About the guest: Kevin McKernan is the founder and Chief Science Officer of Medicinal Genomics. He has worked in biotechnology since the early 1990s, when he was involved in the Human Genome Project.
Episode summary: Nick and Kevin discuss: components of the COVID vaccines, including modified mRNA & lipid nanoparticles; DNA contamination in COVID vaccines; vaccine adverse events & IgG4 immune modulation; concerns with COVID PCR testing; origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; Fiat Science from the AIDS epidemic to today; how Big Pharma works with government regulators; decentralized medicine; and more.
Related episodes:
M&M #149: DNA & RNA Biology, mRNA Vaccines, Vax Contamination & Side Effects, Spike Protein, Ivermectin, Hop Latent Viroid | Kevin McKernan
M&M #97: How Did the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Originate? | Alex Washburne
Special offer: Use MINDMATTERSPECIAL2 for a free 1-year premium subscription to Consensus, a new AI-powered research tool that helps you find the best science faster ($150 value, limited time offer).
*This content is never meant to serve as medical advice
Full audio version: [Apple Podcasts] [Spotify] [Elsewhere]
Full video version: [YouTube]
Support M&M if you find value in this content.
Episode transcript below.
Full AI-generated transcript below. Beware of typos & mistranslations!
Kevin McKernan 3:38
it's hard to know when to stop. You know, yeah, yeah. Like, a couple years of this, and you're like, This is a bit of a distraction. What are we doing here? But it's, it seems to be news needed to be done. So leading, leading to interesting places, yeah,
Nick Jikomes 3:53
yeah. And we'll definitely get into all that. I'm gonna say up top, because I don't know if I'm gonna put this on YouTube the full version, just because I don't blame you. I
Kevin McKernan 4:02
think it'll get better with the new administration, but you never know. Yeah, we'll
Nick Jikomes 4:06
see. But yeah, you know, I've got one strike from my episode with Martin coldorf, and I just assume this one is going to be considered controversial.
Kevin McKernan 4:16
They got him. They'll get this for sure, you know. And I wonder if those strikes ever expire, you know, because I don't think Martin has said anything that's overly
Nick Jikomes 4:23
controversial. No. So what I can hear, I can tell you, this is what I know just from having experienced it. So you know, that episode got labeled as misinformation. And again, all he there was nothing specific about like, anything in particular that he said. All he did was just sort of outline all of the textbook ways that epidemiology textbooks literally talk about different viruses based on how virulent you are. You know whether you want to deal with them one way or the other. And you know some viruses you do sort of a lock you might do a lockdown style thing, and other ones you don't, you let it spread and you get herd immunity, etc. All he did was lay that out and say that. He thought we should have, you know, gone down one path when we went down another one. That's the closest thing to a controversy. I can imagine him saying is that he didn't think the policy we implemented was the correct one of the two textbook ways he would think about handling a virus. And
Kevin McKernan 5:16
it seems as if he's been proven right. And in time, you wonder if YouTube will ever go back and correct on that or unstrike you for it. Yeah.
Nick Jikomes 5:24
But so what I can tell you is, so empirically, you know, the YouTube channel is pretty new at that time, so there's nice, steady, sort of linear growth, more or less, in terms of subscribers and revenue and stuff. And then when that episode got taken down, you know, there was clearly a switch that happened. And basically, I think my channel got demonetized, so revenue went down to just about zero, and it stayed there for like, precisely 12 months. So it looked as if, like at the 12 month mark, almost to the day, I think some other switch went back off and and they let me go back onto my old growth trajectory.
Kevin McKernan 5:59
Oh, wow, that's kind of in jail for a year. Yeah, that's tough, particularly if you guys are relying on that type of ad revenue, you know. So I guess you just jumped onto other platforms, like rumble, or
Nick Jikomes 6:10
I was putting on rumble, you used to be able to automatically just blast everything everywhere from YouTube, but YouTube shut off those, those abilities so that you can't just automatically post other places. Luckily, the, you know, my channel is, you know, small at the time. So it wasn't like it was, you know, too detrimental to me or anything, but, but, you know, it's it slows you down that much, you know, it's a year of sort of growth that was lost.
Kevin McKernan 6:36
Yeah, bummer. Apologize for viewers up front about, I'm not Satan. I literally read on this, but I'm in my basement coding a lot lately, so I put in red lights, and now I look weird. So
Nick Jikomes 6:48
all right, well, why don't we talk about briefly, you've been on a couple times. A lot of people know who you are, but why don't you just briefly, briefly introduce
Kevin McKernan 6:57
yourself? Yeah. Kevin o'kernn, I do a lot of work on just the genomics field in general. But I've been doing a lot of work in cannabis, genomics, philosophy genomics, and then got kind of dragged into this COVID stuff and vaccine sequencing somewhat accidentally. So that's probably where you've seen me. Is more on the back stuff, which isn't really my day job,
Nick Jikomes 7:15
yeah. So you've got a biotech background. You know a lot about PCR, genome sequencing, that whole world of stuff, and that is going to obviously be relevant to what we talk about. We're going to talk about, one of the big things we're going to talk about is stuff so that we're going to call them COVID vaccines. Some people call them vaccine like technology. I'm just going to refer to them as the mRNA vaccines, and I'll let you know, whether or not you agree with the nomenclature, it's up to you. But we're, you know, we're talking about the COVID jabs, and there's stuff that's supposed to be in there because it's designed to be in there, and it should be in there to do what these things are supposed to be doing. But then there's the possibility, just like anything that is manufactured, that you could have other stuff that gets in there, one way or the other. Let's just start out with what's supposed to be in there. What are these mRNA vaccines? What is supposed to be in a vial? What are all the key components?
Kevin McKernan 8:07
So there should be a an RNA molecule in there that's about 4200 bases long, that's been modified, that has the uracil basis swapped out with n1 methyl pseudoridine, and it encodes this bike protein by sequence, but the sequence isn't the same as the sequence in the virus. They did a codon optimization, which has some ramifications on a variety of cellular pathways. We describe some of those ramifications in a pre print I put out with Peter McCullough. And those when you change bases like that, the RNA folds differently. It can have different RNA interference pathways that it triggers. It has different decay rates. So those are different about it. Both moderna and Pfizer have RNAs that are a similar length, but they have different codon optimizations, and they play different tricks with the five prime and three prime UTRs that are on the RNA. So those are, those are regions of the RNA that are in front, in the back of the gene, that play a role in how the ribosomes read them and also how long they last. So there's some, there's some key differences between the two vaccines, but in theory, they're just all RNA, and when they're all RNA, the regulatory authorities were convinced that you didn't need to do genotoxicity studies, because RNA shouldn't really affect your genome.
Nick Jikomes 9:25
And the idea there is that, is it just that RNA is pretty unstable, that it gets degraded very quickly by our cells?
Kevin McKernan 9:32
Yes, or so a cell should break it down quickly and recycle it, and it shouldn't get integrated into the genome, and therefore you don't need to worry about cancer or about genotoxicity studies. So they were waived for those, they were not waived for the adenovirus vaccines. Adenovirus vaccines went through some of those testing.
Nick Jikomes 9:49
I mean, that's interesting, just to reiterate for people quickly, because naively, you might think that that makes sense. Okay, we know that. You know there's lots of RNAs. In our body, RNAs are unstable. They get broken down very quickly. But in essence, what you just said is the regulatory authority said, well, because we believe that RNAs are typically unstable, we don't even have to check for a bunch of other things we might otherwise check for,
Kevin McKernan 10:14
yeah, and they probably should have verified that a little bit more closely in terms of just the half life of the RNA, because they are doing things to make them last longer. Modifying the space is meant to make it so it slows down RNAs L which is one RNAs in the human body that would normally degrade these more quickly. Yeah. So
Nick Jikomes 10:34
by design, the RNAs have been modified so they're not identical to the actual natural virus produced RNAs, and they're modified specifically, in a way by design to last longer.
Kevin McKernan 10:46
Yes, yes. So they, they kind of, it's interesting that they, they use that information somewhat selectively. They'll say, you know, these disappear in 48 hours, but we modified them to make them so they don't disappear, yeah, so they don't use that language. They say it gives you, you know, more robust expression of the protein. But
Nick Jikomes 11:05
what that means is it lasts longer. It lasts longer. Yes, yeah.
Kevin McKernan 11:09
And so we've been finding them lasting longer, and not us, but others. In the literature, you can go through a variety of papers, from the Hannah paper that shows them in breast milk. Five days later, you can go through the cross and the Castro read. A paper shows them 28 days in plasma. There's a crossing paper it shows in 30 days in heart tissue. There's another paper that looked at them, I think it was the role Gen paper that found them out 60 days and lymph nodes. And then there's some papers that find them in in placenta that but you know, there's only two patients in that study, and it was two in 10 days. So the
Nick Jikomes 11:39
point is, they are, as the design they are, in fact, lasting longer than normal,
Kevin McKernan 11:42
longer. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, we don't know if that longevity is why the spike protein is lasting longer too. I mean, the spike protein actually find in patients longer than they found the RNA or the DNA. Yeah, that could just be the protein doesn't turn over a lot, and as they hard time clearing it, or that there is some of this persistence of the nucleic acids floating around that is continuing to produce that. It's just that hasn't been totally smart yet. Okay, so, so
Nick Jikomes 12:07
in these vaccines, they're mRNA based vaccines. So obviously we've got mRNA in there. It's not actually the native natural mRNA, as you would find it from the virus. It's been modified in key ways that we just talked about that affect longevity. What else is supposed to be in a violent vaccine in addition to the mRNA molecules themselves?
Kevin McKernan 12:24
Well, these ones are wrapped on lipid nanoparticles, which also protect it from getting degraded. So the nanoparticles coat it that way. When you inject these things, they transfect the actual million cells, and they pump the RNA into the cell. So that's new. That's probably the newest part of this technology. There are other small RNA companies out there that are using some versions of lnps that deliver micro RNAs, if you will, that give us some precedence of this being used, but they're administered very differently. They're usually administered with immunosuppressants, and they're given in a slow drip IV, so it's not a bowl of shot like we have with these, with these lmps, and we don't give these out with immunosuppressive drugs. So that's a completely different platform. And I think those RNAs are a lot easier to make, because you can actually make those synthetically. You can just tell an RNA synthesizer to make a 21 mer. That's not hard to do. You can't get an RNA synthesizer to make 4200 bases, you have to come up with new tools to make RNA. That's that long. And that's part of where this story leads. Is that in order for them to make these very long RNAs, they actually have to have a polymerase make them off of DNA, which means you've got to have DNA around and and presumably get rid of that DNA? Yeah, that's where we've kind of stumbled into this story.
Nick Jikomes 13:44
So, yeah, we'll come to that shortly. Any so you got the lipid nanoparticles that are basically a protective shell around the mRNA. All that stuff is supposed to be in there. It's part of the design. It's part of the, you know, the intention of what is in a vaccine vial. Anything else?
Kevin McKernan 14:00
Well, there's some pegging cholesterol in there as well. I haven't, I haven't followed up on, on that, as to, you know, the implications of those there's people concerned that. They probably think, like all, some people are, have allergies to it. So, you know, maybe that's creating some adverse reactions to some people. I don't think the cholesterol is necessarily too harmful, but that's, that's about as far as I've gone into the ingredients listing there those sort of the four key things that I've paid attention to, which is the peg, the lipid nanoparticle, coating itself, the cholesterol, and then the nucleic acids.
Nick Jikomes 14:32
Okay, so why don't you just kind of tell us the story of, well, you know where we're going. How did you how did you come to be in the position to be actually taking some of these vials and double checking what was inside of them? Yeah,
Kevin McKernan 14:46
yeah. It's not something I wanted to do. So after that paper published with Peter McCullough, people started sending me vaccine vials and not obscene the mail. And I didn't, I didn't have any reason to want to see. Into them, so I threw them in our freezer, and some of them expired in that process too.
Nick Jikomes 15:04
Why were they sending them to you? Exactly.
Kevin McKernan 15:05
So our paper went over the differences between the virus and the vaccines, and we had some language in there that was somewhat cautionary. In fact, it got the paper got heavily censored by journals. I got through two reviewers who approved it, and then the editor swept in and kiboshed it, and so it still rests as a pre print today. We never bothered to. We just posted the reviewers comments on sub stack saying, you know, agreed on this, and the editor, we put all the emails from the editor up there and said, We're done. We're not going through another journal.
Nick Jikomes 15:34
Yeah, yeah, that's a little, probably side story we won't get into, but it's worth noting for people that you know the sacred, the sacred peer review process, yeah, and an editor can just come in and say, Nah, we're not gonna put it in, even though the reviewer said it was
Kevin McKernan 15:47
good, yeah. So my my work address people figured out and just send them to us. Say, here's some Why don't you sequence these things? And I was like, I don't have time for that, so, but what did happen a few months after that is we were sequencing lots of RNA in cannabis to look at hopl and viral infection to figure out, all right, well, what genes are getting turned on and off by this viroid, this devastating the cannabis field. And during one of those experiments, we started getting what looked like whole genome sequencing, which was the we weren't getting DNA. We weren't getting sequencing concentrated on genes. When you do RNA seek, you should only be getting RNAs, which means your read should map to where the genes are in the genome. And we started getting this one run back came and it was just like flat coverage across the genome. So like, all right, something's broken. Did our magnetic beads that we use to capture the RNA fail? We need to spike in a control poly a RNA into the experiment to see if, is it our DNA? Is it our RNA prep that's like, not capturing RNA, or is it like our strep beads that are supposed to have Polya tails on them and pull down, they're usually, usually these things called oligo dtbs, or beads that have a long poly T on them, and they're supposed to, like, capture out the RNA, so that you're only purifying those and presenting those to library instruction. But the point
Nick Jikomes 17:01
is, you do some you do stuff in the marijuana industry, you're doing RNA sequencing, and in the process of doing normal business for you guys, you notice some weird stuff happening. Yeah,
Kevin McKernan 17:11
so that, so that, when that process broke, I'm like, I got a spike in a poly a RNA, I guess I can go to a vitrogen, or whoever, and order it. I'm like, Well, why don't just take the vaccine having their freezer and throw that in that that's a should be pharmaceutical grade, right? I'll just, I'll just treat it with some soap and get rid of the lmps and toss that thing in there. And that should tell us which part of our process is broken. And it did. It pointed out that our DNase was our DNase was dead. Our DNA was not getting rid of the genome. And so we were sequencing DNA and RNA together. And ironically, the DNA is being dead is going to play into the story later, because that, I think that's exactly what's happening at Pfizer and moderna. But so we get, we get that sequence back. Our informatics guys were like, wait a minute, there's, there's two different contexts here with Spike. There really should only be spike, the RNA that that Andy fire published. Okay, so why do we have this whole spike connected to a backbone of all these other genes? I was like, oh, it's got to be the plasmid they use to make this thing. It's still in there. So basically
Nick Jikomes 18:11
you're saying there should be, there should be an mRNA in there, an RNA that encodes a spike protein. There should not be DNA. But you were picking up both RNA and DNA?
Kevin McKernan 18:21
Yes, and we could tell it was DNA because it was the spike sequence connected to all of the plasmid components that are used to manufacture the
Nick Jikomes 18:30
vaccine. What is a plasmid? Explain that for people. So a plasmid, if you want
Kevin McKernan 18:33
to, in order for them to make this RNA, as I mentioned before, they can't go to a chemical synthesizer and tell them to synthesize this long piece of RNA. They have to actually get a polymerase to copy the RNA off of DNA.
Nick Jikomes 18:43
So you need to sell a biological cell to make it Yes, yeah. Well,
Kevin McKernan 18:47
I mean that actually they're doing they're doing that that step is in is actually done clean of cells. It's in vitro. But the step before that, to make the DNA that they need to go into that process, they amplify an E coli. They didn't do that initially. They initially for the clinical trial. This is the good paper from Red says levy that goes through this. They actually used PCR to amplify the spike region off of a plasmid, and just to make lots of copies of DNA so they could feed a lot of that clean DNA. Because when you PCR amplify, you just get a really discrete window of the spike that you amplify. All right? It's a, really a 4200 base pair piece amplicon that they make with PCR off of the plasmid, and then they make RNA off of that. When they went to after the after the trial finished, they couldn't scale that up, so they ripped the PCR step out, and then just put that plasmid and E coli. And E coli doubles every 20 or 30 minutes, and you can grow huge vats of it. So you can make a lot of plasmid DNA, which is a circular piece of DNA that grows in E coli. But in order for its grown E coli, it's not like E coli is as simple as PCR, where you just give it two primaries and it amplifies with the polymerase. What you have to do in E coli is give it an antibiotic resistance gene and a bunch of other cellular. Or, you know, signals on the DNA to make it replicate, like an origin of replication that amplif That will replicate in bacteria. And so they have to have about another 3000 4000 bases of DNA attached to the spike region in order for E coli to grab hold of it and replicate it. I
Nick Jikomes 20:18
see, so. So the basic idea here is in normal standard practice of using molecular biology to manufacture stuff like this, you often use E coli, a bacteria that replicates very, very quickly. So if you want to make a bunch of pieces of DNA, you can use E coli to do that very quickly. A plasmid is a circular piece of DNA. It's sort of like a chromosome for a bacteria, and you can stick a gene in that that will eventually be used to make the mRNA, in this case, for the spike protein. But what you're saying is, in the process of doing this, you can't just give sort of the naked, raw piece of DNA for the one gene you're interested in to the E coli, you've got to put it in this plasmid, and that plasmid has to contain other stuff that facilitates all of the E coli process happening.
Kevin McKernan 21:09
Yeah, the most key component is antibiotic resistance gene, so that, because, because when you, when you put this DNA into E coli cells, only a small percentage of them soak it up. You have to heat shock them at 37 degrees and they get a little porous, and maybe 1% of the cells are less than that, get the plasmid, and then you want to only grow those. So you add an antibiotic, and you know, the only cells that got the plasmid have the antibiotic resistance gene. So only those are the cells that are replicating I see. So you have
Nick Jikomes 21:35
to put in this antibiotic resistance to get rid of the other bacteria by applying an antibiotic, so that you have pure, pure colony of E coli that are only the E coli that have your plasmid in
Kevin McKernan 21:45
it. Yes, yeah, yeah. And so then when you're done with that growth, you add in some soap to break, break open the E coli. And now you got to get your DNA out and get it away from all the other, you know, guts of the E coli, which, you know, there's endotoxin in there, there's chromosomal DNA. There's all want to
Nick Jikomes 22:02
purify the DNA to make your your gene product, yeah.
Kevin McKernan 22:05
And so now, now you've got it. Now you've got a circle, and you can either PCR that DNA, the plasma DNA, just the spike region, and put that PCR DNA into your in vitro transcription reaction to make the RNA. That's what they did for the clinical trial. After the clinical trial, they skipped that step, and they just, they did the the in vitro transcription right off the plasmids. And that means there's the background is different. You have all this other antibiotic resistance gene and all these other components of the plasmid that are still present in
Nick Jikomes 22:36
the shot. So okay, what exactly did you detect? So you you detected sort of all of the above in there, the full the antibiotic resistance gene, everything that would have been in this plasmid. Yes,
Kevin McKernan 22:46
yeah. Now they did. They did try to get rid of it. So if you, if you go through modernist patents, you'll, you'll see that they, they know that this is challenging, that if they leave residual DNA around, it can be oncogenic. It can, result in certain insertion mutagenesis because, you know, you remember, you're going to wrap these in lnps, and then when you apply those 2 million cells, it's going to shove all that, all that cargo, into the cell, which means RNA and DNA get shoved into the cells. And now your cells have to deal with both. And there's a certain rate of insertional mutagenesis that occurs when you do this. So moderna has a patent showing how much work they go through to try to get rid of this DNA, and they do, they do a better job than Pfizer. If you look at their numbers in PCR and fluorometry, they tend to have less DNA than Pfizer. They invented some method to do this, and that gets into how you measure this as well. They also have patents showing that you can't just use qPCR to measure this because it's tricky after they start chewing it up. PCR doesn't always, doesn't measure all fragments very well when they're when they're when they're chopped up in there. Yeah,
Nick Jikomes 23:49
the essence of what is supposed to be happening here, it sounds like is this in the normal process for manufacturing these vaccines at places like moderna and Pfizer, in order to make, you know, the bajillion mRNA molecules they're going to need for the bajillion doses they need to manufacture at warp speed, they needed to get a bunch of those mRNA molecules that will go the spike protein that's going to generate the immune reaction that the vaccine is is supposed to be generating. In order to do that, they need to go through this process of using DNA plasmids in E coli to make, ultimately, a bunch of these mRNA molecules. And the way that that process is supposed to work, they're supposed to sort of purify the mRNA out and get rid of all of the other E coli components, including the DNA plasmid, all that stuff, and then it's what you're supposed to end up, essentially, with pure mRNA that's gonna be wrapped in those that's gonna be wrapped in those lipid nanoparticles and put into the vaccine vial. You guys got your hands on some of those vaccine vials, and you went in and checked and you found out that for whatever reason, was it Pfizer or moderna that did not get out all of these other non mRNA components? Yeah,
Kevin McKernan 24:59
there's. DNA present in both of them, differing amounts the they tend to be a little bit more in Pfizer than moderna, and they're so they're what they're doing to try and get rid of this DNA is hitting it with DNase, one, which is, which is a finicky enzyme, as I mentioned before. Sometimes it fails. And it failed in our hands as well. For that, that one cannabis RNA Seq experiment, so that DNA, that enzyme, has a hard time actually chewing up DNA that's hybridized RNA, which is we have here,
Nick Jikomes 25:28
we can chew up naked DNA, but if it's stuck to RNA, can't do it as well. Yes,
Kevin McKernan 25:32
yeah. So you'll see in some of our the work that we've published, that the some of the Pfizer lots actually have, or actually, I'm sorry, it's the moderna. Lots that see this, that do this, which is very interesting. There's a difference, but something's different in their process. But they have a lot more spike DNA sitting around than they have of all the antibiotic resistance gene that the area that doesn't have an RNA homology gets chewed up more readily, almost 100 fold more readily than the area that's under the RNA. And that actually makes sense. When you read into what DNase does, it doesn't process DNA RNA hybrids very well, and so it has a hard time chewing up the region under that's under that has an RNA homology to it. So some of that stuff is so that's actually important point in all of this debate with a lot of the regulators, is, how are you measuring this? Because if you measure in the wrong part of the plasma, you can be 100 fold off because of that effect alone is that the enzyme they're using to chew the DNA does a better job chewing double stranded DNA, which is in the in the cannabis in gene, for example, the resistance gene, than it does chewing up the region that's underneath the that has an RNA homology to
Nick Jikomes 26:35
it, so and so. So you guys checked certain vials that people sent to you. Let me just sort of try and play a devil's advocate here. Did someone send you weird vials, expired vials? Is there any reason to think that these artifacts you were finding in the vials you looked at things that were not supposed to be in there? Is there any reason to think that this was not the case for all the vials that were actually used to inject people at the gym? Yeah,
Kevin McKernan 26:56
we did. We'd had some vials that were expired and some that were not expired, and they all came with tamper resistant seals, so there were new vials. They had not they had not been opened, okay? And DNA, in general, shouldn't. It was not going to grow over time inside of your vials. If anything, it will degrade. And it will the RNA will degrade first. It tends to create faster than DNA. So if anything, our measurements are an under measurement due to that concern. But since then, other people have gotten vials that have been not opened and are not expired. This has been expanded now. Philip Bucha guy, I'm straight from a pharmacy. There's a group in Canada. David speaker, who got, who got over 35
Nick Jikomes 27:32
multiple people have checked and replicated this result, yeah, unexpired, unopened vials. Yeah.
