Would you like Plasmids with that?
Would you like Plasmids with that?
A bombshell finding implicates ALL recombinant vaccines in the DNA contamination scandal and requires urgent investigation
Plasmids are DNA sequences used by laboratories to manufacture vaccines and biologics and contain elements that should never get to the human supply chain.
It turns out that this has been happening for decades, discovered following independent investigation into the COVID vaccines.
Revelations this week implicate every recombinant vaccine currently in use, in this major contamination scandal. Two things have happened this week that - when combined - are going to shine the light on a decades-long scandal that the pharmaceutical corporations, particularly those making vaccines, appear desperate to suppress.
In fact, if they are unable to keep a lid on the information in this article, the floodgates may open to the largest pharma lawsuits in history.
The Port Hedland Incident
The first of these events is the dramatic passage of the Port Hedland council motion1 in Australia last week to
(1) recognise that there is unacceptable levels of plasmid DNA contamination of the “mRNA” COVID vaccines and
(2) to inform recipients of said vaccines, and health practitioners, of this contaminant.
[The story is covered by the excellent Alison Bevage here including articles from Rebekah Barnett and Julian Gillespie with more details on the background to the vote here and Russell Broadbent MP’s letter to the Prime Minister here]
Of the two councillors that voted to continue to keep the citizens in the dark on this issue, one was the mayor who managed to get himself embroiled in a scandal of his own in 2022 whilst on a video meeting with a school board receiving some Vietnamese strawberries in a rather unorthodox manner. There was no suggestion at the time of writing that Mayor Carter’s voting decision was in any way compromised by his holiday escapades. It should be recognised however that Mayor Carter did dye his hair for last week’s event (in case you don’t recognise him).
Note that Port Hedland council is not just any council, it presides over one of the most economically powerful areas of Australia. So this is not just any council vote and because the motion also carried that the information on the plasmid (DNA) contamination scandal be distributed to health practitioners this would likely be the first time that health practitioners are formally being advised of this significant danger. That is, although we have been shouting about this since #plasmidgate was first exposed in early 2023 the story has been heavily suppressed. I’ll explain more about plasmids below.
The Gardasil Incident
The second thing that has happened is the bombshell exposé released today by Maryanne Demasi of exactly the same problem in the Gardasil HPV vaccinations discovered all the way back in 2011.
Yes, those are the same HPV vaccinations that you were told were safe when your daughter’s school sent out flyers which just forgot to mention the residual plasmid DNA known by the FDA to be a contaminant in the Gardasil vaccine (and others, which we will come to).
At the same time the official information leaflets told you that there were products in there that didn’t really have an explanation - they just omitted the bit where some of these ingredients just happen to be chemicals that can act as transfection agents, which can carry DNA into the cells of the recipients - potentially permanently.
I’ll just point out in passing that in that list is a lot of HPV antigen to take in one injection - 270 micrograms. For comparison, the Hepatitis B vaccine (Engerix) has 20 micrograms. It’s equivalent to being injected with 13 injections of Hep B vaccine, each of a different strain. Of course nobody has ever looked at whether having that much antigen or having 9 strains of antigen at the same time is safe in the short or long term. The FDA’s Paul Offit (who has millions of dollars of vested interests in the vaccine industry) said so, but has so far declined to take the 10,000 vaccines in one go that he also claims is safe. A recent dramatic illustration of how, although vaccines in comparison to most drugs are relatively safe, there is no such thing as an absolutely safe drug is highlighted by the shocking event that befell Alexis Lorenze - who turned purple within 3 hours of a meningococcal vaccine (containing 5 different strains) given at a time when she was already acutely unwell2.
However concerning the overloading of the immune system with multiple strains (each of which has to recruit a different set of immune cells to deal with) might be, what we’re interested in here is the bit down at the bottom. The quiet part. Here it is:
Amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate is included in the vaccine as an adjuvant. Adjuvants are included to improve the immune response of vaccines.
The other ingredients in the vaccine suspension are: sodium chloride, histidine, polysorbate 80 (E433), borax (E285) and water for injections
In fact, we’re not even interested in all of those. We’re just interested in the ones that can act as transfection agents.
What the hell is a transfection agent?
Briefly, in order to get nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) into a cell you need to transfect the cell. It’s how the mRNA vaccines work, by transferring foreign genetic material (RNA or DNA) into the cell - a process that should not normally happen.
I’ve covered it all here if you have time:
Although human cells are generally protected from being “infected” with foreign nucleic acid there are methods that are used in labs to bypass these protection mechanisms to get foreign DNA into cells (which is where the “transfection” term comes in).
