Yesterday at Forest of the Fallen at Bilgola Beach a mother told me that her son, aged 18, was passenger to an 18 year old triple jabbed driver. They had a minor accident. Paramedics arrived and insisted the boys attended hospital. First reaction at hospital was to check troponin levels. Clearly hospitals suspect medical incidents being the cause of most accidents these days. This young supposedly fit and healthy young man had raised troponin levels. But no symptoms. So sad.
Yes PLEASE!!!! But they’ll lose their jobs🙁But if they stay silent, innocents may be injured, for all sorts of reasons. Or innocent people will die!!!!😡😡😡
Grow up you useless classes of brainwashed so called medical professionals!! All of you, just grow up! It’s not about your jobs it’s about people’s lives!!! You can’t be so stupid, 4 years into this covid rubbish. Or are you?🤡🤡🤡
This goes for all government who don’t speak out. I hate you all. And you’re all going to hell if you don’t do the right thing. Just ask God!!!
Thank you for this information, Dr Altman. I wish it could be presented to the government by our good senators. The data on WA’s adverse events as cited by Senator Rennick in this clip here are staggering, as is the arrogance and dismissive nature of our public health officials (3 minutes): https://youtu.be/1_fphE5aXFQ?si=x6ZW3WO4x7hnJM9-
As a mother of adult children who refused to listen to me, took the jabs, also friends who took them, it's a horrible feeling to be constantly worrying about their health and getting that phone call. Is there anything medical that helps allieviate myocarditis?
I could be wrong here, but i think Nakahara study shows that in PET scans taken up to 6 months from 2nd injection 100% of COVID mRNA ‘vaxxinated’ show damage as compared to unvaxxinated.
The lab leak hoax is another distraction, the only way to create a worldwide pandemic is to clone lots and lots of virus and spread it all over the place.
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: My archive is of transcripts of censored and shadow-banned videos posted between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2023. I make some exceptions, as in this case, for Dr. Chris Shoemaker. Dr. Chris Shoemaker blogs at https://cshoemakermd.substack.com/
0:30
JIM FERGUSON: There appears to be some information coming to light about hearts working harder after having had two vaccinations. Is that correct?
0:44
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: That's absolutely correct. From a September 2023 study published September, that is, just four months ago, and its lead scientist was Dr. Nakahara from Tokyo, Japan.[1] There were also lead scientists out of, one of South America, one from Houston, Texas and the fourth [inaudible]. So four major study centers participated in this in terms of finding whether asymptomatic people actually, and without myocarditis, was there any evidence that their heart was straining any harder in the vaccinated than the nonvaccinated. And it was found by Dr. Nakakahara, Dr. Nakahara, my apologies, Dr. Nakahara and others, that there was a, not just a 5%, 10%, maybe 12% elevation in heart effort, it's a 47%, virtually 50% increased effort going on in the cardiac cells of vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated. And they found that this elevation persisted for a full 6 months.
The reason we can count on this study as having validity is that they took 5,000 patients worldwide and they meticulously deleted and made sure that if there was any chance of something being driven that was in any way incorrect— Anyway, they brought it down to a 1,000 patients, 700 who were doubly-vaxxed and 300 who were nonvaxxed, and they were meticulous in the study, meticulous in finding whether there was a legitimate elevation or or not.
And it was proven with a P-value, and the scientists out there will know, a P-value[2] of .001 or less. This was meticulous in showing a P-value of certainty that this elevation of 47% cardiac effort was confirmed in the vaxxed. And the unvaxxed had no elevation in cardiac effort for the next 6 months.
We now know the reason that people, whether it be 6 months or 7 months or 12 months after the shot, are dying suddenly. There's a scientific reason now proven by Dr. Nakahara and others and I invite our very careful observers to go to the study which I know you will put on your website.
2:57
JIM FERGUSON: Yeah, absolutely, I will. And I think it's very, very important that people who are listening to this can actually see that that scientific data is, it's factual, it's real, it's not conjecture. We're not making it up as we go along, as it were—
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: No.
JIM FERGUSON: — this is scientific, peer-reviewed with proper data, and that is shocking to think that people's hearts are working 50%, almost 50% harder in the vaccinated as opposed to those who didn't take any of the mRNA covid vaccinations. And, you know, I still, I still, I still hesitate when I call them vaccinations, doctor, because they're not really proper vaccinations, are they? They're gene therapies, aren't they?
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: Gene therapy is the most accurate description. In fact, DARPA[3] and the military, which manufactured this on behalf of Pfizer and Moderna, they specifically in their paperwork do not call it a vaccine. Specifically in their paperwork, call it a military countermeasure, and it's because of that that they didn't have to be as meticulous about how much DNA sludge also got into the jab. And because there's DNA now proven to be in the shots[4]—
And we were advised, the whole world was advised for a whole two years, oh, there can't possibly be DNA, this is an RNA vaccine everybody! Please relax, there can't possibly be anything of a DNA functionality.
Sorry folks. 33% by weight, 33% of by weight of the genetic material which was put into our shoulders is DNA. It's not, shall we say, continuous DNA, it's what's called a plasmid contained elements of DNA. But these plasmid contained elements of DNA mean that the DNA form of it can last for basically a lifetime inside you. For virtually a lifetime, the body can keep responding to the fact that these DNA plasmids have gone to our brain, or gone to our heart or gone to other organs, and that's why the possibility of shedding for a long, long time exists.
4:55
[END OF EXCERPT]
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES
[1] Assessment of Myocardial 18F-FDG Uptake at PET/CT in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–vaccinated and Nonvaccinated Patients
Takehiro Nakahara, Yu Iwabuchi, Raita Miyazawa, Kai Tonda, Tohru Shiga, H. William Strauss, Charalambos Antoniades, Jagat Narula, Masahiro Jinzaki
Published Online:Sep 19 2023https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230743
Ah ha, I see now that Dr. Buckhault's YouTube testimony before the South Carolina State Senate has been removed for "violating YouTube's community rules." Well, folks, y'all can read my transcript. I'll check for a mirror on bitchute, odyssey and/or rumble.
DESCRIPTION: "University of South Carolina Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults testifies before South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee on DHEC." [Department of Health and Environmental Control]
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So a little bit of what am I doing here, for those of you don't, don't know me, my name is Phillip Buckhaults, I'm a, I have a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology. I'm a, I'm a cancer gene jock, basically. I do cancer genomics research at the University of South Carolina. And what that means is that I'm kind of an expert on all the ways that the human genome can get futzed with during your lifetime, and which of those things cause cancer and which ones don't. OK?
So technically, that means that I'm very, very skilled in, in the art of DNA sequencing, OK? I can figure out the sequence of things that I didn't know what I was looking for. And I'm also pretty good— when I say I, I mean the people in my laboratory that you're not going to hear their names, but there's a group of people that do this excellent work, we're really good at, at detecting foreign pieces of DNA in places where they're not supposed to be, even if they're real low levels.
And we used those skills during the pandemic to, we invented the covid test that many of you did a spit test, OK? That came out of my lab because we were really good at that kind of stuff. And so I've earned a fair amount of respect in the state of South Carolina and in this body because we did a ton of covid testing in the middle of the night when people were afraid, and we told them, no, you don't have covid in your home, or, yes, you do. So my qualifications to comment on this are both technical and kind of relational in the state of South Carolina.
I'll cut to a very narrow theme here, but it does touch on lots of these regulatory issues, and I'll leave it to you to expand on those if you want to. I'll try to stay in this narrow lane of some problems in the Pfizer vaccine as a case study for places in which regulatory oversight could be improved. Alright?
So, first of all, let me say that my interpretation of the literature is that the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping people from dying, but it did a terrible job of stopping the pandemic. The early publications showed that it stopped infection, but that only lasted for like a month.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, could you pull the mic a little closer to you? Staff's telling me they're having trouble getting you on the recording.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: OK.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK, thank you.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: In, in my professional evaluation of the literature, the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping people out of the cemetery, but it sucked at stopping the pandemic. And it was the best of sucky options that we had. And I still believe that it was deployed mostly in good faith, but there were a lot of shortcuts taken because the house was on fire, and we could do a better job next time from the lessons that we're going to learn here. That's my own personal view of this.
But I'm also, my philosophical bent here is, I'm sure many of you have heard of a Occam's Razor, right? Choose the simplest of explanations. Well there's another one called Hanlon's Razor, which is, never attribute malice to that which can be better explained by incompetence. And so I'm trying to be gracious here, in many, in circumstances there could be malice underneath, but I'm trying to see just incompetence to be gracious. So.
The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasmid DNA. It's not just mRNA. It's got bits of DNA in it. This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the mRNA.
I know this is true because I sequenced it in my own lab.
DR. PHILIP BUCKHAULTS: The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Colombia, one of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy, and for reasons that I still don't understand, he kept every single vial. So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials. Well the empty vials have a little tiny bit in the bottom of them, he gave them all to me, and I looked at them. We had two batches that were given out here in Colombia, and I checked these two batches, and I checked them by sequencing. And I sequenced all the DNA that was in the vaccine. And I can see what's in there. And it's surprising that there's any DNA in there. And you can kind of work out what it is, and how it got there.
And I'm kind of alarmed about the possible consequences of this, both in terms of human health and biology, but you should be alarmed about the regulatory process that allowed it to get there.
So this DNA, in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest. There's a lot of cases now, of people having suspicious death after vaccine. It's hard to prove what caused it, it's just, you know, temporally associated, and this DNA is a plausible mechanism. OK?
This DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that got transfected with the vaccine mix. This is just the way it works. We do this in the lab all the time. We take pieces of DNA, we mix them up with a lipid complex like the Pfizer vaccine is in, we pour it onto cells, and, and a lot of it gets into the cells, and a lot of it gets into the DNA of those cells, and it becomes a permanent fixture of the cell. It's not just a temporary, a temporary thing, it is in that cell and all of its progeny from now on, forever more, amen.
So that's why I'm kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine. It's, it's, it's different from RNA because it can be permanent.
This is a real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells like stem cells, and it could cause, theoretically, this is all a theoretical concern, but it's pretty reasonable based on solid molecular biology, that it could cause a sustained autoimmune attack toward that tissue.
It's also a very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people. Depending on where in the genome this foreign piece of DNA lands, it can interrupt a tumor suppressor or activate an oncogene. I think it'll be rare, but I think the risk is not zero, and it may be high enough that we ought to figure out if this is happening or not.
And then again, the, the, the autoimmunity thing is not my wheelhouse, I'm not an immunologist, but the cancer risk is, that's my bag. I know this is a thing, and it is a possibility.
OK, a little nerdy science here. The central dogma of molecular biology is that DNA gets transcribed into RNA, OK? And then RNA gets translated into protein. This is just how life runs.
Why, why does this matter? Well DNA, for the purposes of this discussion, DNA is a long-lived information storage device. OK? What you were born with, you're going to die with, and pass on to your kids. DNA lasts for hundreds of thousands of years, and it can last for generations if you, and get pass it on to your kids. Right? So alterations to the DNA, they stick around.
RNA, by its nature, is temporary. It doesn't last. And that feature of RNA was part of the sales pitch for the vaccine. The pseudouradine was supposed to make the RNA last a little bit longer, but still, it's a transient phenomenon. We're talking hours to days. OK?
And then proteins. Once proteins are made, they also don't last forever. They, they last for hours to days.
But something that makes its way into DNA has the potential to last for a very long time, maybe a lifetime.
7:55
[SLIDE 3 - Pieces of DNA in two batches of Pfizer vaccine]*
So this is a picture of the sequencing read that the sequencing run that I did in the lab from a couple of batches of the Pfizer vaccine. And all those little bitty lines here are the little tiny pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine. They don't belong there. They are not part of the sales pitch or the marketing campaign. And they're there. There's a lot of them.
This little graph here in the middle is the size distribution. It peaks around 100 base pairs, 120 base pairs. So the the DNA pieces that are in the vaccine are short little pieces, 100, 120. There's some that are about 500 base pairs, a few that are even 5,000, but most of them are around 100 base pairs.
Why is this important? Because the probability of a DNA, piece of DNA, integrating into the human genome is unrelated to its size, so your genome risk is just a function of how many particles there are. So it's like, you know, if you shoot a shotgun at a washboard, if you shoot a slug you have some probability of hitting it, and if shoot buckshot you have a bigger probability of hitting it with some shot, right? This, all these little pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine are analogous to buckshot. You have many, many thousands of opportunities to modify a, a cell of a vaccinated person.
The pieces are very small because during the process they chopped them up to try to make them go away, but they actually increased the hazard of genome modification in the process. That's how this got here.
In my view, somebody should go about sequencing DNA samples from stem cells of people who are vaccinated, and find out if this theoretical risk has happened or not. I think this is a real serious oversight, regulatory oversight that happened at the federal level, and somebody should force this to happen somewhere.
9:58
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, if you, now, are you capable of doing that?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah, it's, we do that kind of thing. But in order for it to be trustworthy, it, by the public, this has to be done by lots of people, right?
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK, I'll talk to you more about that later.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah, this is our our deal, this is why I know this should have been done at the federal level. OK.
DR. PHILIP BUCKHAULTS: So we took all these pieces of DNA and we used them to glue together what the source DNA must have been. This is kind of, again, this is our, what we do in the lab all the time. And, and all these little, little red and green lines here, these are all independent little pieces of DNA. This must have had 100,000 pieces of DNA in this, this sequencing run. And you can put them all back together and see what they came from is this circle over here. It's a plasmid that you can go shopping online to buy from Agilant.* And it's clear that Pfizer took this plasmid, and then they cloned spike into it, and they used it for, in a process called in vitro transcription translation, in vitro transcription, where you feed an RNA polymerase this plasmid and it makes a whole bunch of mRNA copies for you, OK? And then you take this mRNA, you mix it with the the lipid nanoparticle transfection reagent, and now you've got your mRNA vaccine. But they failed to get the DNA out before they did this. So these little pieces, they did, they did make some effort to chop it up, so all these little pieces of the plasmid got packaged in with the RNA.
That's clear as day what happened, just from the forensics of looking at the DNA sequencing, OK?
11:35
A little bit of a regulatory note here. The way you do RNA transcription, in vitro transcription reactions, you have to give it a DNA template, OK? And you can give it a DNA template that is just a synthetic piece of DNA that is only the instructions to make the RNA, and that's what was done for getting the Emergency Use Authorization and the clinical trial.* It's called Process 1 if you look up that kind of stuff. They made a PCR product of just the bits that they wanted, and then they did the in vitro transcription, made a bunch of RNA of that.
There was no plasmid DNA to contaminate the stuff that was used for the trial. But that, that making that PCR product, doesn't scale the way that was necessary to vaccinate the whole world. So a cheaper way to scale up the production of this template is to clone that PCR product into this plasmid vector, put the plasmid vector into bacteria, and then you grow up big vats of the bacteria, they make a lot of the plasmid DNA for you, then you use that plasmid DNA as the template to drive this transcription reaction to make your RNA. And that's where, how the contamination ended up in the production batches, even though it was not in the stuff that was used for the authorization trials.
So I know it's a little bit of nerdy science, but it has regulatory implications for you guys.
13:04
[SLIDE 5 - We have a pretty easy and cheap method to detect one of the pieces of plasmid DNA]*
We can, we can measure the quantity of this stuff pretty easy in the lab. This is, we're, we're good at doing this kind of stuff. This is the same, we made a little PC— a colleague of mine at at MIT made, you know, from who, who used to work for the the Broad Institute at MIT,* he, he made a little PCR test and we cloned it here. This is similar to the PCR test that you all took for the spit test, OK? Same, same idea and same expertise behind it.
And we can quantify exactly how much of this stuff is in a vaccine or any other tissue. And, you know, I estimate that there were about two billion copies of the one piece that we're looking for in every dose.
13:48
[SLIDE 6 - There are about 2 billion copies of the fragment containing the origin of replication]*
And if you looked back at that map I showed you where it's all these little, the, the little piece that we're looking for is just that little bit right there. OK?
[SLIDE 4, again]
But if you see 2 billion copies of this, there's about 200 billion of everything else.
[SLIDE 6, again]
So what this means is that there's probably about 200 billion pieces of this plasmid DNA in, in each dose of the vaccine, and it's encapsulated in this lipid nanoparticle, so it's ready to be delivered inside the cell. OK? This is a bad idea.
My conclusions from this, we should check a bunch of people. [in low voice, an aside on his difficulties using PowerPoint] Ah, my conclusions from this are I should learn how to run PowerPoint.
We should check a bunch of vaccinated people getting tissue samples, especially if we focus on harmed people. But that's not necessary. We could also just focus on regular unharmed people and see if this plasmid DNA is integrating into the genomes of any of their stem cells. It leaves a calling card that is there.
One of the reasons why I'm focusing on this is because it's kind of different from a lot of the other imagined harms where you can't really prove it. You can be suspicious because of the timing, but you can't really prove it. This one you can prove it because it leaves a calling card. OK? You find it in the stem cells of harmed people. It's equivalent to finding a certain type of lead in someone who is now dead. It's pretty reasonable to assume that that's what caused it.
The royal we, meaning you guys, should insist that the FDA force Pfizer to get the DNA out of the booster and all future versions of this vaccine.
I'm a real fan of this platform, OK? I think it has the potential to treat cancers. I really believe that this platform is revolutionary, and in your lifetime there will be mRNA vaccines against antigens in your unique cancer, OK? And, but they got to get this problem fixed. OK? And I, right now I think the financial incentives are too great to just keep on rolling with it, and it's going to take some encouragement to get it out.
DR. PHILIP BUCKHAULTS: The regulation that allowed this DNA to be there in the first place. I don't think that this, the amounts there actually exceed the regulation limits. In some batches it may. In, in the two batches that I looked at one of them, it was just under the limit, and one it was just over the limit. My colleague in Boston has looked at a fair number of other batches and there's a handful that are super high, and there's a handful that are super low. But the fact that there is a regulatory threshold for amount of DNA allowed in a vaccine is a throwback to an era when we were talking about vaccines that were like a recombinant protein, that you, or a dead virus, you know, attenuated virus produced in CHO cells* or something like that, and the DNA that might be in it is naked DNA. And you might have a little bit in the vaccine. That's not a problem because naked DNA gets chewed up immediately upon vaccination and there's no real mechanism for it to get inside the cells. They inappropriately applied that regulatory limit to this new kind of vaccine where everything is encapsulated in this lipid nanoparticle. It's basically packaged in a synthetic virus able to dump its contents into a cell.
So I'm thinking Hanlon's Razor here, OK? I don't think there was anything nefarious here. I think it was just kind of a dumb oversight. And it's going to take, because the financial incentives are so great to just, you know, sweep it under the rug, and the career incentives of people that approved this are going to be, eh, there's nothing wrong here, you know? It's going to take some encouragement to make people prove that it's OK.
But I really believe this was an inappropriate application of an old school regulation to a new kind of vaccine.
And who knows, maybe we'll check a bunch of people and we'll find out for sure that this is indeed not a problem. And that will do the public good if we prove that.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH:* Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Senator Cash.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Doctor, we appreciate all that you're saying, although we don't understand most of what you're saying.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Sorry. [laughs] I have a limited amount of time, so—
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: [looking down to his right] Someone down there agreeing a lot, so you must have been a chemistry major or something. [returning to address Dr. Buckhaults] But what, what is going to help us is to know what what you can do, like checking a bunch of vaccinated people.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Of course, that's what I can do.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Right, but we are are not going to have any authority over the FDA to force Pfizer to do something. I mean, that's a federal issue. Unless you can explain to me how we could do something at a state level, you know, some of this is going to have to be taken up by our Congressmen, right? So just, whatever your remaining comments are, just keep in mind that—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I understand.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: —what, what we can do. And, and really, these technical things you're throwing at us, as as a senator from Greenville has already mentioned, we're going to throw right back at you, because there's no, you're the expert. So if someone's going to do this testing, I don't know who we would find to do it, well, other than someone like you.
19:41
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can do it, lots of other people can do it. I've had a lot of, of, so, coroners and pharmacists from different states contact me. I posted all this on Twitter, right? And so people will private message me and say, I'd like to send you some samples. And then they say, oops, state regulations will not allow our coroner to send any samples for this. So there are some policy issues that can allow this to happen or impede it. I don't know what they are, but I hear that there are mechanisms in place that will, you know, you can encourage people to do things or not do things. But that's your wheelhouse, not mine. All I can tell you is what I found in the lab and the scientific implications of it. The policy implications and what to do with it is out of my, it's above my pay grade.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Thank you for coming today. I think I followed most of what you said. President Biden said the other day that there was a new covid vaccine that, and this one really works.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: There's no evidence to that as far as I can tell.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: I, I understand that, and that's why I'm asking this question. Is there some way you could get a hold of one of those and—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would love to.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — do the do the same study that you did on these vials to make sure—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would like to do that.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — that we're not using that, that DNA protein, or whatever it is that the DNA that, that, that we don't need them to be injected into these, to our constituents.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would like to do that. And I will not get it unless I get a batch and, and find out that it's free of DNA, and then I'll take it myself. But I don't, I don't have any way of compelling that to happen.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: So it was just basically a way to save money by, by doing it in such volume that way, without then taking it back out later on?
21:30
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I think nobody thought about it. I think it was reasonable to use the E. coli to blow up the plasmid to make the stuff. And then the, the pieces of the DNA are of a very uniform and small size, that's evidence that they took efforts to try to chop it up. And—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Then they knew about it.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah. Yeah, they knew it. And they took efforts to chop it up. They just didn't get it all out.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: But, but having said that—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I guess that they just didn't didn't think about the, the hazard for genome modification. Because it's not all that expensive to add another process to get it out.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Well that's what I'm saying. It, it you know—
22:10
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can't get inside their mind. I don't—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: It was rushed too much and that's why I'm saying, these subsequent, you know, we've heard testimony, these subsequent, you know, variant subsequent boosters, etc, etc, are leading to maybe not scientific yet but at least collateral knowledge that it apparently these things are causing death and disability later on, and also the aging process which you heard about a few minutes ago.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: There's a lot of suspicious associations—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: But I—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: — but that's all I can say.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — But it seems to me that that before we can in South Carolina, you know, give this new vaccine a whirl around here, seems to me that, that our people ought to be able to look at that, Mr. Chairman, and see whether or not it's got this DNA in it. If it does, fine, tell everybody it's got the DNA and the problems associated therewith, then you got informed consent.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Correct.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: OK, but without that, we don't have informed consent-
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: — That's not informed consent.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: I'm not I'm not really happy about that, Mr Chairman, and do what I can to try to help [inaudible]—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Knowing what I know—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — otherwise.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Knowing what I know now about this, I would still have recommended it to my elderly parents.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: OK.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: But I probably would not have given it to my daughters. I, I feel like my consent was not as informed as it should have been.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Thank you.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Yeah. Representative Morgan.
23:27
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: I almost don't know where to start. I'm, I'm trying not to talk because we're, it's a hearing and we want to hear you, but you have made so many questions come to my mind. And one I should know but I don't remember. What percentage of vaccinated people had this kind of vaccination? Do you know off the top of your head? Like, the majority of people that took the vaccine had this type? Because weren't there multiple types of vaccinations you could take?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: The vast majority of people got either Pfizer or Moderna.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: And, and we're talking about the Pfizer.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I'm talking about Pfizer. My colleagues have looked at Moderna, and it's in Moderna too, in the few that we've looked at, it's just not quite as high.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: OK. Wow. With, so, you were here today, and you've come to present, and you notice this. Where could you have gone if we didn't have this kind of ad hoc hearing—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Nowhere.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: —for this to come—?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Twitter.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: So there's no DHEC? [Department of Health and Environmental Control]
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: There's no way for you, even at your level of expertise to say, hey, red flag, I—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I email, I emailed the FDA and I tweeted at them. That's about the extent of my resources.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: It's just fascinating to me that in a, in the state that we don't have some kind of, I guess it goes to kind of the entire thing that we're talking about, is that our state agency should have more focus on our citizens' health and, you know, it's great, CDC can send us stuff, but we'll make the decision.
And, and there should be a way for, especially at your level, to get input to DHEC when you notice something like this immediately, and say hey, DHEC, you should consider this, and then they can come and tell us immediately, hey, we need to get authorization, or you need to change this regulation to look into this.
And it just seems like we've totally dropped the ball in every direction with the state prioritizing, you know, our decision-making on this kind of stuff and, and investigating into it, just letting the, you know, the federal government take it and do a terrible job.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So I had a lot of experience with DHEC rolling out the saliva test, OK? So we invented the saliva test, and then we had to deal with DHEC to try to get it rolled out for the state. And it appeared to me that they were just overrun. They weren't prepared for what this pandemic was. Through— and it's no fault of theirs. I thought, I, I told people at the time that I felt like these were Hobbits in the Shire that were, you know, accustomed to take care of small problems, and now of a sudden we're in the War of the Ring, and there are Orcs at the gate, and we're expecting them to deal with this tremendous challenge, and that's not who we put there. And that's not their fault. I mean, it's just we were not prepared to handle something of this magnitude. So some amount of grace I think is appropriate, even though we could do better next time by beefing up who's guarding the gates.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: If you, if you had a, tomorrow, fixes to the system—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: [laughs]
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — what would they be? That we could—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: That's your job. I don't know.
I shared this very same video interview with Dr. Chris Shoemaker on my personal Facebook… within minutes it was jumped upon by this ‘AAP Fact Checker’. Have a read through it and see the blatant bald-faced lies… see just how deep this tyrannical cover up goes….
A note-Steve Kirsch, one of the authors of the paper, is not a doctor. He’s a tech guy from Silicon Valley, who a bunch of us believe is controlled opposition. He’s worth a fortune, he funded the “Defeat the Mandates” Rally in America, in Feb 2022, or 2021, I’ve forgotten, it’s been that long, and they defeated nothing.
He’s worked with quantum dots and digital IDs and CBDCs in USA just before convid.
He announced sometime last year “I’m trying to get RFK jr to run for president”.
There’s talk of bitcoin and CBDC “collusion”(don’t know what other word to use) between him and RFK jr. Celebrity Dr Malone may be involved with them.
Spot On. This is the next and current phase....controlled opposition so it makes everyone maddened with confusion. I think it is working. So far, unviolent chaos....so far.
I regulate the amount of information studied each day. It helps, but about the most effective thing I do, is realize that God in heaven is controlling all of everything and pray for us all. Pure faith in God Our Almighty of everything. I don't worry. I sleep well. I am not afraid or angry because that is what the belly of all this evil intends us to do. Besides, this world is going to get more nastier as time passes. Who wants to be living in it? Not I.
Glad people are uncovering these snakes. Good info rrodynmac.
I note McCullough et al paper in Cureus journal has been retracted 'after' publication. The perps will stop at nothing to shield themselves from liability and prosecution. We all need to keep outing these people and bring them to justice. #NoAmnesty
Do the hearts (of the injected) which are performing at abnormally raised effort levels eventually recover? Or are the six months simply the cutoff time horizon for the study?
Yesterday at Forest of the Fallen at Bilgola Beach a mother told me that her son, aged 18, was passenger to an 18 year old triple jabbed driver. They had a minor accident. Paramedics arrived and insisted the boys attended hospital. First reaction at hospital was to check troponin levels. Clearly hospitals suspect medical incidents being the cause of most accidents these days. This young supposedly fit and healthy young man had raised troponin levels. But no symptoms. So sad.
It's good news that the paramedics know that the death jab is so dangerous.
They need to speak up more about it.
Yes PLEASE!!!! But they’ll lose their jobs🙁But if they stay silent, innocents may be injured, for all sorts of reasons. Or innocent people will die!!!!😡😡😡
Grow up you useless classes of brainwashed so called medical professionals!! All of you, just grow up! It’s not about your jobs it’s about people’s lives!!! You can’t be so stupid, 4 years into this covid rubbish. Or are you?🤡🤡🤡
This goes for all government who don’t speak out. I hate you all. And you’re all going to hell if you don’t do the right thing. Just ask God!!!
Thank you for this information, Dr Altman. I wish it could be presented to the government by our good senators. The data on WA’s adverse events as cited by Senator Rennick in this clip here are staggering, as is the arrogance and dismissive nature of our public health officials (3 minutes): https://youtu.be/1_fphE5aXFQ?si=x6ZW3WO4x7hnJM9-
As a mother of adult children who refused to listen to me, took the jabs, also friends who took them, it's a horrible feeling to be constantly worrying about their health and getting that phone call. Is there anything medical that helps allieviate myocarditis?
I haven’t heard of anything, but Dr Altman would be most qualified to answer
You’re the best Dr Altman 🙏😁…..love you and thankyou for being one of the brightest lights in this very dark world 😍🙏😁
I could be wrong here, but i think Nakahara study shows that in PET scans taken up to 6 months from 2nd injection 100% of COVID mRNA ‘vaxxinated’ show damage as compared to unvaxxinated.
The lab leak hoax is another distraction, the only way to create a worldwide pandemic is to clone lots and lots of virus and spread it all over the place.
More here; https://truthaddict.substack.com/p/lab-leak-zoonotic-spillover-or-deliberate
TRANSCRIPT - BRIEF EXCERPT
Jim Ferguson
( at) JimFergusonUK, Jan 19, 2024
https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1748312277382471895
Mirror:
https://rumble.com/v4bxk9r-bombshell-study-we-now-have-100-scientific-proof-why-the-jabbed-are-dying-s.html
TRANSCRIPT OF ATTACHED VIDEO - EXCERPT
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: My archive is of transcripts of censored and shadow-banned videos posted between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2023. I make some exceptions, as in this case, for Dr. Chris Shoemaker. Dr. Chris Shoemaker blogs at https://cshoemakermd.substack.com/
0:30
JIM FERGUSON: There appears to be some information coming to light about hearts working harder after having had two vaccinations. Is that correct?
0:44
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: That's absolutely correct. From a September 2023 study published September, that is, just four months ago, and its lead scientist was Dr. Nakahara from Tokyo, Japan.[1] There were also lead scientists out of, one of South America, one from Houston, Texas and the fourth [inaudible]. So four major study centers participated in this in terms of finding whether asymptomatic people actually, and without myocarditis, was there any evidence that their heart was straining any harder in the vaccinated than the nonvaccinated. And it was found by Dr. Nakakahara, Dr. Nakahara, my apologies, Dr. Nakahara and others, that there was a, not just a 5%, 10%, maybe 12% elevation in heart effort, it's a 47%, virtually 50% increased effort going on in the cardiac cells of vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated. And they found that this elevation persisted for a full 6 months.
The reason we can count on this study as having validity is that they took 5,000 patients worldwide and they meticulously deleted and made sure that if there was any chance of something being driven that was in any way incorrect— Anyway, they brought it down to a 1,000 patients, 700 who were doubly-vaxxed and 300 who were nonvaxxed, and they were meticulous in the study, meticulous in finding whether there was a legitimate elevation or or not.
And it was proven with a P-value, and the scientists out there will know, a P-value[2] of .001 or less. This was meticulous in showing a P-value of certainty that this elevation of 47% cardiac effort was confirmed in the vaxxed. And the unvaxxed had no elevation in cardiac effort for the next 6 months.
We now know the reason that people, whether it be 6 months or 7 months or 12 months after the shot, are dying suddenly. There's a scientific reason now proven by Dr. Nakahara and others and I invite our very careful observers to go to the study which I know you will put on your website.
2:57
JIM FERGUSON: Yeah, absolutely, I will. And I think it's very, very important that people who are listening to this can actually see that that scientific data is, it's factual, it's real, it's not conjecture. We're not making it up as we go along, as it were—
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: No.
JIM FERGUSON: — this is scientific, peer-reviewed with proper data, and that is shocking to think that people's hearts are working 50%, almost 50% harder in the vaccinated as opposed to those who didn't take any of the mRNA covid vaccinations. And, you know, I still, I still, I still hesitate when I call them vaccinations, doctor, because they're not really proper vaccinations, are they? They're gene therapies, aren't they?
DR. CHRIS SHOEMAKER: Gene therapy is the most accurate description. In fact, DARPA[3] and the military, which manufactured this on behalf of Pfizer and Moderna, they specifically in their paperwork do not call it a vaccine. Specifically in their paperwork, call it a military countermeasure, and it's because of that that they didn't have to be as meticulous about how much DNA sludge also got into the jab. And because there's DNA now proven to be in the shots[4]—
And we were advised, the whole world was advised for a whole two years, oh, there can't possibly be DNA, this is an RNA vaccine everybody! Please relax, there can't possibly be anything of a DNA functionality.
Sorry folks. 33% by weight, 33% of by weight of the genetic material which was put into our shoulders is DNA. It's not, shall we say, continuous DNA, it's what's called a plasmid contained elements of DNA. But these plasmid contained elements of DNA mean that the DNA form of it can last for basically a lifetime inside you. For virtually a lifetime, the body can keep responding to the fact that these DNA plasmids have gone to our brain, or gone to our heart or gone to other organs, and that's why the possibility of shedding for a long, long time exists.
4:55
[END OF EXCERPT]
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES
[1] Assessment of Myocardial 18F-FDG Uptake at PET/CT in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–vaccinated and Nonvaccinated Patients
Takehiro Nakahara, Yu Iwabuchi, Raita Miyazawa, Kai Tonda, Tohru Shiga, H. William Strauss, Charalambos Antoniades, Jagat Narula, Masahiro Jinzaki
Published Online:Sep 19 2023https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230743
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.230743#
[2] For a basic introduction to P-values and significance tests, see:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/ap-statistics/xfb5d8e68:inference-categorical-proportions/idea-significance-tests/v/p-values-and-significance-tests
[3] DARPA is the US government's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
https://www.darpa.mil
[4] See Dr. Philip Buckhaults testimony
SC Senate Hearing - USC Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults
SC 4 FREEDOM, posted September 13, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEWHhrHiiTY&t=44s
Transcript: https://transcriberb.dreamwidth.org/105739.html
See also:
Dr. Janci Lindsay testimony
SC Senate Hearing - Dr. Janci Lindsay
SC 4 FREEDOM, posted September 16, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjQQ7kkj3Bs&t=41s
Transcript: https://transcriberb.dreamwidth.org/106401.html
Ah ha, I see now that Dr. Buckhault's YouTube testimony before the South Carolina State Senate has been removed for "violating YouTube's community rules." Well, folks, y'all can read my transcript. I'll check for a mirror on bitchute, odyssey and/or rumble.
Meanwhile, here, for the record, is the transcript. It's a bit long, so I'm posting in parts, if Dr. Altman will indulge me.
SC Senate Hearing - USC Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults
SC 4 FREEDOM, posted September 13, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEWHhrHiiTY&t=44s
DESCRIPTION: "University of South Carolina Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults testifies before South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee on DHEC." [Department of Health and Environmental Control]
Hat tip: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/south-carolina-senate-hearing-usc
For complete video of the session visit https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php
Download: https://video.scstatehouse.gov/mp4/20230912SMedicalAffairsSenateCommittee13489_1.mp4
Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:00 am
Senate Medical Affairs Committee
Pandemic Preparedness Listening Session
TRANSCRIPT
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So a little bit of what am I doing here, for those of you don't, don't know me, my name is Phillip Buckhaults, I'm a, I have a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology. I'm a, I'm a cancer gene jock, basically. I do cancer genomics research at the University of South Carolina. And what that means is that I'm kind of an expert on all the ways that the human genome can get futzed with during your lifetime, and which of those things cause cancer and which ones don't. OK?
So technically, that means that I'm very, very skilled in, in the art of DNA sequencing, OK? I can figure out the sequence of things that I didn't know what I was looking for. And I'm also pretty good— when I say I, I mean the people in my laboratory that you're not going to hear their names, but there's a group of people that do this excellent work, we're really good at, at detecting foreign pieces of DNA in places where they're not supposed to be, even if they're real low levels.