Kevin McKernan 27:36
Another paper this week came from daddy rialt, out in France. He's seen it as well, and he sequenced the vials. The one one paper got through peer review. Surprisingly, Bridget Koenigs group out in in Germany, she didn't sequence them. She ran fluometry on them and saw numbers. Her numbers a little higher than everybody else's. And I think we know why. There's a there's a when you do the fluorometry work, you do have to get rid of the RNA to measure the DNA, otherwise, there can be some cross talk between them, when you're when you're standing these things, but, but even with fluorometry, the numbers are way over these limits. They have these limits that are set that you shouldn't have more than 10 nanograms this DNA in these vials. And a lot of people who have looked at this now are really questioning the the foundation of those numbers, because they were, they were built in a world where you were injecting naked DNA without lnps, and yeah, that we agree with them that that DNA gets chewed up pretty quickly. It's like a 10 minute half life.
Nick Jikomes 28:26
So in theory, if you were to somehow have an E coli plasmid, DNA plasmid injected into your body, it probably wouldn't be a huge concern. It would get chopped up pretty quickly.
Kevin McKernan 28:36
Yeah, yeah. And unless it has a transfection agent that helps in transfection agents, what they do is they wrap it in sort of what looks like a cell, a cellular membrane. So when it is to a cellular membrane, it kind of delivers the cargo unbroken down. So that changes the game entirely as to what the half life of the of the stuff is. So
Nick Jikomes 28:54
the fact that lipid nanoparticles are used to make these mRNA vaccines means that since these pieces of DNA were also in there, they could also be wrapped around these protective fatty particles, and therefore get into your body and inside of your cells potential. And
Kevin McKernan 29:09
they should last longer than the RNA, because the RNA has all these enzymes that are helpful to break it down. The DNA is is a much more sturdy molecule, and
Nick Jikomes 29:17
we know the RNA last because that's the whole vaccine. Yeah, exactly.
Kevin McKernan 29:21
So it's those arguments are somewhat funny. When people say the cell's going to chew it up like, well, then your therapy doesn't work, because the DNA, right? But the fact that
Nick Jikomes 29:29
there's an immune response means the RNA gets in there, and the RNA gets in there. There's no reason to think the DNA would somehow not get it there.
Kevin McKernan 29:36
Yes, exactly. We've done, we've done experiments to know that it's in the lmps. It's not outside either. Simple experiments you can do is you can take those the vaccine and treat it with DNA says to chew up anything that's outside of the lipid nanoparticles, because the DNase doesn't get into the lipid nanoparticles. But
Nick Jikomes 29:52
this is so. So if this is a DNA plasmid from an E coli, it's got bacterial resistance genes and potentially other stuff on. This DNA encoded in the DNA, like, can, can this DNA? In theory? Can it be used by ourselves at all? Or are we so different from bacteria that we don't have to worry about our polymerase is replicating it already? So
Kevin McKernan 30:11
there you go. That's the key difference. So in modernist case, they only have bacterial components inside their vaccine. So it's really, it's really only a risk in that it could integrate. It can't, it's it's probably not functional at all, like nothing should replicate it. Pfizer is a different story. Pfizer has a paper out that that kind of is the self congratulatory paper about how quickly they built these vaccines. And they they say they were able to do this because they got the plasmids from their gene therapy department. And you can see that they have some components in there that ensure that plasmin can replicate inside mammalian cells. They have an SV 40 origin replication. They have an SV 40 promoter, an SV 40 enhancer, and SV 40 poly a signal. So for four components of the SV 40 virus are in there, not the whole thing
Nick Jikomes 30:55
I see so so Pfizer in in in an effort to manufacture things as quickly as possible in the early days of COVID, they were using, they were using molecular components. They're using the plasma that had sort of the DNA anatomy, or components of human cell, mammalian cell stuff, which means that our cells are actually capable of replicating from this DNA. Yes,
Kevin McKernan 31:18
yeah. And the exact number of plasmids that are in circulation has now been brought into question. So we've only sequenced two of these lots, and there's, there's already some work that we've done sequencing tumor biopsies, and we can see different plasmids in there. They were vaccinated with Pfizer. But that's, that's, that's a head scratcher. We don't answer to that. As to, does that? Does that mean that they were test betting multiple different plasmids, knowing that they're trying to erase the stuff and no one would ever see that? Or is that? Is that from another source? We're still trying to pin that down, because some of the plasmids that the Pfizer was using, these are common plasmids that are used in molecular biology. It's not like they invented them. You can buy them from a lot of different molecular biology shops. So you can't exactly when you see something in a patient a year after vaccination, which is the case I recently presented on, and they have plasmids that the fly advisor hasn't disclosed, we cannot rule out the fact that, okay, maybe they got that plasmid from somebody else, because these plasmids are transmissible that this is, there's actually a paper in your neighborhood in Seattle that showed this. There was a research lab out there that was doing COVID PCR, and so their staff all suddenly began testing positive for the nucleocapsid sequence in the virus. And so they were like, what? Why is this going on? They should have they should have spiked. They should have envelope. They only have nucleocapsid This doesn't make any sense. And then someone put it together that, oh, wait a minute, we're working on a nuclear capsid vaccine in the same laboratory. Maybe it's coming from that. And they went, did all the work and tracked these people and realized, yeah, they're infected with the vaccine plasmid. And it got out of the lab and got to one of the housemates, and they the paper just kind of concludes, saying, We think this is moving around through E coli, because people have E Coli in their body, and this thing is capable of replicating in E coli and in mammalian cells, so maybe that's the mechanism of transmission. So
Nick Jikomes 33:23
the idea here is that, you know, scientists working in a lab were using E coli and plasmids and this type of stuff we're talking about, and they just got some E coli on their skin one day, the plasma gets into them, and now it's transmitting from person to person, basically,
Kevin McKernan 33:35
and it's thrown off their PCR tests, yeah. So, so that that's an interesting case, because that plasmid is very similar to Pfizer's plasma, right? It's called PC DNA three. You can order it from add gene and so, so, so, anyway, that bit of a diversion there, but, but when we do sequencing like this, we have to take very careful note of the actual plasmid that we've seen before from Pfizer, yeah, and we see something subtly different. We have to start asking, Okay, where did that go? Is Pfizer playing around with more than one plasmid? Or did that come from one of these research leaks like Seattle?
Nick Jikomes 34:09
And who knows, maybe they don't even realize it yet, right,
Kevin McKernan 34:12
right? Yeah. I mean, they, the paper makes note that they were playing around with multiple multiple plasmids there, but they've never been disclosed. And I can imagine someone in their shoes, who has no liability, that they could easily swap plasmids knowing they're going to erase it, and no one would probably ever see that. Yeah, yeah, it's they're really only supposed to be giving you the RNA. They're supposed to be getting rid of that DNA. And so maybe that, from a manufacturing standpoint, they felt they didn't have to share that but,
Nick Jikomes 34:36
but let's, let's get really concrete here for people. So you found these DNA contaminants in the in you and others have found this in unopened, fresh, non expired vials. Does this mean that some number of people who got the COVID vaccines got injected with DNA as well? Yes, that's would you say? That's for sure.
Kevin McKernan 34:58
That's for sure. There's a. A pre print out that is where, what's the author's name? I'll have to forward it to you. It just came out yesterday, but they're checking the SR, the SRA as a as a sequence archive at NCBI. And they went through that looking for SV 40 Ori and and Spike sequences, just downloading those reads and scanning them. And they found these in a lot of blood studies. So they can, they can pick up the Pfizer and moderna spike in people's blood with the SV 40 and with the origin of replication that's in the in the backbone of these plasmids. So there's now studies coming out where they just scan the SRA, the short read archive, and they can find these, these vaccine sequences that are from the DNA components in the plasmids in the blood.
Nick Jikomes 35:47
So one, one potential outcome here. So if some number of people in the world who got the COVID vaccine got injected with some amount of DNA left over from these plasmids that are part of the manufacturing process of these RNA vaccines. So this DNA is getting into their body. It's E coli DNA. It may or may not be able to be used by our mammalian cells, depending on if it's Pfizer or moderna, but this got into some number of people. One potential outcome of this is, well, that may have happened, but thank God it's not a big deal, because the DNA is not really doing much of anything of consequence. Is there any reason to think that it is doing something of
Kevin McKernan 36:25
consequence? So I have become more I guess initially, that was my opinion too, and I've become more pessimistic on it being a nerd over time. And just to get your viewership up here, the paper is from Chakraborty, the bloodstream of mRNA vaccinated individuals both Pfizer and moderna shows DNA expression vector contamination, including SV 40 and chemo myosin resistance gene sequences. I think it's an OSF, so still a pre print, but they list out all the, all the, all the sequence files you can go look for yourself. Okay, so let's talk about the functionality of this DNA. Yeah, there. So there's a good paper from Quan et al that will show you the bring you through the C gas sting pathway. The C gas sting pathway is a pathway that gets triggered when viruses show up into cells, particularly DNA viruses. And sting stands for stimulatory of interferon genes. So there's an interferon cascade that occurs when you get cytoplasmic DNA present. Now that paper will show you that if you do this chronically, like repeat exposed cells to DNA contamination, like this, it can turn the cell oncogenic. So there's a there's a cancer pathway they can get triggered by just repeatedly hitting the same cells with with DNA, cytosol DNA. That's That's one aspect. There's a second aspect, which is the P 53 or, I'm sorry, the SV 40 promoter has been published by Draymond at all to bind to P 53 that paper doesn't really tell you what it's doing to P 53 it just shows that it binds.
Nick Jikomes 37:53
So the P 53 is an important tumor suppressor gene related to cancer. It
Kevin McKernan 37:57
is, it is, yeah, so that you don't want to be messed up with that. Now there's, there's another paper from Waffle gari group that shows the spike protein from the virus also suppresses expression of P 53 so we've got, we've got concern here that we've got, we could have two things going on, and it could be kind of a collision. And then there's the the moderna patents that show, and of course, a paper from Lim at all that looks at spontaneous integration rates during transfection, both point to the fact that this DNA can get to the nucleus and integrate. There's two ways and get to the nucleus. The there's the SV 40 promoter has a nuclear targeting sequence in it that drags everything into the nucleus by trans transcription factors bind to that DNA and drag it in. The other thing is, anytime a cell divides, the nuclear envelope dissolves and reforms. So once it dissolves any DNA that cytosol can get into the nucleus and and gain access to an integration event. So So in theory,
Nick Jikomes 38:47
it could get to the nucleus and integrate into our DNA. Has anyone actually looked at that? Is there any indication that
Kevin McKernan 38:53
might be Yeah, we we have done that. We haven't published the work yet, but we have sequencing from a colon, a colon biopsy from a patient who was four times vaccinated a year after vaccination, they had a colon cancer. They biops That day, and then 30 days later, they died, and they biopsied after. And we have sequencing on both the pre mortem and post mortem samples, and we can find plasmids in there, 100 copies per cell. They're not exactly the same as Pfizer, which is a real head scratcher, but they're in there, and there's two of them. There's there's a one encode spike and one that encodes nucleocapsid. We don't know why that. Where the hell the nucleocapsid ones
Nick Jikomes 39:29
come Yeah, but if they got there from a Pfizer vaccination, why would the plasma be different than the Pfizer plasma?
Kevin McKernan 39:34
So that's a good question is, do they have more than one in circulation? Like is biontech got a different manufacturing plasmid than than the manufacturing plant out here in the US, because they're making these in two different locations. It's possible, is there contamination in their laboratory, that in the manufacturing of this, they get the wrong plasmid in their COVID, and suddenly they've got a different background there? Is there this possibility from the Beck paper I described in C. Cattle, is that in play? And we got you everything in our end to make sure we didn't introduce it. And we're doing, we're running all types of experiments to show that there's spike expression going on, but there's
Nick Jikomes 40:09
any, there's any number of reasons that could explain this. Yes, yeah, so.
Kevin McKernan 40:13
But we also have data, preliminarily back, that's looking we run this program called isling. It's a really cool program that that's designed to look for vector integration into genomes, because they have to do this for a lot of gene therapy projects. And if you run that, that program on on the on the sample, it does pop out a lot of integration events that we're now in the process of saying about verifying, just to confirm that they're real.
Nick Jikomes 40:36
So you guys are looking at and confirming whether these DNA plasmids are actually not only getting into human cells, but integrating into the nuclear genome. Yes,
Kevin McKernan 40:46
yeah. So we've got, you know, we've got a case now that that we're zeroing in on that looked like the SV 40 poly a signal, which is a termination signal. It's a transcription termination signal. We've got a piece of that integrating into chromosome 21 and it's breaking a gene that's involved in cancer. So that one looks really interesting like that could be maybe the driver of this whole thing, but the program spits out a long list of potential integrations that we have to go through and verify which ones are real and which ones are artifacts and all that. So I want to get ahead of ourselves on that that's that hasn't been saying or verified yet, but there the copy number alone is suggests that these things aren't fully fragmented, right? That these, these plasmas really shouldn't be replicating to 100 copies per cell. They couldn't. They shouldn't be in there at that level. Because if you just do the math on how much is in the vaccine after when you do an injection of this, this person had four vaccines, so 1.2 mls of Pfizer that went into about 87,000 MLS is your body volume. So you should have a massive dilution into your body. Yet, when we're when we're sequencing this and doing qPCR off the tumor, the CTS coming back off the tumor are almost as high as they are straight out of the vial. Yeah.
Nick Jikomes 42:01
So you're basically, what you're saying is, in this case, where you've got these biopsy cells from a tumor, you're finding on the order of 100 copies of this DNA plasmid per cell. And in theory, if, if it is coming, if you're just sort of injecting some with the jab, it's got these DNA contaminants, you should find many, fewer than 100 copies of plasmid per cell, if it's coming directly from the jab so and so. I think what you're implying is that this high number, 100 or so per cell, implies that perhaps the cell itself replicated multiple copies of these. Yes,
Kevin McKernan 42:35
yeah. And even if it were an integration event, which I do think there could be two things going on here. There could be plasmids replicating episomally, and there could be parts of them integrated. But if it were purely integrated, and the plasmid was gone, we would not expect to see the copy number of what integrated to be higher than the copy number of the genome, right? You'd get one integration into one chromosome, probably, so it'd be half the signal of what you get amplifying a human house gene like RNA p, which is what we use, you would get, you know, a similar CT if it integrated, because, because, if it were driver mutation, the cells would take off, and it would maybe have one copy of that mutation with it, and as a tumor advanced, you would probably, you expect to see a CT score in PCR for that region that was similar to the actual genome background. But we're not seeing that. We're seeing CTS that are that are way ahead. You know, if it's 100 fold up there, it's around six to seven CTS ahead of the RNA P gene, which is the human gene. And then when we do sequencing, we see the same thing. The coverage of sequencing is like 100 to 200x in the plasmids that when we're at 1x of the human genome. So there's they're in this tumor at really high levels, and that tells us that it has to be replicating. And this was a formalin fixed tissue. So, like, it's not like we could sprinkle plasmids on it from our laboratory to contaminate that and have them be trans, translationally active, right? Formula. It's like, this process when you take a tissue and you formally fix it, it's like, think of it as, like, carbon freezing, Han Solo, right, right, right, a nerd. All right. So you can add plasmid after the fact and get it to replicate on cells, and you can't add plasmas on the fact afterwards and get it to integrate, like those. Those things can only occur if the cells are live. So we're pretty certain. We've ruled out that. All right, this isn't coming from us. The anti vaxxers aren't pouring plasmids on this. Great story. Okay, yeah. This is, this was, this has, this has certain biological signals that show this. This was present in the patient when they were live. We don't know the source of it. They were four times vaccinated, and one of the vaccines that they used was one of the earliest vaccines, from December 30, 2020, okay,
Nick Jikomes 44:37
so let me, let me go through a few things, one at a time here to make sure I'm following and sort of assign a level of certainty to it, as if I'm understanding you correctly. So you and others, multiple other groups, independently, have looked at unopened, unexpired vials of these mRNA vaccines, and you have found DNA contaminants left these plasmids left over from the manufacturing process in some fraction of them, so they're dead. Definitely, in some fraction of the vials that were produced people, definitely, some number of people were definitely injected with vaccines that contained DNA contamination. And we know that's basically, we can say that's that's proven at this point, more or less.
Kevin McKernan 45:15
Yeah, enough labs around the world have found it. Okay, so it's probably six or seven now. And now, the most recent blood paper finding it in blood is like, yeah, okay, that's, that's the final now, and it's shown up biologically.
Nick Jikomes 45:26
Okay, so in some number of people, you know, you got injected with DNA. Sorry. So now the question is, okay, well, what happened? Well, one, one scenario is, don't worry, it's not going to do much of anything. We and we don't know if that's true or not. So the sort of most ideal outcome of this contamination is that even though there is DNA contamination, it's not really a biological consequence to our cells. What you're chasing them right now? That's,
Kevin McKernan 45:51
that's the regulator's position right now. The FDA and Health Canada have all kind of come forward saying, so what? It's, it's, it's there, and it doesn't matter.
Nick Jikomes 46:01
Okay? So it could be that could be true. It could be a so what situation? It could also be true that something of consequence is happening. We don't know if that's 100% for certain yet, but that's part of what you're chasing down. What, what is sort of the space of plausible, potentially plausible doomsday scenarios here?
Kevin McKernan 46:22
Well, I think all everything that we're producing, we have to keep into context with the data has come out from the paper and a variety of these other papers that look at lock, concentration of server severe adverse events, right? And then these papers are are often debated on Twitter. So it's worth seeing some of those debates. But they, what they what they published, is that like 4% of the vials have, like 80% of the adverse events. So and they tend to be the earlier vials. Now, the fact that they're the earlier vials, how do we how do we know
Nick Jikomes 46:53
that exactly? Do they just track so they can see who had an adverse event reported, they can see which lot that person's connected to based on the paperwork, and then
Kevin McKernan 47:02
they can, yeah, okay, so, yeah. So VAERS has the lot numbers. The yellow card system has it. I can't remember which database those those folks use, but they're in Europe, so I think they did this in Denmark and a couple other European countries. But it's been, it's been replicated in a couple countries now, where they can see that there is a lot preference for these adverse events. Now, there's, a couple confounders that could be at play here. It could be that, okay, the earlier manufacturing lots were dirty, or maybe they used different plasmids, right, that had other components that were more risky in them. That's, that's one, that's one hypothesis. The other thing is that, okay, who were the people who were first vaccinated? Were they all the elderly? And so we had an age effect, and maybe we're looking at a mirage here, and that debate has been kind of raging on Twitter a little bit. I think there is actually some, just from our experience handling these, the lot to lot variance is really significant from a DNA standpoint. So I am if
Nick Jikomes 47:55
you randomly take two vials from the world, one of them is likely to have more contamination than the other. One might have none at all. One might have a significant amount.
Kevin McKernan 48:03
Yes, yeah, we the the now, within a lot, they seem to be consistent. We get the consistent numbers within a lot, but going a lot to lot, we can see numbers that range that are sometimes, you know, right at the limit, according to PCR, and other times they can be 1015, fold higher. So there we've had some CTS all the way down at like 13, I think lots in Germany, and some of them are out at 20. So the 7c variance is like 100 fold. So
Nick Jikomes 48:31
in theory, I mean, one way to start to think about this. This isn't proven yet, but in theory, if a minority, if a small percentage of lots, have a very large amount of DNA contamination, but the average lot doesn't have very much contamination at all, little to none. It could be, in theory, if the DNA contamination is somehow connected to a biological consequence that causes or triggers an adverse event, like an immune of reaction, or whatever. It could be that the adverse events people are reporting, which we think might be tied to the vaccines, could be concentrated in people that happened by chance to get an injection from a lot that had a lot of
Kevin McKernan 49:07
contamination. Yeah. Now, I don't want to oversimplify the space, because there's a lot going on with these, even if they get all the DNA out of here, I'm not certain they're out of the woods. Like there's issues with the LPS being toxic. There's issues with the double stranded RNA. I don't think it's being measured very well. When I, when I look through the documents they have at the EMA, they're using an Elisa that can't see double stranded DNA, double stranded RNA, that's under 400 basis. So in the vaccine, is it all supposed to be single stranded mRNA? Well, that's, that's the nice whiteboard version of this. But if you actually comb through the literature and how people code and optimize mRNAs like this. They design them to look like viroids, double stranded, design in the fold because they last longer if you design them the fold, that makes
Nick Jikomes 49:48
sense. If it's folded and it's bound double stranded, it's going to be more stable. That's just how
Kevin McKernan 49:53
it works. Yeah, yeah. So you can see the programs they use enrich the GC content of these RNAs to make them fold into hair pins, and that gives them. Longer, you know, life, I suppose, in the cell. So the only problem with that is that once, when it tends to fold a lot like that, it can trigger other double stranded RNA pathways, like the whole RNA interference pathway can light up that. And so they do have some strict guidelines on how much double stranded RNA can be in there. And I think that's the they're using an assay that intentionally can't see it, and because they they know they need to make them double stranded to actually make them stable. And then they pick this Elisa acid. It's blind to anything under 400 bases so it I don't think that's getting measured correctly, and so we don't really know how much of that's going on in the cell. I've done some experiments with different RNAs, is to try and get at that, but they're not really ready for prime time. Well,
Nick Jikomes 50:43
okay, so maybe there's multiple threads that are going to get opened up here. So I want to sort of tie off on some of this DNA contamination stuff. Let's just be completely agnostic about whether anything bad is happening, because some people have been exposed to these DNA contaminants. The fact is, those DNA contaminants are not supposed to be in the vaccines, which means somewhere in the manufacturing process, something went wrong, or someone got sloppy, and these things ended up in there. Do you think this is the result of just sort of sloppiness and trying to move too quickly, because we had to, you know, move at quote, unquote, warp speed. What do you think is the origin of this contamination?
Kevin McKernan 51:19
Yeah, I think that's it. They're moving at warp speed, and they they don't have liability. So those two combined are mess and and our interactions with with the regulators on this is they seem to be playing the marketing arm of the pharmaceutical companies that they regulate. You know, they're, they're covering for them. They're, they're, they're, you know, they go back and ask the regular, the the pharmaceutical companies. Hey, why is this in here? You didn't tell us about SV 40. And they kind of parrot whatever the the regular, the the pharma gives them, which are lies oftentimes. And you're like, you guys got to do your own homework on this if they're going to if they deceived, you don't go to them and trust what they give you, you know, go back and interrogate it. So, I mean, one thing they parroted from from Pfizer on this, was that, oh, the DNA that's in there is plasmid DNA, and it's not material to plasmid manufacturing. I mean, it's like, you the SV 40 region is entirely like, if you don't have the SV 40 promoter in there, you can't make the plasmid like, that's the promoter for the antibiotic resistance gene. So no SV 40, no plasmid. I mean, it's the most critical part of plasmid manufacturing, and the FDA didn't question that answer that Pfizer gave them. They've stopped using that excuse after we pointed that out to them, that no, this is not true. This is material to plasmid manufacturing, so you can't just write it off. So for those aren't following this, they were, Pfizer was supposed to disclose the SV 40 region to the FDA, and they didn't, and the FDA got a little upset about that, I think because they were, they were blindsided by that. There's that that was supposed to be on record. Once we sequenced in pointed out was there. The FDA initially claimed we had contamination in our laboratory, and then they looked in their file and realized that, oh, wait, Pfizer, while they didn't tell us, the s2 40 was there, we can actually see it now if we scrutinize the DNA sequence they gave us. So they did provide them the whole plasmid sequence, but they're supposed to annotate the plasmid and tell them every single part and what it does, and they just decided to annotate everything by Sv 40. So there's been a big controversy over this SV 40 thing, because it's an intentional deception. And then when the when the regulators were challenged with it, they kind of fed the public a bunch of lies that Pfizer gave them. And we've been kind of going back and forth with them on this through FOIAs and looking at getting their emails and getting their public statements, and they're contradicting each other. Unfortunately, they're trying to tell the world that this is too little to matter while they're asking Pfizer to get rid of it, and then they also have you make these comments about how it's not functional, and we show them papers that it is functional. So
Nick Jikomes 53:45
basically, regulators are saying simultaneously, they're saying to people like you and us, I guess public there's, there's so little DNA in there, it's not a biological consequence. And at the same time, in different meetings, they're telling the vaccine makers to get rid of this because they don't want it in there at all.
Kevin McKernan 54:00
Yes, yeah, yeah. So that we have those emails now that kind of show, but that was at Health Canada, actually, I think scoops maggo and Noah Sharjah pulled that out with an A tip in Canada, where Health Canada was, you know, telling the public, there's nothing to see here. It's all below a certain length. And then they got emails that showed that Pfizer said, we don't know how long it is. We don't have an assay for that, and and Health Canada asking them to get rid of it while they're telling everyone, you know, don't worry about it. So
Nick Jikomes 54:26
literally, literally
Kevin McKernan 54:27
lies Yes, and that's, that's, that's upsetting as a regulator, because you're like, you're supposed to be the watchdog for these guys, not their cover agent. And this, this looks like a completely unholy relationship. And you know, you dig into it, and the agencies are, in fact, on, you know that most of the revenue comes from the companies they regulate in the US. It's the PDUFA act that gives them like, I think it's over 70% of the revenue going going into the FDA is our fees from the people that regulate and Health Canada is even higher. It's like 85 or 90% TGA, i. Has the record. I think TJ in Australia has, like, over 90% of the revenues coming straight from pharma. So they're, they're not the watchdogs that the public thinks they are. They're, they're, they're regulatory bodies that that help market this to the public.
Nick Jikomes 55:13
Yeah, so there's, there's a lot of places we can go from here. So obviously, it's bad enough that we've got stuff in these vials. It's not supposed to be there. You know, the most generous way I suppose you could interpret this is we had to move at warp speed. They're moving fast, so they just got a little sloppy. Hopefully, maybe it's of no biological consequence. But we don't actually know that yet. You know, that's a whole area that that you and I think some others are investigating. It could be of consequence. It might not be. We'll see what happens. There's just a general question as well about vaccine adverse reactions. Some people report that they got the jab and right after that, you know, they got sick, or then they got long, COVID, or this or that. And there's this question of, you know, are the vaccines and some percentage of people causing adverse reactions? Let's just start out very high level here. What's your sort of general read on this whole area? How common do we think adverse events are, and are there any difficulties in how people are reporting those, or how we're trying to measure those that color how we sort of interpret all of the anecdotes that people report,
Kevin McKernan 56:21
it is now so that that's a you might want to get like Jessica Rose on here to go through the adverse events story, because I I've been following it, but I don't have a firm pulse on it, like some of them do. I've seen some, some papers that Peter McCullough has circulated suggesting it's like it could be as high as 4% people have some type of reaction. I've seen papers from what is his name, his great work on reevaluating the the FDA trial or the Pfizer trial, they'll come to me, but they were finding numbers of severe adverse events of significance were like one in 800 and that was a very interesting physician who who actually very honest physician, and that he initially was like, pro vaccine on all of this, and then when he started seeing these numbers, he came out and apologized. And this was like, Justin Freeman, just for him, look him up. He's got a very interesting background and story. And his study was just looking at their own, their own trial data that they thought the numbers were more like one in 800 so it's not this one couple million that people are talking about. It's much higher than that. And if you go into the VAERS database today, you can look them up. I've not kept perfect track of where they're at they're at, but if you extrapolate the severe adverse events in that database, assuming there's this 30x under reporting factor, because not all of these things get captured due to the time it takes a submit of errors report. Some studies have estimated that to be around a 30 fold under reporting factor. The numbers get up into the 550,000 range of people who have had severe to adverse events, up to upwards to death. Edward Dowd has some data on that that also looks like it's in those numbers. I've seen that from a couple sources now that are pointing at like there could be half a million deaths from these vaccines in the United States alone. So anyway, check a couple other sources on that, just because I'm not like the guru on the adverse event side of this, but if they're concentrated in certain lots, then we want to, we really want to go around sequencing a lot of these vials, just to see, are there different plasmids in different vials? Is there something different about them? I don't want, I don't want here, want to portray that it's all about the DNA, because there's been a lot of great work out there showing the spike protein alone is a problem that you know, injecting these things doesn't make a whole lot of sense, giving its mucosal immunity. It doesn't really build well, that way, the lmps themselves seem to do some damage to the to the epithelial layer. So there's, there's, there's a host of different problems going on that I think, you know, we shouldn't have too much focus on just cleaning up the DNA, because I don't think that will actually completely fit fix the platform.
Nick Jikomes 58:51
Yeah, yeah. So, so the DNA contamination stuff is, you know, bad in itself. And you know, I've been it's, I'm glad you guys and others have done this type of work. But even if there is no contamination whatsoever, there are potential there are potential factors that are intrinsic to the mRNA vaccine design itself, that that could come into play when we think about things like adverse events. So one of them I want to go back to is these mRNA
Kevin McKernan 59:17
area that I do want to highlight, that I think doesn't get highlighted enough, is that when they start growing using E coli, endotoxins invariably going to come through, and that's probably going to get hidden inside the LNP and be hard to detect, because endotoxin loves to hide inside of lipid nanoparticles.
Nick Jikomes 59:32
So the bacteria will naturally produce endotoxin, which obviously is not something we want inside of ourselves.
Kevin McKernan 59:36
When you inject that, that can give you all types of acute reactions, like the people who I think were dropping on camera were probably endotoxin head. You
Nick Jikomes 59:43
just got unlucky and you got a jab that maybe had a bunch of endotoxin in the lipid nanoparticles or something.
Kevin McKernan 59:48
You just get that kind of immediate response. So that's a whole nother, but that comes with trying to manufacture this in E coli, right with PCR amplifying it, like they did in the trial, that probably had a much lower endotoxin. Number two. To it
Nick Jikomes 1:00:00
so but even if the manufacturing process was perfect, which obviously it was not, you still have an intrinsic feature here of this technology. Is these mRNAs are designed in ways that enhance their stability compared to a natural, native viral mRNA. They are wrapped in lipid nanoparticles, and so they're long lasting, and they're producing spike protein, which is, you know, by design, that's intentionally what we wanted them to produce to try and generate an immune response. But the spike protein is itself toxic. Can you talk to me a little bit about how the longevity of the mRNAs and the stuff that was designed to make them have higher longevity might be related to spike protein toxicity and things like this?
Kevin McKernan 1:00:40
Okay, so the an important point is all of those papers I listed before from from the HANA paper, the carousen paper, the castrida paper, things that are looking at a nucleic acid persistence. They're all using RT, PCR, which will amplify both DNA and RNA. So we don't actually know in most of those studies what they're looking at if they're if they're seeing DNA signal or RNA signal. So that's just something that clouds kind of because they didn't know about it when they ran those studies, and those were done prior to our work. So, so the DNA could be, could be enabling some persistence of this RNA. Now, the current Pfizer and moderna vaccines, they have a t7 promoter on in front of Spike, so that shouldn't make RNA in mammalian cell. Okay, that's, that's, that's really only active in bacterial cells. So if there's DNA floating around in there, it would have to integrate next to a promoter in the human genome to make more spike and contribute to the spike persistent. In theory, the mRNA you're talking about has an on switch that can only be flipped in a bacterial cell. Yes, yeah. So unless they get inside of bacteria in the body and start making RNA in the bacteria, then, you know, maybe they can be contributing to some of the spike. But I that's, that's, who knows? I don't know. I don't know if that's true or not. It seems, seems a little bit like a reach. But the but what was concerning about this most recent biopsy we sequenced is that those plasmids had a CMB promoter in them, which does make spike inside of mammalian cells. And that patient had spike IHC signal the tumor was loaded with Spike, so that, in that case, it could have been contributing to persistent spike expression of mammalian cells. And who knows? Again, we don't know where those things came from. It was it from an early Pfizer lot, or was it from a leak from a lab? It does that's still being sorted out, but it does scare us that there are CMB promoters in front of these, these, these peptides in some of the Plasmas that are floating around. Yeah.
Nick Jikomes 1:02:34
I mean, one thing people have argued about back and forth, I think this whole time, is some people have said, well, by the design of these vaccines, the mRNAs can last longer, and therefore they can make a lot of Spike protein. And people will say, okay, and the spike protein is cytotoxic, so if you got a lot of this stuff floating around for a long time, obviously that's not good. And then people will say, in response to that, well, okay, but a natural COVID infection makes even more spike protein, so it's actually not as bad as I don't
Kevin McKernan 1:03:01
know that that's true. Actually. Yeah. Is that true? I've seen the antibody studies point to higher, like 10 fold higher antibody levels off the vaccinated than off of the the infected. So, and the profile is different, too. When you get infected with the virus, it takes days for the spike to ramp up and and when an injection, it's a bolus, bang, you get it all in one, all in one. Go 30, you know, 14 to, you know, 40 trillion of these molecules in one shot. So I've seen others try to calculate the actual virion load inside of inside of an infection, even to people who have viremia. And, you know, it peaks out. I have to pull up that paper for you and link it to you. But it doesn't get into the trillions. It peaks out in like the 10 to 100 billion range. So then you got to calculate how many spikes per per virion. So it doesn't even come close to the numbers where you assume a single, only one spike comes off the mRNA. Those things are designed to probably get 10 to 100 spikes off of each mRNA. So I actually, I actually think the vaccination has a much higher spike load than than the virus, and the distribution is completely random with the LNP, whereas the virus has a certain set of cells that prefers target. So I think they're, I think they're very different beasts, but I've not seen a paper that directly does that comparison. I've had to infer it by looking at papers that have tried to count the number of virions in infected people, and just look at the numbers of molecules that they're injecting in these lmps. And be like, I'd be really surprised if you only get one spike off of each RNA. It's got to be more than that. They put a beta globin promoter on there, which is a really strong promoter on on these. So it's probably going to make 10 to 100 spikes off of the hrna.
Nick Jikomes 1:04:50
I mean, I want to talk about PCR stuff, because you're a PCR guy. Before we get to that, I want to talk about the. The immune reaction to the vaccine and and what might be going on there. So obviously, you know, we've had this. Vaccines been around for a few years now, some people are getting, you know, each new iteration of it, year by year, they're getting their their booster. One thing that happened at the beginning, obviously, for those of us with who choose to remember is, you know, the vaccines came out, they were tattered as being able to stop infection. And then the people who got the first jabs, myself included, were getting infected months later, when, you know, in theory, their immunity should, should have been at a maximum. So I got infected several months after the first two doses I got, which are the only two doses I got? And, you know, it was probably Omicron. It was the Omicron wave, I think. And, you know, so obviously, at the time, I'm like, Well, wait a minute, like, I just got these, you know, this double dose that made me sick, unlike any other vaccine I've ever gotten, right? I had significant symptoms, and then I still got this thing anyway. So what kind of immune response do you think the jabs themselves are inducing? Is it exaggerated in some way or unnatural in some way?
Kevin McKernan 1:06:07
The pseudo uretine is known to kind of scramble the toll receptors. I think it's toll receptor three, four and seven that get attenuated by that base. So those toll receptors are key to looking at at pattern response for for microbes and for pathogens. The other thing that's going on is this IgG four class switch where, where your system is getting tolerant of a particular pathogen. So if you repeat hit your immune system with high doses of a particular pathogen or antigen, I should say your immune system starts to learn to tolerate it, and that can lead to people getting persistent COVID, if you will, or long, long, perhaps long COVID, if you call it that.
Nick Jikomes 1:06:53
Do we know why something like IgG forward, like, why do things work that way? I
Kevin McKernan 1:06:57
don't know. I'm not that's not my field of expertise. I've just, I've just seen those papers, and those have always concerned me that that could, that could play a role in Cancer Surveillance too, I would imagine. So, you know, there's a host of things going on with this, this vaccine in cancer. So I don't want to lead anyone to think it's all about the DNA here, but that IgG four thing scares me when I read about that. Like, Ooh, what's going to happen to Cancer Surveillance if your immune system. So IgG four
Nick Jikomes 1:07:21
is an antibody that's associated with becoming tolerant. That's something that would otherwise be pathogenic. Yeah,
Kevin McKernan 1:07:27
yep, suppressing your immune response too well. I think they keep an eye on this for other allergens, because your body is, you know, in those cases, I guess getting, you know, repeat hit with an exposure of an antigen that it's not tolerating well.
Nick Jikomes 1:07:45
And so, I mean, so, so, I mean, what do we know for sure there it does? Does this vaccine seem to induce IgG four more than we would expect? Well, you
Kevin McKernan 1:07:53
need it. I've heard it won't happen off the one that this this class switch tends to happen after two or three. So we expect to
Nick Jikomes 1:07:59
see a relationship between the number of boosters people have gotten and IgG,
Kevin McKernan 1:08:03
four levels. Yes, yeah, that's been published by others. I don't have my fingertips on the actual authors for that, but yeah, that's that could, that could be concerned and I, and generally, I think I've seen that amongst my friends who have been vaccinated is that they, they seem to have a lot more just common colds in the summertime and off season. So there could be some type of immune suppression going on. We've seen in the literature that there's some neutropenia and lymphocytopenia as well with them. So your white blood cells go down for a short period of time after vaccination. I have not seen a study that's looked at that for like 30 days, though, so I don't know if that persists or if it's just temporary,
Nick Jikomes 1:08:41
yeah. And I'm not sure how much of this has already been done, but like, you know, as as the years keep going by, we're going to have pretty large cohorts of people that have 23456, plus doses. And it would be, it'll be interesting to look at a lot of these things, you know, as a function of how many of these shots people have gotten.
Kevin McKernan 1:08:59
Yeah, yeah. I mean, there isn't that. Have you seen that Cleveland Clinic study? No. So there's a Cleveland Clinic study of about 55,000 health care workers, where they looked at this sort of COVID frequency based on the number of doses. And there was a pattern there that the more they got, the more COVID they got. Very controversial paper, but it made it through peer review. It was originally all, you know, getting trash because it was a pre print but it got through. And the other critiques they've thrown at this is that older healthcare workers, this doesn't, you know, represent the whole population, but even if it's if it's if it's doing it to the healthcare workers, I mean, you would think there'd be a health or a healthy user bias in healthcare workers, but maybe not a healthy vaccine bias. So there's an effect where oftentimes the healthiest people run out and get the vaccine first, because they're very helpful. And it changes the interpretation of some studies like this, but that Cleveland Clinic study sort of resonates with the IG IgG for class switch data, which implies you're more. So receptive to COVID. If you're heavily vaccinated, they headed up to four doses in there. Yeah, that's a bit of a shocker in the field. So I'll try and find that author for you here. It's not I'll post it afterwards, because that one's I was thrown around a lot.
Nick Jikomes 1:10:19
But in any case, it's something that people should just have their their ears open to. Is that as more and more people look into this, you know, the question is, is there going to be relationship between the number of jabs someone's gotten and not just the frequency of COVID infections, but potentially the frequency of other infections? Because if this IgG four antibody thing is happening, and if you have more of it as you get more and more jabs, you would expect to see immunosuppression to not necessarily just the SARS COVID Two virus, but other viruses as well. Well, you're bringing
Kevin McKernan 1:10:49
up an important point, because not all vaccines do this, right? There's so so I've heard of Epstein Barr getting and shingles and stuff popping out of people who've been vaccinated. And there's some evidence in the literature that dormant viruses can can suddenly get turned on with this. But there are other vaccines out there that oftentimes give you accidental protection against something else and which, which one was this. Again, who has a I saw a great podcast with with Jay Bhattacharya on this from a vaccinologist that was talking about how oftentimes, surprisingly, one vaccine will give you a positive outcome for for another disease, and it's completely unexpected, but the reverse can happen, where you get protection from one and then you get exposure and there's more harm from another organism. And this is, this is what often gets missed in a lot of the trial data that they do with the FDA, and these studies that they tend to look at the cohort according to one pathogen, and they don't stop and say, Okay, maybe this gives us protection to, let's say, measles, but in the process, we're not looking to see their health over time, long term. Do they happen to get some other virus more frequently as a result of this? All of our vaccine trials are running this way, where it's very siloed and focused on one particular pathogen, without looking at the impact on Net Health and everything else. And I think that's something that has to get like, reconsidered, given the data they have.
Nick Jikomes 1:12:13
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a good point. I mean, because you would sort of expect things to work this way to some extent, right? It's not like the immune system is super hyper targeted, so that everything is completely focused on one bug at a time. There's gonna be similarities based on, you know, proteins the different bugs share in common, etc, etc,
Kevin McKernan 1:12:28
yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a far more complicated space. And I think the days of just growing, you know, yeah, I was, I was watching these documentaries on how they used to make these polio vaccines, you know, like, God, they would just, like, grind up monkey kidneys and grow these things and inject that crap and all this other stuff comes through with it. And you're like, God, that is such dark ages, like leeching people for for blood. So we gotta kind of pay attention to this as we and we get, we know it's getting better, then it's, yeah, recombinant should be cleaner. You know, we've made advances, but we're it's not perfect. We've got to be looking at these trials, I think, from a much more you know, population standpoint, and how they behave across all categories of health, not just are you PC or positive or not for COVID, that's just pretty much how the Pfizer trial was run.
Nick Jikomes 1:13:16
If I So, if I think about sort of the whole DNA contamination issue. There's sort of two natural perspectives. I could imagine people having one perspective. We'll call it the generous perspective is, look, we had to do operation warp speed. We didn't know how bad or good things were going to be at the time. This could have been a zombie apocalypse. You know, as far as we knew in late 2019, you know, we can argue all day long about the liability thing. But, you know, things happen the way they happened, and they had to move fast. And you know, for better or worse, in the process of moving quickly and trying to help people as quickly as possible, the vaccine manufacturers just got a little sloppy, and there happened to be some DNA contamination. And you know, we can't go back in time, but it was just an artifact of trying to move as quickly as possible to address this issue, the COVID issue, that we didn't even, we didn't even know what this was going to be, how bad it was going to be at the time. Another perspective is that's not really, probably what's going on here the you know, we're talking about giant evil corporations, and they don't actually care. And you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, tinfoil hat stuff. If the second perspective were true, you would expect to see things like this type of contamination in other contexts, or other vaccines. This would be a general phenomenon, because they just kind of don't care if it was sort of the generous interpretation. You know, this was purely an artifact of having to move at warp speed for COVID in the early days. Are there any examples of vaccines, other vaccines, being contaminated in copper? Boys,
Kevin McKernan 1:14:45
yeah. So soon, Lee found HPV vaccines are contaminated with DNA as well. So I think this, I don't know how much surveillance is being done honestly, on vaccines. I think he found it somewhat accidentally as well, but it's an. Important point that I think we have the tools to sequence all of these things, and should be, yeah, understand this, particularly since they've been given liability waivers even before the liability waivers. So hold
Nick Jikomes 1:15:09
on, before you dive into this, just remind people what is HPV and what does that vaccine look like?
Kevin McKernan 1:15:14
That's a Garda cell vaccine. So that's that's meant for cervical cancer, and the reason they missed the DNA in that vaccine was because they had aluminum adjuvants in it, and DNA tends to bind to aluminum adjuvants, and so it can be sometimes tricky to detect if
Nick Jikomes 1:15:30
so, if you were going to go look for it, you would have to know that it's actually stuck to its aluminum adjuvants.
Kevin McKernan 1:15:35
Yes, yeah, and you figured that out. So that was that's an interesting story, because this does beg the question of, in all the other vaccines that are limited, that are using aluminum, is it hiding DNA? Like we should, we got to go back and look at all the other ones. Now, I'm not really familiar with the synthesis process of the HPV, like, like, was it a whole plasma? Did you just find a fragment? I haven't. I haven't dug deep into that, that rabbit hole, but they has been found in other vaccines. You can go before the liability waivers and find other contaminants. There's, there's the famous SP 40 contamination in the polio vaccines. There's a big controversy as to whether some of those, when they were making some of these different polio vaccines, there was the Salk vaccine, there was a Sabin vaccine, and there's a there's another gentleman, Hillary. Kind of Hillary's last name, Hillary japonsky, I think they there's some controversy that maybe HIV was given to, like, a million people in Africa through through that process of using either chimpanzees or monkey tissue to make the vaccines. It's not been resolved, but it's just, it's something that makes some sense in light of the polio vaccine also giving out SV 40 to a lot of people. So now, those were days before we really had DNA sequencing, right there. It was like those in the 50s and the 60s. And, you know, they discovered Watson and Crick discovered DNA in the 54 and I don't think Sanger sequencing came live, really, until the 70s, so they didn't have tools to look for this stuff then, and PCR was probably out in the 80s, so they were blind as a bat back there, kind of doing witchcraft in those days, but, but it's really not until 86 where they really close to when PCR is actually invented. Did they? Did they say, okay, no liability. And since then, the amount of DNA you can have in vaccines has gone up 1000 fold while our capacity sequence. It's gone down 100,000 fold. And they're not sequencing all these things they should
Nick Jikomes 1:17:27
be. So it's basically cheap and easy to check for these things. But nobody, nobody's doing it. No one's
Kevin McKernan 1:17:31
doing it, and at least not at the regulators like sometimes you'll see submissions from Pfizer saying, Oh yeah, we did RNA sequencing on this and found the and we were able to confirm the plasmid through RNA sequencing. They actually wrote that in some documents for documents with the EMA, which is kind of an admission that they have contamination in their vaccines. But the regulators don't pick up and do it themselves to double check it's sort of a pinky swear and all this stuff. So that's something that I think they should change the new administration, is they have the capacity to sequence all of these things, and why aren't they and double actually do your job as a consumer reporting agency like double check that the product they're putting out does what it says it does and is what it is. Instead, it's just, you know, we'll find you if we figure out later that you're wrong, which oftentimes is like, you know, a Vioxx or an opioid epidemic. Later, you know, it needs to be more real time. I want to
Nick Jikomes 1:18:23
talk a little bit about COVID origins and potentially how that, you know, the the way that it might have originated, might tie into, you know, some of the things we've talked about. But I don't know about you, I've had people ask me personally. I try, you know, because I try not to get too personal on the podcast and stuff. But at this point, you know, I sort of stopped following this a while ago, because, short of someone coming forth with, like, you know, a wild pangolin that you know, clearly has the original virus in it, or something like that, which, you know, it's telling that no one's come forth with that intermediate species. Yet that actually is a key piece of evidence, in my opinion, yeah, I think it's pretty clear where this virus came from. What are your thoughts on the COVID origins issue, and whether or not where it originated is actually going to be important for helping us understand how and why this this thing and this vaccine are working the way they do?
Kevin McKernan 1:19:13
Yeah, so I'm definitely convinced it was engineered. Now I don't know when it leaked. I don't think it leaked in December, because there's too many stories of there's some seropositivity studies in Italy and Brazil and other places that showed seropositivity in the summer. There was also that that a valley crisis that occurred in six months before the pandemic, which I'm sure you may be familiar with in the cannabis field. That that had was her name, Rosanna, I think segreta, I think is her name. But there's someone who put out a really interesting paper on the similarities between a valley and COVID like ground glass opacities at once. And it may have been like an earlier version of Coronavirus that came through, that just painted certain people who were heavy vapors within a valley crisis, really, maybe some pesticides or. Something, you know, in the pens, but they tried to blame it on vitamin D acetate. But for those aren't familiar with this, before the pandemic, most people weren't aware of this. The CDC declared in a valley crisis, which is a vape pen illness, and it was in cannabis pens and in and nicotine pens. And they they pinned, they thought they pinned it on vitamin D, a state, which I don't believe, because that's been in the vapor industry for like, a decade. So something else had to come in with it, like maybe, maybe a Coronavirus, maybe a pesticide. You know, it's unresolved, but, yeah, a lot of those factors have me thinking the leak date is probably six months prior to December, but it does the sequence that I've seen, and when I've gone through Washburn's work and Charles Rick's work, the drastic protocol this thing was engineered. There's no doubt my mind,
Nick Jikomes 1:20:41
there's genomics signatures in the virus that look they have a signature of all of the they have the hallmarks of stuff that people use in the lab routine. Basically,
Kevin McKernan 1:20:50
yes, yeah, yeah. They've got these interesting restriction enzymes that point to someone trying to manipulate this. But, yeah. So you know, what do we do about that? Who funded it. There's, there's a lot of shake up with some of the funding coming through echo Health Alliance, which is funded by Tony Fauci. And you know, how do we get more control over this? And you know, what's not being spoken about in this, this whole discussion, which I think should be spoken about, is that Seattle paper from Beck, because that just suggests that we could have transmissible plasmas that are expressing spike in coming out of research laboratories that no one's considering gain of function. Like, how far did that go? In Seattle, they didn't. They didn't really go and check the are not like, yeah, they showed it. Got one housemate, and they tried to get back to that housemate to test them serially, and the person ran away, I would too, right? Like, what are you guys playing with? I got contaminated with what came out of your lab. Get me out of here. So that's a, you know, that worries me a bit, particularly in light of the sequencing we just did. Like, I don't, I can't really pin down where this came from. It was an early lot from Pfizer, or did one of those effects happen? And if it's, if those things, in fact, are expressing spike with a CMV promoter. And all this literature is out there on what, how nasty spike is, in terms of, you know, interacting with B 53 and we've got, like, a, you know, a carcinogenic lab tool that's, that's transmissible and amplifiable, that's, that's, that's a nightmare. What?
Nick Jikomes 1:22:19
What I want to ask you sort of a more of a philosophical question, you know, given your background in biotech and biology, you know, all this stuff is complicated. Molecular Biology is complicated. There's lots of stuff going on and lots of stuff we don't know, and there's lots of stuff we don't know. We don't know if we, you know, use the, I think it was Rumsfeld who said something like that, you know. So there are known unknowns. There are unknown unknowns, etc, etc. As you know, in the position you're in as a biotech guy, having worked on all of this COVID stuff, having seen the last few years play out in terms of the spread of the virus, how the vaccine was used the wars over, you know, how to deal with this from a public health perspective, etc, etc. Should we be more humble in terms of, yes, how much we don't know in terms of biology? Because I get the impression that a lot of people think we know enough biology that we can really engineer the entire world to to, you know, to our will. I
Kevin McKernan 1:23:20
think you hit the nail on the head. I mean, we, we often get excited that we've got, we've cracked, cracked open the book of life, and we know how to read the code, but we don't really understand it. We can print it, we can write it, we can read it, but comprehending it's a totally different story. So I think we do get over skis on using these things, perhaps a bit aggressively. But you know that that part does me a little bit what worms more is that we tend to have a lot of centralization of how we perform science, and that that seems to get infected and drive certain narratives, you know, like, I think a lot of this would have been avoided if we didn't have, you know, one person screaming what the science is and who and who's fringe, and who is in fringe right out of the gate, because then they can ram these things down our throat being, you know, suddenly they gave up on, on immunity, like natural immunity is not real. They bent. They bend reality with with controlling the where the money goes in science, and also the censorship of other scientists through that have contrarian views. And this isn't new. It just was magnified times 10 in COVID. But you know, you can see a lot of this when you go back in history with HIV as well. There's a lot of, you know, noble laureates like, well, Gilbert spoke out about this. Carrie Muller spoke out about it. You've got Peter duesberger spoke out about it that, like, that story was really an amplified pandemic that wasn't as bad as they claimed it to be. They didn't have a perfect link to HIV and AIDS, and they ran with that to get a testing market going and to create it was like a little mini COVID trial run, if you will. And and that story is kind of unfolding now that, all right, we need to go back and look at that, because the same characters that were. Involved in that, or involved in COVID, even, even the origin story. So your point about origins, look up Warby. Warby is a person who has been putting out all these papers with Bucha trying to say, hey, look, it's Zoma notic. It came from the wet market. Look at his history in HIV. Same thing. He was a person. He was a go to like Neil Ferguson, type of person that would print up the paper that would say this was the origin of HIV of some Haitian person who spread it on an airplane kind of thing, when there's a lot of other unaddressed alternative hypothesis of the origin, whether it came from a polio vaccine, or whether it it came out of bush meat people eating bush meat is another, another story. And of course, there's contrarian views that it's it has absolutely nothing to do with with aids that you get with Peter Duesberg. So that looks like a pandemic where the origins, the origins, all confused and not there hasn't there's been one amplified message that came out of a centralized government entity that funds, you know, decides who gets funding and shuts down people who have different opinions, like Duesberg. And so the origins all mixed up, and the actual correlation to disease in HIV is definitely under, under a lot of questioning, by by Nobel laureates, that there's all these people that are that are basically HIV negative, that get AIDS. Explain that the distribution in the United States is 90% men, but 5050 in Africa. Like there's all of these things that don't make sense. Like, you get antibodies to this thing. It shouldn't. Most viruses aren't late in this long like there's a long list of things that just don't make sense in HIV. And I think a lot of that comes from a centralizing science in unaccountable government agencies that can just blast this is the narrative, and just annihilate and cancel people who who
Nick Jikomes 1:26:37
get in the way. And it's amazing, yeah, it's amazing how effective those narratives are for so for example, on this issue, and I haven't done a full deep dive into the HIV story. Yeah, I
Kevin McKernan 1:26:48
haven't either. I don't mean to, I don't mean to project the authority on that field, and just that I'm
Nick Jikomes 1:26:53
looking now I'm in a similar position. So because So, so for a little personal history here, and to give people some background as to what we're talking about. So obviously, there was this big HIV AIDS issue that sprung up in the 80s and 90s. So it was a little bit before my time. I was, you know, I was a little kid back then, so I only know about it in retrospect. I just sort of know there was this big aids scare. We figured out it was HIV and like, it's not a scare anymore. One of the things that I learned as as a young man about that episode was how Carey Mullis ties into this. And I knew so, so I went in, I went to college and everything for molecular biology. So I knew a lot about the history of molecular biology. So I knew who Carrie Mullis was. He was this Nobel laureate. He invented PCR, brilliant, brilliant scientist. Like, that's how he is known among, you know, people in that realm. But, you know, he had a couple of kooky beliefs. And people would just sort of say, like, Kerry moles is brilliant. He invented PCR. Oh, my God, what a smart guy. But he had a kooky belief about HIV. And I just sort of like, took in that narrative, like, oh, he was some weird HIV denialist for some weird reason. You know, the rest of his career and his mind was perfectly good and intact and brilliant, but on this one thing, he was kooky, and I just sort of believed that story. And it wasn't until not that long ago, you know, and this type of thing has happened many times in my life, where I go back and I just listened to the person directly, instead of listening to other people talk about them, right? I listened to Carrie Mullis talk about this, and it was amazing. What he said, All he did was, at the time, he got interested in HIV and its origins, and he went to directly to scientists saying that HIV caused AIDS. And he simply asked them, can you show me the papers that prove this? And he had a really hard time getting them to show him those papers.
Kevin McKernan 1:28:35
I'm gonna do the same. I bought the whole HIV narrative, and I never even saw, I think carry stuff, probably until about his HIV, if you want to call it that all ism I never saw that really, until COVID, yeah. And yeah, put in my head was like, Okay, keep that Yes.
Nick Jikomes 1:28:52
And as far as I can tell, I don't think he was saying HIV definitely does not cause AIDS. I think he was saying HIV has definitely not been proven to cause AIDS yet.
Kevin McKernan 1:29:00
Yes, yeah, there's difference. And they think it's a, he's of the opinion that, or was of the opinion that it was, it's, it's a background carrier. It's associated with some of the, some of the people. But there's 10 to 20% of people that are HIV negative and get AIDS. There's a lot of people who in the way they categorize aids, you know, is that's, that's that's changing, just like they didn't, just like they did in COVID. You know, if you have like, pneumonia, plus HIV, it'll be, it'll be aids based pneumonia. But if you have pneumonia, HIV negative, it'll just be pneumonia. So, so they're doing these categorical errors on tracking the disease that kind of reinforce the story that HIV is, is causative of certain things, yes, and that is just all these echoes into COVID, the same things over and over again. And I think the biopharmaceutical complex that's kind of figured this out, that if they can fund and get their get their fingers into the NIH, whether it be through patent estates like they have, you know, there's $400 million of royalty going to the NIH over the moderna, from moderna, right? And when they have these close networks, they can kind of amplify. And utilize that, that, you know, megaphone, if they will, that government megaphone, to sort of push the pandemic and push PCR testing and push the solution and magnify the event in the public's eye so that they can maximize profit. So and it's unfortunate, I think it's very dangerous, because they can launder a lot of the crimes through government agencies that might be harder to hold to account than the actual pharmaceutical industry, right? If they didn't have that was,
Nick Jikomes 1:30:25
was, was there any funny business going on in terms of how COVID was being detected, especially in the early days of the pandemic? Yeah,
Kevin McKernan 1:30:33
there absolutely was, and that they cranked the they never did. You should do live, dead PCR on these things to know whether you're the biggest issue with PCR is that you're the RNA in the COVID virus can can linger for 90 days, and you're not infectious for that whole timeframe. You're only infectious for maybe nine days of it. So for
Nick Jikomes 1:30:51
nine days, you can pass COVID on to someone. The virus can get out of you into someone else, yeah, but it'll still be in your body for up to 90 days. Yeah, they eventually
Kevin McKernan 1:30:58
put a moratorium. The CDC put a moratorium, but that was too late to matter that late to matter, that you can't if someone's positive after 90 days. If you're positive once, don't test again for 90 days. They put that in place, I think, halfway through the pandemic. But the problem that occurred early on is that you're predominantly capturing people who recovered with that test, and if you're quarantining the recovered people at a higher rate than you're quarantining the infectious people, herd immunity is all upside down, and they the PCR companies liked having that positivity because they put contact tracing in. So for every person you picked up that was recovered, you then go PCR, their family and their household are probably also all recovered because they're, you know, probably exposed the same. So if you inflate the
Nick Jikomes 1:31:37
number of people to get tested, even though they don't need to get tested, that's more PCR tests that need to be ordered or paid for exactly.
