Continued from Part 1. Kevin McKernan, a scientist known for his work in genomics, has been sounding the alarm recently on Pfizer’s controversial vaccine production process, and the failure to disclose manufacturing switches from regulators, putting our health at risk – at warp speed.
Let’s continue Part 2 with the long list of issues….
Elderly Population: It’s mentioned that there were no plans to test these vaccine batches on the elderly population, despite the higher risks COVID-19 posed to them.
Trial Blinding: The trial was “observer-blinded” rather than “double-blinded,” meaning that those administering the vaccine knew who was receiving it, which could potentially introduce bias.
Batch Variability: There is a speculation about variability in adverse event rates associated with different manufacturing processes (process one and process two) and possibly even within lots from the same process, which might affect the vaccine’s safety profile.
Placebo Group: When those originally in the placebo group started receiving the actual vaccine, there seemed to be a higher rate of adverse events compared to the initial treatment group, which could be due to several factors, including the possibility that they were more likely to report symptoms knowing they received the vaccine.
Lot Numbers and Distribution : According to batch numbers and the distribution to various sites, there is an implication that certain batches may have been linked to a higher incidence of adverse reactions.
Regulatory and Manufacturing Processes: Regulators allowed a change in manufacturing without adequately considering the potential increased risk and without requiring new clinical trials to assess the safety of the vaccines produced with the new method. In the real world, this is an unacceptable scandal. Where is the due diligence, methodological rigor, and transparency in scientific research and communication, especially in matters of public health?
Lipid Nanoparticles : LNPs are a critical component of mRNA vaccines because they encapsulate and protect the mRNA as it is delivered into cells. However, there’s a concern about their toxicity and the impact on the body. For example, McKernan discusses the potential for LNPs to cause adverse effects by transfecting epithelial cells and potentially creating leaky membranes. He also notes that there is a lack of studies regarding the effect of LNPs without mRNA, which leaves a gap in the understanding of their inherent toxicity. (I personally have had no issues finding about the risks and dangers of using LNPs).
Additionally, there is no way to gauge where the LNPs will go inside the body, with the potential for them to reach the ovaries, which could have implications for reproductive health. Original biodistribution studies were incomplete for not tracking the full journey and final destination of these particles within the body once injected, including their excretion.
SV40 (Simian Virus 40) : Enhancer elements were used to increase the production of a neomycin resistance genes, which is necessary for the growth of the plasmid in E. coli. Pfizer did not disclose the presence of SV40 elements to the EMA, which could be a significant omission due to the controversial history of SV40 in vaccines.
To make matters worse, critics created strawman arguments by falsely stating that McKernan claimed the presence of SV40 virus in vaccines, whereas the actual claim was about the SV40 promoter, which has different implications. Ultimately the confusion shifted away from the real issues.
Open Reading Frames: In genetics, an open reading frame (ORF) is a sequence of DNA that has the potential to be translated into a protein. ORFs begin with a start codon (usually AUG in eukaryotes) and end with a stop codon. For an ORF to be present in both directions on the same stretch of DNA, the sequence would need to avoid stop codons in both reading directions, which is statistically unlikely given the random nature of stop codon occurrence.
During the process of codon optimization (which is changing the codons of the spike protein to match those more frequently used in humans, to improve protein production in the human body), not only was an ORF for the spike protein created, but also an ORF in the reverse direction was inadvertently created.
A scenario where both strands of DNA can potentially encode for a functional protein is very unusual because one strand’s open reading frames usually have stop codons when read in reverse. Suffice to say that the possibility that this occurrence was natural is kind of impossible, making it likely this was engineered.
If a reverse ORF were present and (under some strange circumstances), could be transcribed and translated, it could lead to the production of a protein with unknown function, which could have unintended biological effects. How could such a sequence have passed the optimization process without being noticed and corrected, considering the potential implications?
To recap because this is all quite complex, the process of codon optimization (which is changing the codons of the spike protein to match those more frequently used in humans, to improve protein production in the human body), not only was an Open Reading Frames for the spike protein created, but also an ORF was “inadvertently” created in the opposite direction.
Impact of Synthetic Modifications
mRNA modifications like pseudouridine and N1 methylpseudouridine focus on their impact on the stability of the RNA and how the body processes it. These modifications are not naturally occurring in such high abundance, which raises questions about the long-term effects on cellular machinery and the exact biochemical pathways involved in handling these synthetic nucleosides. These RNA are synthetic as in fake.
Such modifications can potentially lead to errors in protein synthesis, such as stop codon read-through, which can result in the production of longer-than-expected protein products. This would have implications for the safety and efficacy of the vaccine if the spike protein being produced is not identical to the one designed by vaccine developers.
McKernan, who has a background in the field of DNA sequencing and contributed to the Human Genome Project, points out that regulatory bodies may not have been presented with comprehensive data on the actual proteins produced by these modified mRNAs in vivo, relying instead on codon tables and theoretical predictions rather than empirical evidence from protein sequencing.
Stop These Shots
The findings from McKernan and colleagues are mind-blowing. Could these jabs potentially affect germline cells, meaning future generations? There are multiple issues with these jabs. For instance, there are dosage concerns (amount of vaccine given), the spike protein’s potential problems, the possibility of vaccine components integrating into the human genome, and the differentiation between symptoms of long COVID versus adverse effects from vaccination. I could go on.
A lawsuit in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is questioning the classification of vaccines in relation to gene therapy regulations. This is due to the presence of DNA within the vaccines, which might reclassify them under gene therapy.
Additionally, the findings about DNA in vaccines have now been replicated by independent labs, lending credibility beyond peer-reviewed publications, which sadly, as McKernan points out, have been compromised by pandemic politics.
How many more nails in the coffin do we need before we halt these jabs?
Like what you’re reading on The Tenpenny Report? Share this article with your friends. Help us grow.
Get more of Dr. Tenpenny’s voice of reason at her website.
Maryam Henein is an investigative journalist, and founder, and editor-in-chief of the health magazine and marketplace HoneyColony. Read her Substack here. She is also a functional medicine consultant/coach, and the director of the award-winning documentary film Vanishing of the Bees, narrated by Elliot Page. Follow her on Twitter @maryamhenein. Email her: email@example.com.