Port Hedland Council Votes to Expose ‘DNA Contamination’ in mRNA Vaccines, Demands Immediate Suspension of COVID-19 Shots Nationwide

by Jim Hᴏft Oct. 14, 2024 9:15 am

Western Australia—Port Hedland Council takes bold action, voting to expose DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines. With five members reporting adverse effects, this decision could ignite a national health crisis response!

This article originally appeared on Gaz’s Substack and was republished with permission and edited by The Gateway Pundit.

Special Council Meeting, Friday 11 October, 7:00 pm in Chambers at the Civic Centre on McGregor Street in Port Hedland, Western Australia

Report on the Port Hedland Special Council Meeting, October 11, 2024

The Special Meeting convened by the Port Hedland Council on October 11, 2024, marked a watershed moment in the ongoing national debate surrounding DNA contamination in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, particularly Pfizer and Moderna’s products. 

This highly anticipated session was called in response to mounting evidence of DNA contamination, presented by experts such as Dr. David Speicher, alongside a series of letters from MP Russell Broadbent. The gravity of the concerns raised, along with the council’s proactive stance, has drawn attention not only within Western Australia but across the entire nation.

Background: DNA Contamination Concerns

The meeting was initiated following increasing public unease about potential DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines. Dr. David Speicher’s report, which was central to the discussion, revealed that the contamination levels in these vaccines were up to 145 times higher than the acceptable safety limits set by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

This contamination was found to include fragments of synthetic DNA, raising significant concerns about the risks of genomic integration, immune system disruptions, and potentially increased rates of cancer and hereditary defects.

In response to these findings, MP Russell Broadbent had already written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling for the immediate suspension of mRNA vaccines.

Broadbent’s letters, backed by a cohort of 52 health experts, added weight to the argument, further urging the government to address the regulatory failures and protect public health.

Port Hedland Council’s decision to consider the matter was viewed as a potential turning point in the national discourse, especially as they prepared to send warnings to all 537 local councils across Australia, compelling them to confront this looming health crisis.

Public Testimonies and Community Impact

The public session of the meeting began with a series of impassioned statements from community members. Residents of Port Hedland expressed deep concerns about the adverse health impacts they had witnessed following the vaccine rollout.

• • John Ashenden, a long-time resident, emotionally recounted the recent loss of a friend who developed aggressive cancer within a matter of weeks after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. He lamented the rising number of similar cases in Port Hedland and stressed the urgency of the council acting on the newly revealed scientific data. His message was clear: the community could not afford inaction any longer.

• • Sharon Van, a prominent local funeral director, also took the floor to share her firsthand experience. She noted a sharp rise in the number of deaths, particularly within the Aboriginal community, following the vaccine’s introduction. Sharon raised concerns about the disproportionately high death rate among younger individuals and highlighted the unique vulnerabilities faced by Aboriginal people, many of whom she said had been coerced into receiving the vaccines. She urged the council to protect the community from further harm by addressing the DNA contamination issue.

• • Matt Maysoffered a deeply personal testimony about the loss of his partner to cancer just months after she received her second vaccine dose. His words resonated powerfully with the room, highlighting the emotional toll of losing a loved one so rapidly and unexpectedly. He emphasized that the council had a responsibility to act on behalf of those who could no longer speak for themselves, calling the situation a “silent tragedy” unfolding across the country.

• • Jillian Fisher, another resident, provided additional scientific insights, backing up the claims made by Dr. Speicher. She detailed how the contamination of mRNA vaccines had been confirmed by geneticist Kevin McKernan and emphasized the potential long-term risks. She explained how the synthetic DNA fragments could integrate into human genomes, potentially causing genetic mutations and increasing the risk of cancer. Jillian stated that the contamination levels were “alarmingly high” and well beyond safe thresholds.

These public testimonies played a significant role in framing the discussion for the council members, as they underscored the real-life consequences of the contamination concerns and bolstered the argument for immediate action.

Council Deliberations and Expert Testimonies

Once public input concluded, the council proceeded to a closed session where they viewed a video presentation, which reportedly included expert testimony from Professor Angus Dalgleish, an oncology and immunology specialist from St. George’s University of London.

Professor Dalgleish’s message was clear: the synthetic DNA contamination in the mRNA vaccines was contributing to an alarming rise in aggressive cancers.

His findings linked the contamination to the disruption of tumor suppressor genes and the activation of oncogenes, raising profound concerns about long-term public health implications.

Following the viewing, the council resumed the public session, where Councillor Adrian McRae, who had been instrumental in leading the discussion, delivered a forceful presentation.

McRae reiterated the severity of Dr. Speicher’s findings, emphasizing that the contamination levels were not just marginally elevated but were 145 times higher than what the TGA had deemed acceptable.

He argued that such levels of contamination posed serious risks, including genomic integration, cancer, immune system disorders, and hereditary defects that could be passed on to future generations.

Motion and Key Points of Debate

The motion put forward during the meeting proposed sending formal letters to all local councils across Australia, health authorities, and federal officials, demanding the immediate suspension of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

Trending: CNN Panel is Left Stunned as Scott Jennings Roasts the Harris-Walz Campaign and Makes a Colorful Point That Perfectly Sums Up Democrats’ Problems With Men (VIDEO)

The motion also called for the widespread dissemination of Dr. Speicher’s report to ensure that health practitioners were fully informed of the risks before administering any further doses of these vaccines.

The motion sparked a lengthy and sometimes heated debate. Mayor Peter Carter, who ultimately voted against the motion, argued that public health issues of this magnitude should be left to state and federal authorities.

He expressed concern about the potential fallout, both reputationally and financially, should the council pass the motion.

Carter warned that such a stance could result in funding cuts from state or federal governments, particularly if the council was perceived to be overstepping its jurisdiction.

In response, Councillor McRae and his supporters dismissed these concerns, stating that the health and safety of the community must take precedence over financial or political considerations.

“We are not here to protect our budget; we are here to protect our people,” McRae said. He emphasized that the council had a moral obligation to act, particularly in light of the new scientific evidence.

The Deciding Vote and Outcome

After hours of debate, the final vote was held. The motion passed with a 5 to 2 majority, with Mayor Carter and one other council member voting against it.

The five votes in favor represented a decisive mandate for action, reflecting the council’s commitment to addressing the health risks associated with DNA contamination in the vaccines.

The passing of the motion means that Port Hedland Council will now begin the process of sending formal letters to over 500 councils across Australia, urging them to consider the evidence presented by Dr. Speicher and demanding the suspension of the mRNA vaccines.

In addition, letters will be sent to the Prime Minister, state health authorities, and health practitioners within Port Hedland, calling for immediate investigations into the contamination and its potential health impacts.

Implications for National Health Policy

Port Hedland’s decision to take such a bold stand could have far-reaching consequences.

As the first local government to officially challenge the safety of the mRNA vaccines based on DNA contamination, Port Hedland has set a precedent that other councils may follow. This could potentially lead to a wave of similar motions across the country, increasing pressure on Canberra to acknowledge the issue and take action.

Furthermore, the public’s growing distrust in federal health regulators, such as the TGA, is likely to intensify as more councils begin to confront these findings.

Port Hedland’s motion may also force federal authorities to reexamine the testing protocols currently in place for mRNA vaccines and address the growing public health concerns before they escalate into a national crisis.

Conclusion

The Special Meeting on October 11, 2024, was a landmark moment for Port Hedland and, potentially, for Australia.

The council’s decision to take a stand on DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines reflects not only the concerns of its community but a broader national unease about vaccine safety. With five out of eight council members reporting adverse events after vaccination, the decision to act was not just a matter of policy but of personal conviction.

As the council moves forward with its plan to alert local governments and health practitioners across the country, the ramifications of their decision could be felt far beyond Port Hedland.

The question now is whether other councils will follow their lead—and whether Canberra will finally break its silence on this critical issue.

The action taken by the Port Hedland Council is a wake-up call for communities across Australia. Now, more than ever, it’s crucial for people to stay informed and act. Share this information widely, alert your local councillors, and demand that they address the serious concerns raised about DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines. By speaking up, we can ensure that this issue receives the attention it deserves and push for transparency and accountability in our health system. Don’t wait for others—this is the time to take action for the safety of our communities.

 

New England Journal of Medicine: study confirms viral promoter with SV40 sequence causes cancer!

Skysona, a $3M/dose FDA-approved gene therapy causes cancer. Guess what it has in common with covid shots?

Sasha Latypova

A recent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that BlueBird Bio’s gene therapy Skysona (aka eli-cel), approved by the FDA in 2022, causes cancer in approximately 10% of the treated population:

We performed integration-site analysis, genetic studies, flow cytometry, and morphologic studies in peripheral-blood and bone marrow samples from patients who received eli-cel therapy in two completed phase 2–3 studies…

…Hematologic cancer developed in 7 of 67 patients after the receipt of eli-cel…

Conclusions

Hematologic cancer developed in a subgroup of patients who were treated with eli-cel; the cases are associated with clonal vector insertions within oncogenes and clonal evolution with acquisition of somatic genetic defects.

In an editorial published alongside the data, Cynthia Dunbar, a hematologist at the NIH’s National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, wrote that more cases may appear over time.

Even more interesting - it was known that eli-cel causes cancer before the drug was approved. In fact, it almost didn’t get approved and the company almost went out of business because of this.

In 2021 Bluebird Bio halted the trial for eli-cel after finding that the treatment likely caused a cancer-like condition in one patient. A boy with cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy (CALD) was diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome, a condition that can develop into leukemia, after receiving eli-cel. Two other patients were also being monitored for similar symptoms, and the FDA has put a clinical hold on eli-cel trials. 

At the same time, the Cambridge based biotech also reported that it failed to reach an agreement with European governments. The German government offered ~$800K while the company wanted a $1.8M price tag. 

Subsequently, Bluebird warned investors that its limited cash reserves, given its burn rate, raised “substantial doubt regarding its ability to continue as a going concern” and laid off 30% of its workforce.

Then, miraculously, the clinical trial hold due to cancer cases was lifted and Skysona was waved through by the FDA under an accelerated approval, meaning that Bluebird was allowed to sell its drug for $3M/treatment in the US, while the requirements for reporting full clinical trial results were pushed out to “after”. The approval was based on a post-hoc data analysis (a data fishing exercise) that managed to find a very minor improvement in functional scores at 24 months. This is as shaky as it gets. The FDA included a black box warning for the cancer “side effect”, but the company was free to sell the drug to desperate patients, while continuing to experiment on them. 

CALD is marketed as a “rare neurodegenerative disease” with no known cause. According to Wiki, it hasn’t been pinned on a “genetic mutation”: 

Clinically, ALD presents as a heterogeneous disorder, showing several distinct phenotypes, and no clear pattern of genotype–phenotype correlation.

While it’s been “linked” to a mutation of ABCD1 gene, the science is coy whether this mutation is present at birth or appears suddenly, out of the blue, after a “well baby visit” to the friendly pediatrician. 

And:

It is characterized by normal development in early childhood, followed by rapid degeneration to a vegetative state…

Initial symptoms in boys affected with the childhood cerebral form of ALD include emotional instability, hyperactivity and disruptive behavior at school. Older patients affected with the cerebral form will present with similar symptoms. Untreated, cerebral ALD is characterized by progressive demyelination leading to a vegetative stateand death. …Onset of adrenal insufficiency is often the first symptom, appearing as early as two years of age

Oh! So, it’s a totally normal baby that sometime in early childhood develops a deadly brain/nervous system disorder, with absolutely no known cause, and degenerates to a vegetative state! I propose to study the incidence of CALD in correlation with “well baby visits” and vaccinations, and I can almost guarantee we can uncover the cause of it. But what do I know? I am not a smart scientist. 

As I have written before, the trick of modern science is to proliferate names and classifications of “rare conditions” based on slight variations in presentation and diagnostic tests, as well as the age of the patients. Then pretend it’s a “rare mutation”, or an unknown cause, and proceed to finishing off these victims in the most expensive and profit optimizing manner. 