The methods are basically any of:
to punch a hole in the cell wall so that you can carry the DNA into the cell
to use a chemical usually required by the cell to carry the DNA into the cell like a trojan horse
to electrocute the cell (electroporation)
Apart from electrocution, which is somewhat impractical for whole human use, the only ways to get DNA into cells is to use a chemical agent that facilitates the process. The commonest of these are “cationic” particles, i.e. those made up of positively charged components. Another option is detergents or soaps, which literally punch holes in cells and provided they survive that process you will get your transfection.
So why does this matter?
It matters if you don’t want a lab-reagent plasmid transferred into your cells that can cause cancer or other genetic diseases. That’s right. The reason that lab plasmids are not allowed into the general circulation is that they contain elements that can cause havoc in human cells. In the presence of a transfection agent that process of transfer is almost guaranteed.
What most people don’t realise is that there are a LOT of substances that can act as transfection agents - chemicals that can transfer that DNA into cells. The commonly known ones are:
Lipids (lipofectamine, lipid nanoparticles)
Calcium Phosphate
Gold and Silver nanoparticles
These are all positively charged (cationic) particles and are either lipids or metallic anions (yes Calcium is a metal) and are highly efficient transfection agents.
But they are not the only ones. You see, all you really need is the right circumstances and usually a positively charged particle (with an appropriate zeta potential) to carry your nucleic acid into your cell - because the inside of the cell that you want to get to is a relatively negative charge, and opposites attract.
So which other agents can be used for transfection, that are not commonly regarded as transfection agents?
Here’s a little list to remember - it includes either transfection agents that can act alone, or agents that are enhancers of transfection where other agents exist.
Do you notice anything (apart from the fact that each of those claims is referenced)?
They are all adjuvants for vaccines, and pretty much every vaccine has at least one of these but some have more than one. They are everywhere.
And the strange thing is that nobody really knows how they work, so why are they even there?
Shouldn’t the vaccine antigens - present in huge doses - be enough to induce immunity without needing these risky additional substances?
Well we may be able to answer that, at least with a cynical hat on soon.. but did you notice something else? Here, I’ll give you a clue.
3. Metallic cations including Aluminium…
That’s right. Aluminium (Aluminum for my US readers) can act as a transfection agent, yet it is the commonest adjuvant used in nearly all vaccines and for which the reason it works is not really known.
And for those doubters who think I’m making this up, here is the paper4 from Nils Link (2007) that shows it.
And here’s the very impressive graph of the transfection rates for Aluminium nanoparticles in HEK293 cells5, the same cells that Pfizer used to show their lipid nanoparticles could transfect cells at the same 90% rate.
In other words, Aluminium nanoparticles were as effective for transfection and binding of DNA as lipid nanoparticles.
Now, none of this will matter unless
The vaccine is created by recombinant technology (i.e. a protein or RNA vaccine derived from a plasmid coding for the viral or bacterial antigen of interest)
There is residual DNA from that plasmid in the vaccine
Which leaves us with a bit of an oops because, as mentioned above, the FDA knew that there was residual plasmid DNA in Gardasil (the HPV vaccine).
No biggie though, right? Aluminium is “just an adjuvant”.
Coincidentally, Gardasil’s HPV vaccine competitor - Cervarix - pretty much had the same system with an Aluminium-Lipid complex “adjuvant” which easily passes the criteria for a transfection agent.
So why the obsession with Aluminium nanoparticle adjuvants?
Well now it gets murkier, because the Link et al. paper discussed above was published in 2007, before Gardasil plasmid DNA - that was not meant to be there - was discovered hanging around in vaccine recipients long after receiving their vaccine6.
And that Link et al. paper was not by an organisation unfamiliar with looking into this, because very conveniently the same university popped up with a paper a few years earlier that showed that the “vaccines did not transfect plasmid DNA”.
Weird eh? I mean, why would they even be looking at that if these vaccines were just proteins and had no residual DNA or products in them that could act as transfection agents?
Here’s the paper - published in April 1999, coincidentally just a year after Andrew Wakefield’s contentious publication highlighting potential safety concerns over the combined MMR vaccine:
The lead author is Susanne Gonser, who was pretty much a one-hit wonder after writing a couple of papers and then moving into the world of pharma.
The problem with this paper is that it is short, poorly written and reinforces the complete lack of experience of the lead author who had never written a paper before and pretty much never touched the subject again. The paper has no transfection graphs and we are expected to believe that every vial tested with a plasmid had zero transfections. That wouldn’t happen. Even naked plasmids transfect a small amount, so zero is an unlikely number.