[SLIDE 1]*
[screenshot: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fec7759c4-34b8-48ee-a24d-7e5e078c9166_3024x1932.png ]
And we used those skills during the pandemic to, we invented the covid test that many of you did a spit test, OK? That came out of my lab because we were really good at that kind of stuff. And so I've earned a fair amount of respect in the state of South Carolina and in this body because we did a ton of covid testing in the middle of the night when people were afraid, and we told them, no, you don't have covid in your home, or, yes, you do. So my qualifications to comment on this are both technical and kind of relational in the state of South Carolina.
I'll cut to a very narrow theme here, but it does touch on lots of these regulatory issues, and I'll leave it to you to expand on those if you want to. I'll try to stay in this narrow lane of some problems in the Pfizer vaccine as a case study for places in which regulatory oversight could be improved. Alright?
So, first of all, let me say that my interpretation of the literature is that the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping people from dying, but it did a terrible job of stopping the pandemic. The early publications showed that it stopped infection, but that only lasted for like a month.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, could you pull the mic a little closer to you? Staff's telling me they're having trouble getting you on the recording.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: OK.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK, thank you.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: In, in my professional evaluation of the literature, the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping people out of the cemetery, but it sucked at stopping the pandemic. And it was the best of sucky options that we had. And I still believe that it was deployed mostly in good faith, but there were a lot of shortcuts taken because the house was on fire, and we could do a better job next time from the lessons that we're going to learn here. That's my own personal view of this.
But I'm also, my philosophical bent here is, I'm sure many of you have heard of a Occam's Razor, right? Choose the simplest of explanations. Well there's another one called Hanlon's Razor, which is, never attribute malice to that which can be better explained by incompetence. And so I'm trying to be gracious here, in many, in circumstances there could be malice underneath, but I'm trying to see just incompetence to be gracious. So.
The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasmid DNA. It's not just mRNA. It's got bits of DNA in it. This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the mRNA.
I know this is true because I sequenced it in my own lab.
...continued...
...transcript continued...
DR. PHILIP BUCKHAULTS: The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Colombia, one of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy, and for reasons that I still don't understand, he kept every single vial. So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials. Well the empty vials have a little tiny bit in the bottom of them, he gave them all to me, and I looked at them. We had two batches that were given out here in Colombia, and I checked these two batches, and I checked them by sequencing. And I sequenced all the DNA that was in the vaccine. And I can see what's in there. And it's surprising that there's any DNA in there. And you can kind of work out what it is, and how it got there.
And I'm kind of alarmed about the possible consequences of this, both in terms of human health and biology, but you should be alarmed about the regulatory process that allowed it to get there.
So this DNA, in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest. There's a lot of cases now, of people having suspicious death after vaccine. It's hard to prove what caused it, it's just, you know, temporally associated, and this DNA is a plausible mechanism. OK?
This DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that got transfected with the vaccine mix. This is just the way it works. We do this in the lab all the time. We take pieces of DNA, we mix them up with a lipid complex like the Pfizer vaccine is in, we pour it onto cells, and, and a lot of it gets into the cells, and a lot of it gets into the DNA of those cells, and it becomes a permanent fixture of the cell. It's not just a temporary, a temporary thing, it is in that cell and all of its progeny from now on, forever more, amen.
So that's why I'm kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine. It's, it's, it's different from RNA because it can be permanent.
This is a real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells like stem cells, and it could cause, theoretically, this is all a theoretical concern, but it's pretty reasonable based on solid molecular biology, that it could cause a sustained autoimmune attack toward that tissue.
It's also a very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people. Depending on where in the genome this foreign piece of DNA lands, it can interrupt a tumor suppressor or activate an oncogene. I think it'll be rare, but I think the risk is not zero, and it may be high enough that we ought to figure out if this is happening or not.
And then again, the, the, the autoimmunity thing is not my wheelhouse, I'm not an immunologist, but the cancer risk is, that's my bag. I know this is a thing, and it is a possibility.
6:41
[SLIDE 2 - CENTRAL DOGMA]*
[screenshot: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe903d43f-4ecf-4b79-b01a-4c1d24457c2e_3024x1962.png ]
OK, a little nerdy science here. The central dogma of molecular biology is that DNA gets transcribed into RNA, OK? And then RNA gets translated into protein. This is just how life runs.
Why, why does this matter? Well DNA, for the purposes of this discussion, DNA is a long-lived information storage device. OK? What you were born with, you're going to die with, and pass on to your kids. DNA lasts for hundreds of thousands of years, and it can last for generations if you, and get pass it on to your kids. Right? So alterations to the DNA, they stick around.
RNA, by its nature, is temporary. It doesn't last. And that feature of RNA was part of the sales pitch for the vaccine. The pseudouradine was supposed to make the RNA last a little bit longer, but still, it's a transient phenomenon. We're talking hours to days. OK?
And then proteins. Once proteins are made, they also don't last forever. They, they last for hours to days.
But something that makes its way into DNA has the potential to last for a very long time, maybe a lifetime.
7:55
[SLIDE 3 - Pieces of DNA in two batches of Pfizer vaccine]*
[screenshot: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffef66083-6502-4bc0-aa7a-3eca20b71bc1_3024x1960.png]
So this is a picture of the sequencing read that the sequencing run that I did in the lab from a couple of batches of the Pfizer vaccine. And all those little bitty lines here are the little tiny pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine. They don't belong there. They are not part of the sales pitch or the marketing campaign. And they're there. There's a lot of them.
This little graph here in the middle is the size distribution. It peaks around 100 base pairs, 120 base pairs. So the the DNA pieces that are in the vaccine are short little pieces, 100, 120. There's some that are about 500 base pairs, a few that are even 5,000, but most of them are around 100 base pairs.
Why is this important? Because the probability of a DNA, piece of DNA, integrating into the human genome is unrelated to its size, so your genome risk is just a function of how many particles there are. So it's like, you know, if you shoot a shotgun at a washboard, if you shoot a slug you have some probability of hitting it, and if shoot buckshot you have a bigger probability of hitting it with some shot, right? This, all these little pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine are analogous to buckshot. You have many, many thousands of opportunities to modify a, a cell of a vaccinated person.
The pieces are very small because during the process they chopped them up to try to make them go away, but they actually increased the hazard of genome modification in the process. That's how this got here.
In my view, somebody should go about sequencing DNA samples from stem cells of people who are vaccinated, and find out if this theoretical risk has happened or not. I think this is a real serious oversight, regulatory oversight that happened at the federal level, and somebody should force this to happen somewhere.
9:58
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, if you, now, are you capable of doing that?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah, it's, we do that kind of thing. But in order for it to be trustworthy, it, by the public, this has to be done by lots of people, right?
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK, I'll talk to you more about that later.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah, this is our our deal, this is why I know this should have been done at the federal level. OK.
...continued...
...transcript continued...
10:17
[SLIDE 4 - we used the sequences of all the little pieces of DNA in the vaccine to reconstruct the actual sequence of where it came from]*
[screenshot:https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F166e6520-c511-467f-85d5-8c506ed3ce4b_3024x1950.png ]
DR. PHILIP BUCKHAULTS: So we took all these pieces of DNA and we used them to glue together what the source DNA must have been. This is kind of, again, this is our, what we do in the lab all the time. And, and all these little, little red and green lines here, these are all independent little pieces of DNA. This must have had 100,000 pieces of DNA in this, this sequencing run. And you can put them all back together and see what they came from is this circle over here. It's a plasmid that you can go shopping online to buy from Agilant.* And it's clear that Pfizer took this plasmid, and then they cloned spike into it, and they used it for, in a process called in vitro transcription translation, in vitro transcription, where you feed an RNA polymerase this plasmid and it makes a whole bunch of mRNA copies for you, OK? And then you take this mRNA, you mix it with the the lipid nanoparticle transfection reagent, and now you've got your mRNA vaccine. But they failed to get the DNA out before they did this. So these little pieces, they did, they did make some effort to chop it up, so all these little pieces of the plasmid got packaged in with the RNA.