According to Endpoint News, The authors of the NEJM study hypothesized that the cases of cancer may have been driven by the design of the lentiviral vector used in Skysona. Skysona’s claimed mechanism of action is “using a lentivirus to insert a functioning form of the ABCD1 gene”: 

Skysona’s lentiviral vector was designed with the use of a viral promoter, intended to help drive strong expression of the gene. But a risk of that type of promoter is oncogenesis, or driving the development of cancer, Duncan [lead author] explained.

Mention of a “promoter” got me interested in tracking it down. The promoter used by Skysona is called MNDU3. I found it,

and … drumroll…. 

it has the famous SV40 sequence in it! (highlighted yellow on the left side):

Source: https://www.addgene.org/81071/

The NEJM article authors confirmed that the MNDU3 promoter which includes SV40 is indeed the causative agent of cancer:

“We’re relatively confident that that promoter in the design of the vector is driving this,” she said. “The question then is, in my mind, is it driving it alone, or are there other factors that contribute?”

Duncan noted that patients in one study, ALD-102, which has reported only one case of hematologic cancer, received a stronger chemotherapy regimen as part of preparation for treatment than another study, ALD-104, which reported the other six cases. But at this time, it remains unclear whether that made a difference, or whether other factors were involved.

Wait, what? A “conditioning regimen” of chemotherapy is required before this miracle of science can be administered? See p.3 of the drug label. It is required to nuke out the immune system and the body’s ability to produce red blood cells with chemo before the gene therapy will “work”. Maybe. A little. Or maybe it will give your child cancer. Well, as the biodefense expert Steve Hatfill says, “they are going to die anyway”! 

This is another example of a new-new drug that requires treatment with OTHER DRUGS before it can be effective! I have written about this Potemkin village propping up the failed, toxic mRNA/gene therapy before: 

"Pre-medication", or how to sell $50 worth of generic drugs for $600,000! 

Read full story

The “therapy” is never studied separately from the “conditioning treatment”. Hence the NEJM authors have no idea why in a higher chemo dose group there were fewer cases of cancer post Skysona: 

“Is it a combination of conditioning regimen and the vector?” she asked. “We can’t know for certain.”

Previous articles on gene therapies:

mRNA/Gene Therapy Technology: Futile, Deadly, but Hugely Profitable - Part 1

Read full story

mRNA/Gene Therapy Technology: Futile, Deadly, but Hugely Profitable - Part 2

Read full story

Art for today:  The Flock, watercolor, 12x16 in.

 

Donald Trump is the reason I left Facebook after more than 10 years

And I want to say thank you.

Jessica Rose

Here’s a little personal story about the reason I ended up leaving Facebook after more than 10 years. I actually really loved Facebook back in the day. Being a bit of a nomad, having the ability to find and connect with long lost friends and new friends alike, internationally on a platform like Facebook, was great. I was an avid photographer, especially during the Facebook era, as it provided a platform where I could upload tens of thousands of photos to share with all my friends around the world. An album a day kept the doctor away! That has new meaning for me now.

I would post photos like this. Water. And sky. What could be more beautiful?

I would use it to find stuff like a new-old bike to buy, and the groups were amazing. You could always find a group of people on Facebook to share whatever it was you wanted to share and feel heard. I would also use it for connecting with people from way back in the day - like high school. It was fun and useful. 

One morning, in the early days of the Co[n]vid era, I found myself opening up my laptop as always, coffee on the side, and chipper to read about the ‘current events’ that ensued while I was sleeping. I remember this morning very well. I was sitting on my cushion on the floor (I don’t own furniture) in front of my home-made ‘desk’ made from recycled bed scraps, and started to scroll having opened up Facebook. Then I saw one of many posts about Donald Trump. 

Back then, I was one of those people who saw Trump as the ‘orange man’ or some other derogatory sling. I, like so many others nowadays, had a visceral reaction to seeing or hearing about this man. I thought he was boarish with funny hair, disrespectful to women and overall, not someone I would ever be interested in speaking to. 

