Kevin McKernan

who is going to venture outside of the norms and question things like Galileo did.

We need to have an environment that encourages people to make mistakes and publish oftentimes papers that are risky and maybe someone will find a mistake in there, but you don't have to have a career ending move just because you have typos and what have you, which is what it's turning into.

When it comes into the pandemic took place, there are mobs that assembled online to run around and retract papers, not because they had errors in them, but because they were counter-narrative.

They didn't say safe and effective in the opening sentence of a paper, and they didn't say these vaccines are great, they save millions of lives, but they might cause cancer.

That's the kind of tone you're seeing in peer review right now, is they all have to have this opening psalm that the vaccines save lives, but they cause cancer.

okay certainly so that the paper is really important because it highlights all the evidence behind what we believe is a fraudulent act that occurred at pfizer uh now for those who don't know you need to read the rest of levies and the ace of committee he's got a very important paper in the bmj with josh good scout that highlights that pfizer actually did not give the same product to the public that they put through the clinical trial all right that's a major issue

They used PCR to make the DNA they used as input to their manufacturing and process one.

That was what the clinical trial was on.

They did the debate and switch, and they switched to this other process where they made the DNA in a coli, and that dramatically changes the DNA.

It's got this SV40 stuff in it now, and it's got methylated DNA.

I can touch on why the methylation stuff is an issue, but it's a bit of a...

That's a bit of a rabbit hole.

Anyway, that excess DNA can trigger cancer pathways when it's in an LNP and gets put into cells.

And that's the concern we have is that this could be an oncogenic event that's occurred by having this contamination.

Now, I think you wanted to segue from that into why is a paper so important in terms of proving that is that we demonstrate the numbers are over the limit.

The FDA has a particular 10 nanogram limit

It's over what they're saying.

And I think the paper is also reminding the scientific community that how did we generate that 10 nanogram limit?

Because in the past, vaccines weren't delivered with lipid nanoparticles.

They're just injected into your arm and your arm pretty much destroys DNA in like 10 minutes if it's not wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle.