to admit that I don't know whether the symptoms are better, or I'm just getting used to feeling like crap as my new normal.  My own feeling is the latter. 

 

I can now climb a ladder, which I couldn't do for months and months because my balance was shot.  But I don't risk it above changing a ceiling light bulb.  No more trimming back the palm trees on the island.

 

Left side of my face is still numb.  Some days limited to by my eyes, some days the entire side.

 

[Danderman123]

On 9/25/2023 at 1:42 PM, Red Phoenix said:

 

The question remains about the origins of the samples used.

 

These findings need to be duplicated by other scientists. 

[Red Phoenix]

17 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The question remains about the origins of the samples used.

These findings need to be duplicated by other scientists. 

I agree that checking more vials for DNA-contamination would be highly recommended (and I am pretty sure that this is currently taking place).

Note that I posted also the results from German professor Konig, who did the analysis on 5 vials and found amounts 80 to 350 times higher than 'allowed' (while the actual allowance should be ZERO). 

 

[Danderman123]

Just now, Red Phoenix said:

I agree that checking more vials for DNA-contamination would be highly recommended (and I am pretty sure that this is currently taking place).

Note that I posted also the results from German professor Konig, who did the analysis on 5 vials and found amounts 80 to 350 times higher than 'allowed' (while the actual allowance should be ZERO). 

 

And again, the provenance of the samples is suspect.

 

Not just suspect, but also, the findings only relate to that source. That's what happens when your description of the source of your samples starts off with "I know a guy......"

[Sticky Rice Balls]

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I have friends who died of Covid.

 

 

same....I live out in the sticks back home and surrounded by Maga morons...of the 3 houses around me they all got covid and the one guys wife died......im guessing her tombstone reads "I owned the Libs".....as the other women still has her huge sign attached to her garage...smh

 

country folks..old and white....weak minds are easily misled......im 3x vaxxed and yet to get covid

[Danderman123]

On 9/25/2023 at 5:02 PM, Red Phoenix said:

 

 

The provenance of the vaccine being  tested is critical.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, PremiumLane said:

please link to all their papers 

no published papers, just internet accounts of their research.

 

No peer review.

 

How did they say they got their samples? "I know a guy".

 

[Red Phoenix]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:40 PM, Danderman123 said:

And again, the provenance of the samples is suspect.

Not just suspect, but also, the findings only relate to that source. That's what happens when your description of the source of your samples starts off with "I know a guy......"

 

I take over this comment from another a thread on this subject, as I think the observation is quite relevant and to the point.

 

DEAR vax-supporters, do you think this stuff is made up by ‘anti-vaxxers’?

Do you think that there is not DNA in these tested vials?

Or do you think there is DNA but it doesn’t matter and it’s harmless?

Or do you know it’s a serious problem but you’re paid peanuts by the industry to troll this type of thing?

Are you just indoctrinated incurious sheep with your brains in your arse?

Or are you genuinely scared of what you’ve put into your bodies and are in desperate denial?

I’d love to know. .

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

please link to all their papers 

The primary claims being made by the several hard-core anti-vaxers here have already been addressed and rebutted in several prior posts in this thread, including that the OP article comes from a dubious and biased anti-vax source:

 

 

AND

 

 

AND

 

 

 

as well as a direct rebuttal cited above by the scientist, Phillip J. Buckhaults, quoted in the misleading OP article leading off this thread:

 

"1. The DNA is real, however the risk of this DNA is theoretical. There is no need to panic about past vaccination.

 

"5. IMO, these vaccines saved a lot of lives. Far more than the number of people who have had medical events subsequent to vaccine."

 

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Danderman123]

On 9/25/2023 at 8:25 PM, Red Phoenix said:

I take over this comment from another a thread on this subject, as I think the observation is quite relevant and to the point.

> DEAR vax-supporters, do you think this stuff is made up by ‘anti-vaxxers’?

Do you think that there is not DNA in these tested vials?

Or do you think there is DNA but it doesn’t matter and it’s harmless?

Or do you know it’s a serious problem but you’re paid peanuts by the industry to troll this type of thing?

Are you just indoctrinated incurious sheep with your brains in your arse?

Or are you genuinely scared of what you’ve put into your bodies and are in desperate denial?

I’d love to know. .

 

I don't know, because the initial reports indicate some problem with testing methology.

 

It's kind of like the initial reports of Mexican aliens. Until the initial analysis is repeated by other scientists, using scientific methods, it's just an anecdote.

 

[Mark Nothing]

Pfizer's allegiance is to its shareholders and profits.

 

I disregard their scary black magic of fear in order to meet profit goals.  And also ignore those hypochondriacs wishing to drive themselves and everyone else over the cliff into the abyss.

 

It is a shame such a noble endeavor as medical science has been so corrupted that it no longer has any value.

 

But when one door closes, another opens.  If you are persistent the answer becomes clear.

[PremiumLane]

13 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

no published papers, just internet accounts of their research.

 

No peer review.

 

How did they say they got their samples? "I know a guy".

 

perfect summary 

[PremiumLane]

12 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The primary claims being made by the several hard-core anti-vaxers here have already been addressed and rebutted in several prior posts in this thread, including that the OP article comes from a dubious and biased anti-vax source:

 

 

AND

 

 

AND

 

 

 

as well as a direct rebuttal cited above by the scientist, Phillip J. Buckhaults, quoted in the misleading OP article leading off this thread:

 

"1. The DNA is real, however the risk of this DNA is theoretical. There is no need to panic about past vaccination.

 

"5. IMO, these vaccines saved a lot of lives. Far more than the number of people who have had medical events subsequent to vaccine."

 

 

I saw the claims made by the OP came from Epoch Times, far-right conspiracy theory peddling trash 

[owl sees all]

1 hour ago, PremiumLane said:

I saw the claims made by the OP came from Epoch Times, far-right conspiracy theory peddling trash 

But are the claims true? And if they are, does it make the jabs more toxic? And does that even matter? If they are not true; does it matter, apart from being incorrect.

 

Don't bother me if there is even more undesirables in the jabs. Others might. But one things for sure; plenty will emerge to rubbish any claims. Why might that be!

 

Have to think things through.

Edited September 26, 2023 by owl sees all

[placeholder]

Here's a link to definitive article that refutes the claims of the possible effects of DNA fragments in an RNA vaccine.

Basically, there's no peer-reviewed research to back up this claim and plenty of evidence to contradict it.

 

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claim-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-dna-contaminants-study-unknown-provenance-no-evidence-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-alter-dna-people/

[Danderman123]

18 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Yes, we know that the only evidence you accept are peer-reviewed studies/reports published in prominent medical journals. 

But it will take many months before break-through discoveries have gone through that lengthy process. 

So when scientists/researchers uncover critical information that could benefit the population, they publish it where their peers and the public can access it.  And ultimately their findings - after peer review - will get published (or rejected) in official journals.

 

The corollary is not to base your opinion on findings that are not yet peer reviewed. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

So far, it looks like these vials of "vaccine" that were examined and determined to have DNA in them, seem pretty dodgy.

 

For a scientist to base any findings on something mailed to them anonymously is pretty crazy, IMHO. Who knows what was in those vials?

 

This is a nothingburger.

[owl sees all]

14 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The primary claims being made by the several hard-core anti-vaxers here have already been addressed and rebutted in several prior posts in this thread, including that the OP article comes from a dubious and biased anti-vax source:

Nonsense.

 

''',,,,dubious and biased anti-vax source:'''

 

Is it true? Truth is taking a back seat it seems.

Edited September 26, 2023 by owl sees all

[Red Phoenix]

54 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The corollary is not to base your opinion on findings that are not yet peer reviewed.

Lol > From now on I will ask you for links to the peer-reviewed evidence of any opinion that you post.  ????

[Rimmer]

A post and replies contravening our Community Standards has been removed.    

[Bkk Brian]

On 9/26/2023 at 3:58 PM, owl sees all said:

Covid is a name given to an illness/sickness/disease.

 

Covid-19 is a corona + virus + 2019 (shortened to 19)

Actually the illness is named as "Coronavirus disease"

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub

 

 

But that's nothing to do with your claim that a pathogenic virus does not exist

[eisfeld]

4 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Covid is a name given to an illness/sickness/disease.

 

Covid-19 is a corona + virus + 2019 (shortened to 19)

COVID-19 is the disease. The virus is a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. Where do you think the D in COVID-19 comes from?

[owl sees all]

5 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

COVID-19 is the disease. The virus is a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. Where do you think the D in COVID-19 comes from?

Thanks for that bud. And the 19 comes from 2019.

 

You and Brian bang on the money.

[Danderman123]

On 9/26/2023 at 2:31 PM, owl sees all said:

 

 

It actually isn't important whether viruses exist or not. The important thing is; are they a pathogenic entity?.

 

In the sense that they are responsible for illness, I say No, they are not.

In the sense that they are inert fragments of dying and dead cells. I say Yes. They are simply cell debris.

 

 

There is an experiment that has been performed millions of times that could be useful here.

 

If what is known as a virus is really just cell fragments of a host body, then the DNA in those cell fragments should be identical to the DNA of the host body. Testing the DNA of the fragments, however, reveals that the fragment DNA is different from the host body, but identical to the DNA of the fragments of another COVID patient. 

 

It happens that the DNA of cell fragments from people suffering from Covid around the world is more or less identical, with minor modifications. Conversely,  healthy people generally do not show any such cell fragments at all.

 

Therefore, some sort of foreign entity is present in Covid patients. This entity is the Covid virus, but you can call it something else, if it makes you happy.

[cdnvic]

Getting weary of removing misinformation here. If you are making a claim about something science related, be prepared to back it up with evidence. Opinion blogs are not evidence. Something you heard at the pub or from a politician is not evidence. Evidence should be from a reliable source based on actual research that is peer reviewed. If you don't understand what that is, you should take a break from speaking authoritatively on scientific matters until you do.