That's clear as day what happened, just from the forensics of looking at the DNA sequencing, OK?
11:35
A little bit of a regulatory note here. The way you do RNA transcription, in vitro transcription reactions, you have to give it a DNA template, OK? And you can give it a DNA template that is just a synthetic piece of DNA that is only the instructions to make the RNA, and that's what was done for getting the Emergency Use Authorization and the clinical trial.* It's called Process 1 if you look up that kind of stuff. They made a PCR product of just the bits that they wanted, and then they did the in vitro transcription, made a bunch of RNA of that.
There was no plasmid DNA to contaminate the stuff that was used for the trial. But that, that making that PCR product, doesn't scale the way that was necessary to vaccinate the whole world. So a cheaper way to scale up the production of this template is to clone that PCR product into this plasmid vector, put the plasmid vector into bacteria, and then you grow up big vats of the bacteria, they make a lot of the plasmid DNA for you, then you use that plasmid DNA as the template to drive this transcription reaction to make your RNA. And that's where, how the contamination ended up in the production batches, even though it was not in the stuff that was used for the authorization trials.
So I know it's a little bit of nerdy science, but it has regulatory implications for you guys.
13:04
[SLIDE 5 - We have a pretty easy and cheap method to detect one of the pieces of plasmid DNA]*
[screenshot: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0650287c-cb16-495b-8607-2dd400fcc5da_3024x1964.png ]
We can, we can measure the quantity of this stuff pretty easy in the lab. This is, we're, we're good at doing this kind of stuff. This is the same, we made a little PC— a colleague of mine at at MIT made, you know, from who, who used to work for the the Broad Institute at MIT,* he, he made a little PCR test and we cloned it here. This is similar to the PCR test that you all took for the spit test, OK? Same, same idea and same expertise behind it.
And we can quantify exactly how much of this stuff is in a vaccine or any other tissue. And, you know, I estimate that there were about two billion copies of the one piece that we're looking for in every dose.
13:48
[SLIDE 6 - There are about 2 billion copies of the fragment containing the origin of replication]*
[screenshot: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F15b81ef9-b910-4f83-ab9b-61a545e8fe07_3024x1964.png ]
And if you looked back at that map I showed you where it's all these little, the, the little piece that we're looking for is just that little bit right there. OK?
[SLIDE 4, again]
But if you see 2 billion copies of this, there's about 200 billion of everything else.
[SLIDE 6, again]
So what this means is that there's probably about 200 billion pieces of this plasmid DNA in, in each dose of the vaccine, and it's encapsulated in this lipid nanoparticle, so it's ready to be delivered inside the cell. OK? This is a bad idea.
14:31
[SLIDE 7 - Conclusions]*
[screenshot: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff270aeaa-c302-41a2-bdbe-28acbdd64721_3024x1964.png ]
My conclusions from this, we should check a bunch of people. [in low voice, an aside on his difficulties using PowerPoint] Ah, my conclusions from this are I should learn how to run PowerPoint.
We should check a bunch of vaccinated people getting tissue samples, especially if we focus on harmed people. But that's not necessary. We could also just focus on regular unharmed people and see if this plasmid DNA is integrating into the genomes of any of their stem cells. It leaves a calling card that is there.
One of the reasons why I'm focusing on this is because it's kind of different from a lot of the other imagined harms where you can't really prove it. You can be suspicious because of the timing, but you can't really prove it. This one you can prove it because it leaves a calling card. OK? You find it in the stem cells of harmed people. It's equivalent to finding a certain type of lead in someone who is now dead. It's pretty reasonable to assume that that's what caused it.
The royal we, meaning you guys, should insist that the FDA force Pfizer to get the DNA out of the booster and all future versions of this vaccine.
I'm a real fan of this platform, OK? I think it has the potential to treat cancers. I really believe that this platform is revolutionary, and in your lifetime there will be mRNA vaccines against antigens in your unique cancer, OK? And, but they got to get this problem fixed. OK? And I, right now I think the financial incentives are too great to just keep on rolling with it, and it's going to take some encouragement to get it out.
16:26
...continued...
...transcript continued...
16:26
DR. PHILIP BUCKHAULTS: The regulation that allowed this DNA to be there in the first place. I don't think that this, the amounts there actually exceed the regulation limits. In some batches it may. In, in the two batches that I looked at one of them, it was just under the limit, and one it was just over the limit. My colleague in Boston has looked at a fair number of other batches and there's a handful that are super high, and there's a handful that are super low. But the fact that there is a regulatory threshold for amount of DNA allowed in a vaccine is a throwback to an era when we were talking about vaccines that were like a recombinant protein, that you, or a dead virus, you know, attenuated virus produced in CHO cells* or something like that, and the DNA that might be in it is naked DNA. And you might have a little bit in the vaccine. That's not a problem because naked DNA gets chewed up immediately upon vaccination and there's no real mechanism for it to get inside the cells. They inappropriately applied that regulatory limit to this new kind of vaccine where everything is encapsulated in this lipid nanoparticle. It's basically packaged in a synthetic virus able to dump its contents into a cell.
So I'm thinking Hanlon's Razor here, OK? I don't think there was anything nefarious here. I think it was just kind of a dumb oversight. And it's going to take, because the financial incentives are so great to just, you know, sweep it under the rug, and the career incentives of people that approved this are going to be, eh, there's nothing wrong here, you know? It's going to take some encouragement to make people prove that it's OK.
But I really believe this was an inappropriate application of an old school regulation to a new kind of vaccine.
And who knows, maybe we'll check a bunch of people and we'll find out for sure that this is indeed not a problem. And that will do the public good if we prove that.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH:* Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Senator Cash.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Doctor, we appreciate all that you're saying, although we don't understand most of what you're saying.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Sorry. [laughs] I have a limited amount of time, so—
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: [looking down to his right] Someone down there agreeing a lot, so you must have been a chemistry major or something. [returning to address Dr. Buckhaults] But what, what is going to help us is to know what what you can do, like checking a bunch of vaccinated people.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Of course, that's what I can do.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Right, but we are are not going to have any authority over the FDA to force Pfizer to do something. I mean, that's a federal issue. Unless you can explain to me how we could do something at a state level, you know, some of this is going to have to be taken up by our Congressmen, right? So just, whatever your remaining comments are, just keep in mind that—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I understand.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: —what, what we can do. And, and really, these technical things you're throwing at us, as as a senator from Greenville has already mentioned, we're going to throw right back at you, because there's no, you're the expert. So if someone's going to do this testing, I don't know who we would find to do it, well, other than someone like you.