Furthermore, the chosen cell line is just weird. Nobody uses this cell line.
Just to illustrate this point I ran a Pubmed search for various different cell lines and their mentions. This is the result - only 2 papers on Pubmed with the search term “SW684 cells” and they are both written after that 1999 paper.
So why on earth would a paper come out in 1999 showing that “vaccine adjuvants can’t transfect plasmids in human cancer cells” using a cell line that nobody had ever used in a publication, and was subsequently rebutted by a paper from the same institute7?
Is it because the authors knew that these cell transfections were going to fail
(a) because some cells - like the chosen cell line - just don’t transfect easily
(b) if they did this experiment in the absence of Calcium they knew that it wouldn’t work anyway.
Add to that the fact that getting zeroes in all those tests is pretty much impossible in a real world lab scenario like this then what you have is a planned pre-bunk paper which was intended to get ahead of a story.
The story was buried for 25 years. And the story is this:
Every single recombinant vaccine that:
- uses a plasmid for its production and
- contains an adjuvant
has the risk of permanently transfecting (transferring plasmid DNA into) the cells of the recipient of that vaccine.
What’s a Plasmid Between Friends?
If you’ve got this far you might be asking yourself (prompted by professional debunkers such as Flora Teoh who are themselves funded by Pharma lobby groups):
What can be so bad about a plasmid?
If the regulators say it’s safe it must be safe, surely?
Well, there is some history there.
You see, plasmids are meant to be used in the lab. They are a lab DNA product that have multiple DNA inserts in them, mostly suited to their use in the bacteria they are adapted for. You really don’t want this lab material in your cells mixing with your cellular DNA. Trust me, you really don’t. Just like you don’t want to inject sodium hydroxide or hydrogen chloride.
Here’s what one of the COVID plasmids looks like via Kevin McKernan’s plasmid map. It’s a circular DNA. Cute, if you’re a lab nerd.
The plasmid contains DNA encoding the foreign viral spike protein (the red bit). That’s bad enough of course because this thing is asking you to continually produce spike protein from your own cells.
There’s more though. It also contains DNA coding for “NeoR/KanR” (the green bit) - which is an antibiotic resistance gene that can get into the environment via E Coli in your gut and create antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Fab.
If those two nasty things aren’t enough (and one of many reasons why plasmids are not meant to enter the public domain) you should be able to see the white arrow with “SV40 promoter” labelled.
Well, now that’s REALLY bad.
Why? Because the SV40 promoter/enhancer (the bit of the SV40 virus that makes genes go into overdrive) is used in lab experiments to turn genes on and never switch them off. They are used purposefully to get as much gene product out of cells as possible. Essentially flogging the cell until it drops.
The problem with this is that human cells were not designed to continually produce proteins via an SV40 promoter, which is why humans don’t have them.
The SV40 came from African Green Monkey cells, and it is known to cause cancer8. Like, a LOT of cancer.
It does this partly because it has a cancer causing protein in its make up but partly because its genetics include the very SV40 promoter that is in those COVID vaccine plasmids - the same genetic sequences that cause genes to go into overdrive - and if that’s a cell cycle gene then the cell will never stop dividing.
That is cancer. And that is why you do not put plasmids containing any part of SV40 or other oncogene into a human therapeutic. It’s an absolute no-no (unless you’re a psychopath of course).
How do we know this? Because the vaccine industry did it before.
Not only that, but ALL the drug regulators know about it - here’s the TGA’s report from 2004 explaining that SV40 contamination of polio vaccines carried such a risk of cancer that they needed to follow up the population for over 40 years. From ONE incident.
If you prefer a visual version of the story from someone who was on the ground at the time, here is a 15 minute snippet of an interview with neurosurgeon-turned-blogger Jack Kruse, who explains how the scandal of SV40 contamination of polio vaccines links back to the assassination of JFK. No, I’m not kidding.
It’s a riveting interview and every part of his story checks out including the reference to Bernice Eddy - who was the NIH epidemiologist who blew the whistle on the Cutter incident (where children were actually paralysed by the polio vaccine). Of course - because this is how it works - this discovery led to her censure.
Despite threats to her own career she then exposed the cancer-causing properties of SV40 viral contamination of polio vaccines - since which there is still no definitive proof that the world has ever been rid of the risk of cancer that arose from this one DNA contamination incident.
