Kevin McKernan

In fact-

They had to put that wrapping on the messenger RNA to get it to work or semi-work.

It doesn't get into the cell.

So now that we're using a lipid nanoparticle, the half-life of DNA needs to be remeasured.

The 10-antigram limit is 1,000-fold too high, and the scientific community needs to prove that –

that the limits that are currently in place for traditional vaccines, whether they're sufficiently adequate for what we're doing with lipid nanoparticles.

We don't think they are.

We think it's much more dangerous now that you have lipid nanoparticles involved and that those limits need to be changed.

The paper walks through all the reasoning on why is it over the limit, why the limit's too high to begin with, and what are the cancer risks that are imposed by having these SV40 components that are inside the plasma vaccine or the Pfizer vaccine, which were never disclosed to the regulators.

And the regulators have come out admitting they were deceived.

And that's why it's getting targeted for retraction is because they're not arguing about our details of what we found from the methods.

They're arguing that we're making associations with cancer that are unproven.

But we're very clear in the paper that we're speculating here that there are links to SV40 in cancer.

This should be looked at.

It wasn't disclosed.

Yeah, I mean, the people that do this, they even try to retract it.

If you put a hypothesis out there they don't like, they go and retract your hypothesis.

It's going to be ridiculous.

So peer review is going to die.

I mean, the thing is, there are ways to do this now on decentralized peer review systems.