19:41
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can do it, lots of other people can do it. I've had a lot of, of, so, coroners and pharmacists from different states contact me. I posted all this on Twitter, right? And so people will private message me and say, I'd like to send you some samples. And then they say, oops, state regulations will not allow our coroner to send any samples for this. So there are some policy issues that can allow this to happen or impede it. I don't know what they are, but I hear that there are mechanisms in place that will, you know, you can encourage people to do things or not do things. But that's your wheelhouse, not mine. All I can tell you is what I found in the lab and the scientific implications of it. The policy implications and what to do with it is out of my, it's above my pay grade.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Senator Garrett.
20:34
...continued...
20:34
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Thank you for coming today. I think I followed most of what you said. President Biden said the other day that there was a new covid vaccine that, and this one really works.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: There's no evidence to that as far as I can tell.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: I, I understand that, and that's why I'm asking this question. Is there some way you could get a hold of one of those and—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would love to.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — do the do the same study that you did on these vials to make sure—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would like to do that.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — that we're not using that, that DNA protein, or whatever it is that the DNA that, that, that we don't need them to be injected into these, to our constituents.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would like to do that. And I will not get it unless I get a batch and, and find out that it's free of DNA, and then I'll take it myself. But I don't, I don't have any way of compelling that to happen.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: So it was just basically a way to save money by, by doing it in such volume that way, without then taking it back out later on?
21:30
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I think nobody thought about it. I think it was reasonable to use the E. coli to blow up the plasmid to make the stuff. And then the, the pieces of the DNA are of a very uniform and small size, that's evidence that they took efforts to try to chop it up. And—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Then they knew about it.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah. Yeah, they knew it. And they took efforts to chop it up. They just didn't get it all out.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: But, but having said that—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I guess that they just didn't didn't think about the, the hazard for genome modification. Because it's not all that expensive to add another process to get it out.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Well that's what I'm saying. It, it you know—
22:10
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can't get inside their mind. I don't—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: It was rushed too much and that's why I'm saying, these subsequent, you know, we've heard testimony, these subsequent, you know, variant subsequent boosters, etc, etc, are leading to maybe not scientific yet but at least collateral knowledge that it apparently these things are causing death and disability later on, and also the aging process which you heard about a few minutes ago.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: There's a lot of suspicious associations—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: But I—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: — but that's all I can say.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — But it seems to me that that before we can in South Carolina, you know, give this new vaccine a whirl around here, seems to me that, that our people ought to be able to look at that, Mr. Chairman, and see whether or not it's got this DNA in it. If it does, fine, tell everybody it's got the DNA and the problems associated therewith, then you got informed consent.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Correct.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: OK, but without that, we don't have informed consent-
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: — That's not informed consent.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: I'm not I'm not really happy about that, Mr Chairman, and do what I can to try to help [inaudible]—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Knowing what I know—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — otherwise.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Knowing what I know now about this, I would still have recommended it to my elderly parents.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: OK.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: But I probably would not have given it to my daughters. I, I feel like my consent was not as informed as it should have been.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Thank you.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Yeah. Representative Morgan.
23:27
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: I almost don't know where to start. I'm, I'm trying not to talk because we're, it's a hearing and we want to hear you, but you have made so many questions come to my mind. And one I should know but I don't remember. What percentage of vaccinated people had this kind of vaccination? Do you know off the top of your head? Like, the majority of people that took the vaccine had this type? Because weren't there multiple types of vaccinations you could take?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: The vast majority of people got either Pfizer or Moderna.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: And, and we're talking about the Pfizer.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I'm talking about Pfizer. My colleagues have looked at Moderna, and it's in Moderna too, in the few that we've looked at, it's just not quite as high.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: OK. Wow. With, so, you were here today, and you've come to present, and you notice this. Where could you have gone if we didn't have this kind of ad hoc hearing—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Nowhere.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: —for this to come—?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Twitter.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: So there's no DHEC? [Department of Health and Environmental Control]
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: There's no way for you, even at your level of expertise to say, hey, red flag, I—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I email, I emailed the FDA and I tweeted at them. That's about the extent of my resources.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: It's just fascinating to me that in a, in the state that we don't have some kind of, I guess it goes to kind of the entire thing that we're talking about, is that our state agency should have more focus on our citizens' health and, you know, it's great, CDC can send us stuff, but we'll make the decision.
And, and there should be a way for, especially at your level, to get input to DHEC when you notice something like this immediately, and say hey, DHEC, you should consider this, and then they can come and tell us immediately, hey, we need to get authorization, or you need to change this regulation to look into this.
And it just seems like we've totally dropped the ball in every direction with the state prioritizing, you know, our decision-making on this kind of stuff and, and investigating into it, just letting the, you know, the federal government take it and do a terrible job.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So I had a lot of experience with DHEC rolling out the saliva test, OK? So we invented the saliva test, and then we had to deal with DHEC to try to get it rolled out for the state. And it appeared to me that they were just overrun. They weren't prepared for what this pandemic was. Through— and it's no fault of theirs. I thought, I, I told people at the time that I felt like these were Hobbits in the Shire that were, you know, accustomed to take care of small problems, and now of a sudden we're in the War of the Ring, and there are Orcs at the gate, and we're expecting them to deal with this tremendous challenge, and that's not who we put there. And that's not their fault. I mean, it's just we were not prepared to handle something of this magnitude. So some amount of grace I think is appropriate, even though we could do better next time by beefing up who's guarding the gates.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: If you, if you had a, tomorrow, fixes to the system—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: [laughs]
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — what would they be? That we could—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: That's your job. I don't know.
...continued...
I shared this very same video interview with Dr. Chris Shoemaker on my personal Facebook… within minutes it was jumped upon by this ‘AAP Fact Checker’. Have a read through it and see the blatant bald-faced lies… see just how deep this tyrannical cover up goes….
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-vaccine-deaths-claim-lacks-any-evidence/?mibextid=RtaFA8
A note-Steve Kirsch, one of the authors of the paper, is not a doctor. He’s a tech guy from Silicon Valley, who a bunch of us believe is controlled opposition. He’s worth a fortune, he funded the “Defeat the Mandates” Rally in America, in Feb 2022, or 2021, I’ve forgotten, it’s been that long, and they defeated nothing.
He’s worked with quantum dots and digital IDs and CBDCs in USA just before convid.
He announced sometime last year “I’m trying to get RFK jr to run for president”.
There’s talk of bitcoin and CBDC “collusion”(don’t know what other word to use) between him and RFK jr. Celebrity Dr Malone may be involved with them.
Spot On. This is the next and current phase....controlled opposition so it makes everyone maddened with confusion. I think it is working. So far, unviolent chaos....so far.
I regulate the amount of information studied each day. It helps, but about the most effective thing I do, is realize that God in heaven is controlling all of everything and pray for us all. Pure faith in God Our Almighty of everything. I don't worry. I sleep well. I am not afraid or angry because that is what the belly of all this evil intends us to do. Besides, this world is going to get more nastier as time passes. Who wants to be living in it? Not I.
Glad people are uncovering these snakes. Good info rrodynmac.
I note McCullough et al paper in Cureus journal has been retracted 'after' publication. The perps will stop at nothing to shield themselves from liability and prosecution. We all need to keep outing these people and bring them to justice. #NoAmnesty
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cureus-retracts-study-critiquing-covid-19-vaccine-censorship/
AMEN
Do the hearts (of the injected) which are performing at abnormally raised effort levels eventually recover? Or are the six months simply the cutoff time horizon for the study?
Thank you. Downloaded and saved again.
Because the injections are doing what they intended for them to do ,