But here’s the thing…

Looking at this post about Trump - and it was just a “normal” post about him (whatever that means) - I remember vividly, all of a sudden it was as if I could see myself looking at the post, that random Facebook post about Trump, and I was seeing someone raging out. Raging out at 6 am in the morning at a screen. A screen with some pixels on it that my brain translated from my eyes to my voice as something to get enraged about. My cortisol went up, as did my blood pressure, and this did what you would think it would do to my stress levels. This was routine. Every morning was like this. 

And then, for some reason on that morning, it was like another level of awareness kicked in and I saw myself seeing myself rage out at this screen. And I was horrified. 

I realized in that moment that I had been programmed by the ‘advertising power’ of Facebook. I had had no idea. I had been kind of brainwashed - for lack of a better word - to “hate Trump”: a man I had never met, never spoken to, never made eye-contact with, and pretty much knew nothing about. Regardless of my created ‘feelings’ toward this man I had never met, it was the effect on me that really bothered me. I found myself asking questions like: Was I so ‘influenceable’? How was it possible that I was so ‘simply’ ‘made’ to have such a negative and visceral response to an image on a screen? I decided to do something about this because - now aware that I had been under some kind of social media/propaganda spell - I could un-bind myself from it.

I don’t know why I was able to reflect in such an important way on that particular morning. It was pretty much a life-changing day for me and I still don’t know why it was that day that I was able to see myself in this way. 

After this day, I started to ask myself even more questions - the questions that I came to realize through self-reflection that I should have been asking myself - Why were those posts about Trump there in the first place? Why were there so many ad hominen interjections? Was there an intention to polarize people against him using social media as a tool? If I could be swayed so easily, why wouldn’t it happen to others? How many others are still caught in the polarization trap? Is Facebook being used as a political weapon? 

I had to start asking myself these questions because of my own experience, regardless of how I felt personally about Trump. But having said that, I did start to ask myself important questions about Trump himself. If he is just an orange baboon as portrayed on many social media posts, then why would he need to be discredited? Wouldn’t a baboon simply retreat back to the forest - a threat to no political agenda? Maybe the things being said about him on social and legacy media weren’t true? Or horror of horrors, maybe they were completely false! 

It is safe to say that the events of that morning were not insignificant in my own journey to self-awareness. I actually saw Trump at a recent CPAC event in DC and he was quite funny. The people came in droves to hear him speak and all I heard as per feedback was how funny he was. A sense of humor is very important to me, personally. I think humor is the highest form of intelligence. And for someone to maintain a sense of humor in light of what he must know as a privileged individual having held the title of United States President, is no small feat. I have come to think of Trump as someone I would really like to have a conversation with, and having said this, I would also guess that he has grown and become more self-aware in the past few years as well. 

Getting back to the life-changing day story, that day I decided - with regrets I might add - to delete my Facebook account. With all the control, division, diversion and conversion experiments ongoing on social media platforms including Facebook, combined with the fact that these same platforms were deleting many groups that had formed organically, (deleted simply because they violated the ‘terms and conditions’ that were subsequently based on some false sanctioned narratives), I couldn’t justify staying on board. 

I miss Facebook - the old Facebook, that is. It was a nice idea. It got corrupted, which is a shame. Backdoor shenanigans and bitch-slapping CEOs is the way to go these days it seems, and many don’t have the moral character or vision to say “No, thank you, backdoor man”. Whatever the reasons a prominent leader in the social media platform community may provide for censoring public voices, it’s not good enough. Censorship is bad. It’s the precursor to totalitarianism. And if you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be in that role of prominent leader.

So I would like to say a heart-felt Thank You to Donald Trump. You didn’t do anything specifically to engage my own self-awareness journey, but you did do something generally. It’s funny isn’t it? His existence, and the narrative created about who he is prompted a huge change in my own awareness journey. My critical thinking skills and my open-mindedness to what I might have thought were mere remote possibilities have all amplified. And this extends to the science realm of my brain. It’s very useful, and not only that, I don’t rage out at screens like I did before. That wasn’t good for me. And it’s probably not good for all those people who are where I was. 