Kevin McKernan 1:31:43
So they didn't have a motivation to get rid of that tail. There are, there are molecular biology ways to get rid of that. There's many that were published part of the pandemic to try to do a live, dead PCR and viruses, where you you either do a centrifugation step that enriches for capsids and sinks the or sinks the cells down. There's, there's a couple dies that you can use, that can only, that will only stain DNA that's like, protected inside of a virion, as opposed to stuff that's outside of it. So there are all these tools that they could have used to, like, lower the actual dead RNA problem, where they're picking up this, this, these fragments that were floating around, but they no one had a motivation to do that, because it would lower the positivity, which meant the contract tracing wouldn't contract tracing wouldn't balloon on them. I mean, if they're getting three to four House members every time someone's positive, they're going to want to crank those cycles out 40 cycles so they get as many positives, and then pull in whole households for more testing. So that, I think, screwed up the whole chance of ever getting herd immunity strained out this thing, because you were predominantly capturing people who were recovered and pulling them out of the herd, and when you need them in the herd and the people who are infectious out. So it kind of kind of blew the reputation of PCR, I think publicly, because everyone saw that as a bit of a bit of a scam.
Nick Jikomes 1:32:53
Wow. So the herd immunity thing would have been literally turned upside down, as you said, and that seems to just be an artifact of the incentives of the PCR people,
Kevin McKernan 1:33:01
yeah, putting contact tracing. And now everyone wants high positivity, because every test you get positive, you get five more. And that's a that there's never shot of, like reducing the even a lot of papers came out showing that the after, like a CT of 32 they couldn't get any virus to culture. Like those samples were so, so low in copy number that did every old slab did this with Rita Jafar. They had a great paper doing like, 3700 samples where they were tracking, like at what CT did. Things still culture on vero cells. And after 32 everything was dead. So, you know. And that was one issue. And the second issue is that to really nail that CT down as to what was the right CT. They didn't have internal controls on the earliest test. They eventually had them, but the Coronavirus and one had no internal control. So when you swab your nose, there's like 1000 to 10,000 fold variance on how much RNA comes out, and you can measure that by measuring how much genomic DNA from the human comes out. And they weren't measuring that in the first test, which you should always normalize your PCR against a host, like, how much virus Do you have compared to how many cells you got, they were just ignoring whether they got, you know, one cell or 10,000 cells, and seeing if they had any virus. So, yeah, out of the gate, they got really sloppy. It was, it was a Hungry, Hungry Hippos game, right out of the right out of the bat. And people were racing to market with tests to try to amplify this pandemic, and that, I think, is what you know, created the fear and then created the public's acceptance of an experimental vaccine.
Nick Jikomes 1:34:34
Where do you, I don't know, where do you sort of see this, this whole thing going just what, I don't mean COVID, or anything related to COVID, directly, necessarily, but just the whole sort of ecosystem of vaccine manufacturers and Big Pharma government agencies and sort of the official institutional apparatus of science and and how that's interacting with everything from like the pure. Process, plus, like this new ecosystem of just independent, online, pre printing and citizen science that's going on.
Kevin McKernan 1:35:07
I'm really positive. I know, I know the COVID pandemic has all types of reasons to be, to be black, pilled and ilistic, but one the new administration that's coming in, I think, is actually a breath of fresh air. I wouldn't say I was a Trumper per se prior to this, but all the people he's surrounding himself with, I'm impressed with. He's got Elon Musk in there, who certainly understands government regulation at times being overbearing and sometimes counterproductive and maybe even leveraged by companies to screw the public. Obviously, RFK has got a very different opinion on how to think about vaccines and vaccine safety. So maybe we'll get some transparency out of what's going on there. Maybe they'll get rid of the liability waiver. You've got Vivek coming in, who has, I think, some a good, decent business background that may simplify things. I like what I see from Tulsi Gabbard. So there's a collection of and they've brought in a big Bitcoin community. I think I just saw a ludnick got in. So he's from canter, Fitzgerald, who's got a Bitcoin background. They're talking about doing a Bitcoin like treasury. So I think all of those things are important. Because I do think the core of all of this will, this distills down to, like, Fiat science, right? Dec, you know, top down demand science. That is because they have a money printer, and Fauci has 42 billion every year to basically, you know, bribe all these scientists to stick and stick to narrative. When you take away the money machine, that whole game kind of weakens and goes away. And what I see them doing and putting in place is something like they may actually, you know, put the US on a Bitcoin standard, and if you can't print money, you can't have thieves running around with a megaphone telling everyone what to believe. So I'm actually, I've never been more optimistic about the change that's happening on that front. If they get that, if they get the government hooked on a Bitcoin standard, it will change. I think a lot of these dynamics, I'm not gonna say it's gonna be perfect. It's gonna fix things, but it is. I think a lot of this is from, is from Fiat science. They can print money and that centralized command and control of all the research. I mean, we saw it in COVID with the moment the lab leak theory kind of came to bear. All these emails from Fauci running around telling people you've got, you know, you've got things you got to do tomorrow. Read this paper tonight, and suddenly the people who are telling them it looks like it's a lab leak like Kristen Anderson is suddenly coming out of those meetings being like this looks looks natural, and you get 7 million in grants after that, right? So there's a game going on here where the government can it's very dangerous. The government can fund the majority of the science such that they can create the narrative that fits political goals, that grow government bigger, which I think is kind of the way science is run today. And maybe this administration will will chip away at that and bring it back to a more sound monetary principle that can't run away with a narrative like that.
Nick Jikomes 1:37:58
And what's what sort of next? What will be next from you? What are you guys working on in terms of the DNA contamination and integration story?
Kevin McKernan 1:38:05
So we've got a pre print we're putting together with a group in Germany that will hopefully come and describe some of the stuff we're looking at. It's all you know. Take note that part of this presentation that I where I spoke about these different plasmas, is still preliminary. We don't have it through peer review, and it's not even out in a pre print yet. I but it will be shortly, and that is, I think that's important for our community to look at, because if these plasmids that we're using to try to make these vaccines are encoding very I don't even know if they're thrombolytic, but the spike proteins got all types of classifications in terms of being pro inflammatory, if they're encoding inflammatory, if they're encoding inflammatory peptides and they can leak, like they did in Seattle. We got to be really careful if this is, you know where this is going. What I don't like that I see in the news from like Ed Dowd and ethical skeptic and others. John bodewin, the cancer rates are climbing, and there they coincide with this vaccine rollout. So is it purely the vaccine, or all the researchers that are playing around with these things, spreading this to some degree as well, right? Like we got to get a better handle on people using these shuttle vectors. So I think the gain of function definitions that Rand Paul is trying to work with probably have to get reviewed in light of what that would happen in Seattle, and we do need to revisit this concept of, is a really, ever a good case, moral case, for building a virus so that you can protect against it? You know, like that seemed to backfire the first time they tried. And we've not seen the protection angle of that, of that guarantee come through. We've seen the the devastation that a pandemic like that can create through fear and and all the healthcare system getting turned up.
Nick Jikomes 1:39:48
We've seen, we've seen the risk come come to life, and we haven't seen any of the theoretical upside. Yeah,
Kevin McKernan 1:39:54
yeah. So the cars before the horse on that one that needs, that definitely needs to get pulled back. So in terms of where we're going to go. Mean, I'm hoping to close the chapter on this just by, you know, getting getting these last few studies done, and keep the focus back on our traditional business, which has been, you know, trying to get decentralized medicine to go through sequencing cannabis plants and philosophy and all the other organisms out there that that can actually people can grow their their own medicine, if you will. Because I think that kind of goes steps around all this. And I have seen some good signs and tweets from the Kennedy administration, or, you know, the Trump slash Kennedy team, if you will, on the MaHA movement, where they are thinking about getting psilocybin and cannabis legalized, and maybe even ketamine and MDMA. That he's had some some promising comments, where it makes me think he understands that the FDA is suppressing those irrationally, probably for pharmaceutical interest, and that they have to break that out of of their governance if they will to let the public have access to those
Nick Jikomes 1:40:52
well. Kevin wealth, knowledge as always. Do you want to point people to your sub stack or anything like that if they want to follow you as you come up with these new studies? Yeah, thanks.
Kevin McKernan 1:40:59
Thanks for that. So my substack is probably the hardest substack to ever remember. It's in the petal. Act down. If you can't spell it, just Google the compound and catnip, and that's it. So that's that covered a lot of the stuff we do in the cannabis field. And on this end, on this kind of COVID Front, if you will, on Twitter, Kevin underscore, McKernan, you can find me there. And then medicinal genomics is the company that I work at where we do a lot of the genetics on these plants. We also hold a conference every year, and this year it's in Puerto Rico. It's called can med in June, June 17 in Puerto Rico, and it covers this topic of, how do we decentralize medicine? And it tends to have a lot of folks in the in the cannabis and philosophy space, and they're trying to sort out it's usually physicians, nurses, analytical chemists, growers, so we can try to build access to medicine that doesn't have to go through this prevention, these, these, you know, triple Lundy, governmental agencies, if you will. So that's a good place to catch up on what we're doing.
Nick Jikomes 1:41:53
All right. Kevin mccronin, thank you for your time. All right. Thank
Kevin McKernan 1:41:57
you appreciate it. Good seeing you again.
Speaker 1 1:42:02
You everyone,
Nick Jikomes 1:42:08
I want to share with you a new AI powered research tool I've been using to find scientific papers and learn from the literature. It's called consensus. It is an AI powered search tool built using large language models trained to help you find and understand the best science faster. Consensus helps you not only find individual papers, but its AI models will help you assess research quality and even synthesize insights across multiple papers. For you, you can ask it general questions about any topic you might have, such as, what are the known risks and benefits of a certain prescription drug? What do we know about how a certain food or nutrient affects the human body, anything you can think of its pro analysis feature will actually provide you with a concise, written summary of what the literature says, broken down point by point, highlighting the strength of the evidence across papers, and providing you with individual studies ranked by the relevance and including additional information like citation rates, journal quality and more. You can also save, cite and share individual studies with a single click. Unlike other AI and search tools like chatgpt, PubMed or Google Scholar, consensus uses over 20 custom large language models that are developed and trained for this specific purpose. The base consensus product is totally free, but the premium product that you can subscribe to has better features and unlimited queries, and I highly recommend this if you are using outdated tools like PubMed or Google Scholar or you just do your own research for a limited time, you can use the code mind matter special, all one word to get a free premium subscription for one year. That is a $150 value for free if you use the code mind matter special today, so click the link in the episode description, or check my support page and give consensus a try, use the code mind matter special to unlock your free premium subscription today.
Share this post