In fact, one highly regarded blogger and analyst has shown, with good evidence, that the increase in cancer incidence over time maps quite well to SV40 DNA contamination of polio vaccines in the 60s. We do not of course know whether this is true, but what we do know is that none of the regulators want us to talk about it, or provide the data on which we might be able to assess its validity.
So now you know about SV40 I’ll just recap the most important take-home message about the Cutter incident and SV40 polio vaccine contamination scandals, which is this:
The drug regulators who approve vaccines, and the vaccine makers who make them, have no liability for their decisions.
The liability rests with you, the recipient.
If you develop cancer as a result of a pharmaceutical which is designated as a vaccine, you cannot sue the manufacturers and you will not be able to prove it.
You’re on your own. Until you die. Now don’t get me wrong. There may be valid reasons to accept these risks and essentially sign the most pervasive disclaimer of all time (mostly without your knowledge) - but that would rely on you being provided all the information.
And it appears that furnishing you with that information, in order to make an informed decision as to whether you should engage in this one-way contract, is prohibited.
Because, until you read this article, you probably didn’t realise that adjuvants in recombinant vaccines can act as transfection agents.
That information is NOT IN ANY PRODUCT INFORMATION SHEET OF ANY VACCINE IN PRODUCTION.
Now, that might be a problem for vaccine manufacturers because, although they are legally indemnified against claims arising from their product - they are NOT indemnified against fraud. Because FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING. It might sound corny, but it is a central tenet of law. Essentially it means that if you lie about your contract you abdicate any claim to that contract.
It also relates to “duty of disclosure” - which basically means that if you deliberately withhold relevant facts, you commit fraud. Well, that’s a problem for the pharmaceutical corporations because the law that indemnifies them against claims in relation to vaccine injury no longer apply if they KNOWINGLY withhold information.
Like KNOWING about the presence of SV40 or plasmids in their vaccines and the consequences of those contaminants.
Of course, the regulators wouldn’t hide any knowledge of contaminants in vaccine would they? Of course not. That’s why Pfizer knowingly withheld the SV40 sequence in the plasmid map they submitted to the European regulator (EMA).
That’s not all there was in terms of provable contamination (ignoring the fake stories on twitter of nanobots and the like)…
For example, you know about the fact that metallic fragments were found in COVID vaccines that resulted in deaths but was withheld from the public9 by the TGA, right?
Hilariously, just to reassure you that there was nothing nasty in the vaccines, the UK’s MHRA provided this answer to another FOIA request asking for the tests that they conducted to look for contaminants. They literally just held them up against the wall.
From the world of “you can’t make this stuff up” this is what the MHRA actually said in response to the request, the full document of which is attached below10.
At the behest of the MHRA (DMRC) some vials were received by NIBSC for a visual inspection test. The visual inspection test itself is not invasive – it is a review against two monochrome backgrounds to observe particulate matter visible to the naked eye – the content (composition) of a vaccine is not examined.
And of course, if you ask the regulators for the tests they used to look for DNA contamination you get this.
Just to summarise this section before the final bombshell in the next section, let’s recap:
Plasmids are a lab-based product intended to create excessive activation of genes, particularly when they contain SV40 promoters.
If those plasmids or gene products were to end up in vaccine products, they carry a significant risk of causing cancer or other severe disease.
Lab regulations and protocols prohibit the distribution of plasmids to the general public, but the governments and pharma corporations don't seem to care, simply taking the word of the pharma companies that their products are safe.
The regulators attempts to monitor contamination are woefully inadequate. It’s Safe, Right?
So now we know what plasmids are and what they can do, we need to consider the final piece of the puzzle that will be necessary to make the world stop and take notice of what has been happening for decades - which is this:
If there is residual DNA (plasmid) in a vaccine, and that vaccine also contains a transfection agent as an adjuvant, then your cells are going to be transfected by that plasmid.
I’ll just go over that again.
The residual DNA is a danger to you if there is a transfection agent present, because it will allow that plasmid DNA to enter your cells11.
Now, obviously the vaccine manufacturers would not KNOWINGLY let this happen would they?
Well, so far we have the following vaccines made from plasmid DNA which is known to be present in the final product:
COVID vaccines and lipid nanoparticles (transfection agent)
Gardasil vaccines and aluminium-lipid complex adjuvant (transfection agent)
Novavax and saponin adjuvant (transfection agent)
Each of those products bizarrely and coincidentally contains chemicals that can transfect the cells of the recipient leading to integration of the manufacturers’ plasmid DNA into the person’s cells.