Dem poor followers. Pun intended.

So thank you Trump. Maybe when you and Robert Kennedy start putting things in order you can appoint me CDC director. I would say yes, and I could have that conversation with you. I would be interested to hear more about your journey in the past 4 years and also to tell you what I have learned. I have a lot to tell you. 

 

Why we can't move forward with self-amplifying RNA technology

CQAs and potency data required

Jessica Rose

Everybody knows that the COVID-19 shots are associated with harms. We know this from pharmacovigilance and hospital data, peer-reviewed studies and on-the-ground reports of everything from cancer to autoimmune conditions. The exact mechanism of action of harm has yet to be definitively defined, but we do know that the harms are comprehensive and this points to immune system dysfunction. 

A question on everybody’s minds is this: 

How did it come to pass that billions of people were subjected to experimental gene-based prophylactic prodrugs wrapped in lipid nanoparticles when a plethora of deficiencies in critical quality attributes (CQAs) and potency remain even today?

Perhaps an even more relevant question is this:

How can it be that self-amplifying RNA-LNP technology which is based on exactly the same principles as the COVID-LNP product platform - plus some - is about to be pushed onto the Japanese public when none of these CQAs or potencies have been mitigated or even acknowledged by the entities pushing them?

Even if the manufacturers are trying to mitigate some of the issues, it is immoral and unethical and dare I say illegal, to do this post-facto. Think SV40. Think frameshifting. Think no dose.

Here are the principles of the RNA-LNP platform (and delivery) written as a goal: 

The goal is to achieve a protective immune response with good immunological memory recall to prevent infection upon challenge with the ‘real-life’ pathogen using specific pathogen-related antigens. This response will depend on antigen expression. Antigen expression is proportional to the number of conventional mRNA transcripts successfully delivered [or produced] during “vaccination”. The number of RNAs successfully delivered depends on a multitude of factors including:

1. which and how many cells take up the LNPs?

2. the number of LNPs taken up by each cell?

3. the translation efficiency of the mRNA?

4. the % integrity of the mRNA? 

5. the rate of endosomal release of the mRNA?

just to name a few. The latter is perhaps the most important determining factor and is in fact the rate-limiting step. In biochemistry, the slowest step in a series of biochemical reactions or metabolic pathways is the rate limiting step.

Figure 1: Where do RNA therapeutics escape from endosomes?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10019367/.

Question:

How many of you know that according to in vitro studies, only 1-2% of all LNP-delivered nucleic acids (RNAs) make it to the cytoplasm of the cell? It begs the question, what effect does the 98% of the remaining foreign-introduced materials - with pathogenic potential - have on the cell? It remains inadequately studied.

Let me be blunt: There is no current way to determine how many mRNA transcripts will be successfully delivered to the cytoplasm and this is because the determining factors have not been characterized. Please take a moment to understand what I just wrote.

It means that there is no way to quantify a dose. It means that we don’t know from person-to-person how much, or which, protein will be made. It means that regardless of the so-called 30 ug “dose” of modRNA in a single Pfizer injection, we cannot know where the spike protein will be made, how much will be made, or for how long it will be made.

Figure 2: Putative Biodistribution of mRNA after BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccine Administration. Hulscher, Nicolas, et al. “Strategic Deactivation of Mrna COVID-19 Vaccines: New Applications for Ribotacs and Sirna Therapy.” OSF Preprints, 30 May 2024. Web.

Besides the enumerable problems that are clearly linked to harms which include undefined mechanisms of action, problems associated with n1-methylpseudoU incorporation inducing frameshifting, process-related impurity issues like DNA contamination - it would be maniacal to move forward with a new product based on this platform, especially if this new product brings new problems. Which it does. 

Enter self-amplifying mRNA 

So consider that in the face of all of the problems we already know about (no thanks to the regulators, product pushers or governments), we now have to deal with the fact that the coding material itself contains a photocopier for the RNA. This means RNA copying will be autonomous within the cell yielding a potential endless amount of protein product, and don’t forget, this will be at the metabolic expense of the cell. The cell will die.

