POTENTIAL GENETIC DAMAGE AND DNA CONTAMINATION IN THE COVID INJECTIONS
Video interview with renown genomic expert - Dr. Kevin McKernan
This is an incredible 1 hr 2 min video interview with one of the world’s leading genomic experts who is trying to raise the alarm concerning the gene-based COVID injections. CLICK HERE to view.
It is impossible to overestimate the genetic dangers posed by these ill-conceived injections. These so-called “vaccines” were never going to work in preventing infection, they could not, because they had no effect on the mucosal route of infection. What is worse is that these injections have unacceptably high levels of contaminating plasmid DNA which have concerned some drug regulators. This DNA material can more easily enter the nucleus of cells to interfere with our genes because it can be transported by the lipid nanoparticles used as a vehicle in the injections. In addition, the Pfizer injections contain segments of Simian Monkey Virus (SV40) which is a well-known gene promoter segment which could integrate into the body’s DNA and promote certain cancers.
The danger of contaminating endotoxin in the injections is also mentioned by Dr. McKernan and I recommend my readers to go to Dr. Geoff Pain’s Substack (geoffpain.substack.com) for more information. Endotoxins may be responsible for the reported cases of anaphylactic shock and death immediately following injection while the Spike Protein is probably responsible for the adverse effects days or months following injection.
Mention is properly made of the “truckloads” of lipid nano particles containing mRNA specifically designed to resist natural degradation in the body and the lack of proper bio-distribution studies and dose-response studies usually needed to assess safety.
It is incomprehensible that drug regulators are not taking notice of the warnings of Dr. McKernan and Dr. Pain and more gene-based injections for COVID variants, flu and other infections will soon be introduced without regard to the enormous danger posed by these radical therapies. The alarm bells are ringing. I urge you to take the time to listen to Dr. McKernan.
FOLLOW UP TO DR. BAY’S CHALLENGE TO THE VOICE REFERENDUM
I previously reported on Dr. William Bay’s claim of a High Court challenge in relation to The Voice Referendum. Due to the firestorm of ensuing critical comment, Dr. Bay has now elaborated and clarified yesterday the implications of his legal move. CLICK HERE to view the 59 min interview on Cafe Locked Out.
As I understand it, Dr. William Bay has taken the first step to challenge in the High Court the legal basis of the wording of The Voice Referendum, and therefore, the legality of the Referendum itself. He did not have a “win” in the sense of a successful claim in the High Court.
Dr. Bay says he has formally commenced the initial step required to challenge the referendum sometime in the future in the High Court should it be needed if the “YES” vote gets up. In other words, he has given us “insurance” to protect us from the government disinformation and misinformation surrounding promotion of The Voice. Dr. Bay says there are reports that some constitutional lawyers agree with him and believe there are firm grounds for a future challenge in the High Court to the validity of the Referendum itself.
What is absolutely clear is that our current government is purposely seeking to deceive Australians into thinking this referendum is only about an innocent recognition of aboriginals in the Australian Constitution. Our government wants you to believe “The Voice” is only a single page document – we all know it is 26 pages which outline definitive aims (not meeting minute notes as claimed) and our Prime Minister has said he has no need to read the entire document. This is wilful blindness. The Voice will be the mechanism to facilitate a future unconscionable Treaty and never-ending reparations paid to people of a specific race into the future. Aboriginal leaders have admitted this. The implications are mammoth.
By putting only the title of proposed Constitutional Amendment (basically an idea or concept and not a “proposed law”) on the ballot paper, Dr. Bay argues the Referendum Amendment question is invalid. He may have a point.
I attach Section 128 of the Constitution which defines how the Constitution can be altered. This Section clearly refers to an amendment regarding a “proposed law”.
The question on the ballot paper will be: “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
Look closely at the wording which is on the ballot paper – is it really a “proposed law” being put forth in the Referendum or is it an ill-defined and vague idea or concept which could be used to shape all future government policy for a special race of people at the expense of others not of that race? Perpetual racism? You be the judge.
Thanks for reading phillip.altman’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Any Prime Minister who says, “Why should I look” at the details of the proposed Constitutional Amendment, should not be Prime Minister.