Surely that’s just a coincidence? Surely it’s not ALL recombinant vaccines that are affected?
Well, let’s try another one - Engerix B.
Engerix B was the first “recombinant vaccine” (a vaccine using a protein synthesised by recombinant DNA technology i.e. plasmids), against hepatitis B.
These are the “non-active” constituents:
In a super bizarre coincidence, Engerix contains two chemical adjuvants that just happen to act as transfection agents - Aluminium Hydroxide and Polysorbate 20 (see below).
What are the odds? Well now we have:
COVID vaccines and lipid nanoparticles (transfection agent)
Gardasil vaccines and aluminium-lipid complex adjuvant (transfection agent)
Novavax and saponin adjuvant (transfection agent)
Engerix-B and aluminium hydroxide and polysorbate 20
Shall we try another one?
How about Shingrix, a recombinant zoster (shingles) vaccine? Surely that won’t have any products listed as “adjuvants” that could act as transfection agents? That would just be too coincidental… yet here we are:
Polysorbate 80 (transfection agent)
Saponin (transfection agent)
Cholesterol, Lipid A (lipid transfection agents).
You get the drift.
It’s almost as if - and call me crazy if you want - but it just seems odd that these recombinant vaccines need these additional agents to work. Like it’s intentional. Or just another coincidence to add to the list of coincidences.
The whole concept of a vaccine was supposed to be to provide a tiny amount of a pathogen, safely, that in itself would stimulate the immune system to protect against infection. Instead it became:
“We have recombinant DNA products that will only really work if we add multiple transfection agents that can get the contaminant DNA into your cells, and try and hide them by calling them adjuvants”
Of course, the pharma corporations definitely don’t want us talking about this. Apart from the bizarre Gonser paper quoted above, their lapdog “debunking” site fullfact.org tells you all you need to know about the gazillion additives in vaccines.
It’s a pretty long article considering most of those vaccines are supposed to only contain “a little bit of antigen to provide immunity”, but it’s worth reading just to see how ridiculous it is.
Here’s is the section on polysorbate - a chemical which has no good reason to be in a recombinant vaccine.
The information is portrayed as some “antivax crazy scare” in the headline and then a calm, but irrelevant explanation. There is however no issue normally with drugs containing separate parts because you just shake the vial, so the explanation is nonsense. It just a coincidence that Polysorbates happen to also be transfection agents, and that fullfact.org are heavily funded by pharma-linked foundations.
So what does this all mean?
If you’ve read this far, well done.
If you’ve skipped to here you’ll need to go back and see what this is all about because it may turn out to be the biggest bombshell in vaccine history.
The summary of the findings above, in conjunction with what we now know about DNA contamination in the COVID vaccines, is this:
All recombinant vaccines contain adjuvants that can act as transfection agents, delivering contaminant plasmid DNA into the cells of the person receiving the product. Transfected plasmids can cause cancer.
This plasmid DNA transfection problem was known about at least as far back as 1999.
It has taken 25 years, a manufactured pandemic, an intrepid journalist, a group of dissident scientists and a council meeting on the other end of the world12 to expose it.
The pharma companies knew about the problem and have tried to suppress it, as have the multitude of agencies who have tried to ridicule, threaten and harass those scientists over the years who have tried to raise the alarm.
If there is ever a lesson to be learned from this debacle it is this:
No pharmaceutical corporation or government agency must be allowed to suppress safety information, that the public would want to know, ever again.
It's time for the information floodgates to open, and the lawsuits to follow
Also covered here with video https://www.foxla.com/news/alexis-lorenze-california-woman-vaccine-reaction
Aluminium produces salts as a cation, including Aluminium hydroxide and Aluminium Oxide. The paper referenced - see above - used Aluminium Oxide. Although direct studies using Aluminium hydroxide are impossible to find, one study shows the zeta potential of the hydroxide to be highly positive at cellular pH, such that it would be expected to behave the same way and carry any bound elements into the cell.
The high transfection rates were achieved at Calcium concentrations which are within the range of the physiological concentration of calcium in the body.
Insert Sin Lee reference here
The Link paper from 2007 showing Aluminium is a transfection agent and the Gosner paper from 1999 showing (ostensibly) that vaccine components didn’t act as transfection agents were both from the same institute in Zurich.
SV40 – An Obscure Monkey Virus and the Golden Age of Molecular Biology, Thomas Berger. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-85487-4_7
In the absence of a transfection agent, which carries and binds the plasmid, most plasmid DNA will be degraded by enzymes in the circulation.