Figure 3: Difference between “conventional mRNA-LNP” system and self-amplifying RNA system. Blakney; The next generation of RNA vaccines: self-amplifying RNA. Biochem (Lond) 13 August 2021; 43 (4): 14–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1042/bio_2021_142.

This will translate (pun intended) into more antigen being produced and for longer duration intracellularly and on the cell surface. All this excessive translation is very metabolically heavy, and all of that energy that should be going do the cell’s work will be going to making foreign proteins instead. For an unknown amount of time. The cell will die, or be killed by a cytotoxic T cell. Poor cell. 

Figure 4: Difference between “conventional mRNA-LNP” system and self-amplifying RNA system. BioRender (2022)

I think this is a very bad idea. It’s another example of absconding a beautiful mechanism used by Alphaviruses to propagate themselves, and abusing it in the biotech and experimental “vaccine” setting. This copy machine technology is the brainchild of certain Alphaviruses, like Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) for example, and although genius conceptually, I am exceedingly wary of tinkering with viruses and genetics for prophylactic prodrug “vaccine” design to counter viruses that aren’t harmful to people with in-tact immune systems. 

Opinion: If this was meant to happen, we would have developed these abilities inherently. 

Another exceedingly important point I would like to make is that the people who should be assessing environmental impact properly, aren’t, not for the “conventional” modRNA products, and not for these self-amplifying products, and as I currently understand it, this becomes really important in the context of the self-amplifying RNA LNP-based products because Alphaviruses can infect a whole bunch of different kinds of animals. Read this articlefor more information. 

If it is also possible for recombination events between an endosome carrying RNA genetic material and an RNA virus to ensue, then what would be long-term effects on us and all the other animals that are susceptible to Alphaviruses? 

If you want a point of entry for litigation purposes, take this to your MPs: 

Until the QCAs and potency issues are resolved, no other products (including self-amplifying RNA products) based on genetic-LNP delivery systems should be released - not even at a local population level. Demand potency tests and IV (in process) expression tests and evidence of encapsulation efficiency by LNPs and sequencing of vials. Thanks for the chat Maria!

Use the known SV40 enhancer presence in the vials as proof of poor CQA assessment and use the dose issue - as in, there is no way to quantify a dose - to press the issue of safety and efficacy. Until a dose can be quantified (I honestly cannot think of how this could be done with current technologies), all injection regimes should be halted. 

And save the vials you have. Do not destroy them. They are evidence.

The bottom line here is, if people partake in this new experiment under the guise of the “safe and effective” narrative umbrella every human and possibly many other creatures will be potentially and permanently affected. The question of exosome shedding from the “conventional modRNA” products has yet to be addressed, or assessed in any satisfactory way. Just how many endosomes are passed from the injected to the uninjected every day? I would really like to know.

THM: The tools and tests required as part of CQA and potency assessments are either not good enough, or not being utilized properly in order to draw conclusions pertaining to the long-term effects of both the modRNA or the self-amplifying RNA-LNP products; neither in the human context, nor in the environment and ecosystem context. To me, it’s beyond criminal that the powers that be intend to once again rush through to a potential disaster, especially since we are literally still in the midst of the first disaster, and potentially only reaping the tip of the iceberg of what was sown. 

I think this new tech is an act against nature itself. Truly. 

Mistakes were not made. Mistakes are not being made.

1

Dowdy SF. Endosomal escape of RNA therapeutics: How do we solve this rate-limiting problem? RNA. 2023 Apr;29(4):396-401. doi: 10.1261/rna.079507.122. Epub 2023 Jan 20. PMID: 36669888; PMCID: PMC10019367

2

Bitounis, D., Jacquinet, E., Rogers, M.A. et al.Strategies to reduce the risks of mRNA drug and vaccine toxicity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 23, 281–300 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-023-00859-3

3

Munson, M.J., O’Driscoll, G., Silva, A.M. et al.A high-throughput Galectin-9 imaging assay for quantifying nanoparticle uptake, endosomal escape and functional RNA delivery. Commun Biol 4, 211 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-01728-8