It's a startling revelation that has sent shockwaves through the scientific community worldwide - concerning findings of DNA contamination in mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. The call for global health authorities to halt the campaigns and engage in rigorous safety assessments resonates everywhere.
The “magnitude of potential complications” is exactly why they’re globally nonchalant & unperturbed. But i bet they’re quaking in their boots too, as well they should. We’re at the tip of the damage & death iceberg here, IMO, w/ worse to be revealed in the next few years. To start investigations & give explanations would open the floodgates of not just blame & culpability, but prove the “conspiracy theorists” 1000% correct, & start a deserved witch hunt
If people have not taken the gene modifying (=GM) therapy after nearly 3 years, it's not because they are "vax hesitant", it's because they investigated or learned of the useless but deadly effects of this depopulation scam!
Whenever you read "vax hesitant" it means in reality - "Injection aware" or pre-planned cull of humanity! Us 'USELESS EATERS' as we are referred to by the super-wealthy Elite (WEF's NWO).
Always remember the biggest clue the injection is dangerous because the makers refuse all LIABILITY and ZERO responsibility of the frequent deadly after effects!
The perpetrators fear no consequences because they know there won't be any. The sheeple will bleat ever more furiously, but they won't bite. Until that changes, they will continue to do their dirty deeds while laughing at their victims. Submission and subservience only serve to embolden abusers.
It was known about BEFORE the EUAs were issued - just read the European Medicines Agency's Public Assessment Report about the Pfizer jibbyjabby from December 2020:
The terminology used to describe all but the 'submissive capitulating wimps' is supposed to undermine and denigrate all those with an active brain capable of thinking beyond their controlling BULLSHIT!
The reality is that we, the increasing number of PROUD and THINKING 'Conspiracy Theorists', are WINNING - at long last!
DESCRIPTION: "University of South Carolina Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults testifies before South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee on DHEC." [Department of Health and Environmental Control]
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So a little bit of what am I doing here, for those of you don't, don't know me, my name is Phillip Buckhaults, I'm a, I have a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology. I'm a, I'm a cancer gene jock, basically. I do cancer genomics research at the University of South Carolina. And what that means is that I'm kind of an expert on all the ways that the human genome can get futzed with during your lifetime, and which of those things cause cancer and which ones don't. OK?
So technically, that means that I'm very, very skilled in, in the art of DNA sequencing, OK? I can figure out the sequence of things that I didn't know what I was looking for. And I'm also pretty good— when I say I, I mean the people in my laboratory that you're not going to hear their names, but there's a group of people that do this excellent work, we're really good at, at detecting foreign pieces of DNA in places where they're not supposed to be, even if they're real low levels.
[SLIDE 1]*
And we used those skills during the pandemic to, we invented the covid test that many of you did a spit test, OK? That came out of my lab because we were really good at that kind of stuff. And so I've earned a fair amount of respect in the state of South Carolina and in this body because we did a ton of covid testing in the middle of the night when people were afraid, and we told them, no, you don't have covid in your home, or, yes, you do. So my qualifications to comment on this are both technical and kind of relational in the state of South Carolina.
I'll cut to a very narrow theme here, but it does touch on lots of these regulatory issues, and I'll leave it to you to expand on those if you want to. I'll try to stay in this narrow lane of some problems in the Pfizer vaccine as a case study for places in which regulatory oversight could be improved. Alright?
So, first of all, let me say that my interpretation of the literature is that the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping people from dying, but it did a terrible job of stopping the pandemic. The early publications showed that it stopped infection, but that only lasted for like a month.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, could you pull the mic a little closer to you? Staff's telling me they're having trouble getting you on the recording.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: OK.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK, thank you.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: In,in my professional evaluation of the literature, the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping people out of the cemetery, but it sucked at stopping the pandemic. And it was the best of sucky options that we had. And I still believe that it was deployed mostly in good faith, but there were a lot of shortcuts taken because the house was on fire, and we could do a better job next time from the lessons that we're going to learn here. That's my own personal view of this.
But I'm also, my philosophical bent here is, I'm sure many of you have heard of a Occam's Razor, right? Choose the simplest of explanations. Well there's another one called Hanlon's Razor, which is, never attribute malice to that which can be better explained by incompetence. And so I'm trying to be gracious here, in many, in circumstances there could be malice underneath, but I'm trying to see just incompetence to be gracious. So.
The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasmid DNA. It's not just mRNA. It's got bits of DNA in it. This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the mRNA.
I know this is true because I sequenced it in my own lab.
The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Colombia, one of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy, and for reasons that I still don't understand, he kept every single vial. So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials. Well the empty vials have a little tiny bit in the bottom of them, he gave them all to me, and I looked at them. We had two batches that were given out here in Colombia, and I checked these two batches, and I checked them by sequencing. And I sequenced all the DNA that was in the vaccine. And I can see what's in there. And it's surprising that there's any DNA in there. And you can kind of work out what it is, and how it got there.
And I'm kind of alarmed about the possible consequences of this, both in terms of human health and biology, but you should be alarmed about the regulatory process that allowed it to get there.
So this DNA, in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest. There's a lot of cases now, of people having suspicious death after vaccine. It's hard to prove what caused it, it's just, you know, temporally associated, and this DNA is a plausible mechanism. OK?
This DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that got transfected with the vaccine mix. This is just the way it works. We do this in the lab all the time. We take pieces of DNA, we mix them up with a lipid complex like the Pfizer vaccine is in, we pour it onto cells, and, and a lot of it gets into the cells, and a lot of it gets into the DNA of those cells, and it becomes a permanent fixture of the cell. It's not just a temporary, a temporary thing, it is in that cell and all of its progeny from now on, forever more, amen.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So that's why I'm kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine. It's, it's, it's different from RNA because it can be permanent.
This is a real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells like stem cells, and it could cause, theoretically, this is all a theoretical concern, but it's pretty reasonable based on solid molecular biology, that it could cause a sustained autoimmune attack toward that tissue.
It's also a very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people. Depending on where in the genome this foreign piece of DNA lands, it can interrupt a tumor suppressor or activate an oncogene. I think it'll be rare, but I think the risk is not zero, and it may be high enough that we ought to figure out if this is happening or not.
And then again, the, the, the autoimmunity thing is not my wheelhouse, I'm not an immunologist, but the cancer risk is, that's my bag. I know this is a thing, and it is a possibility.
6:41
[SLIDE 2 - CENTRAL DOGMA]*
OK, a little nerdy science here. The central dogma of molecular biology is that DNA gets transcribed into RNA, OK? And then RNA gets translated into protein. This is just how life runs.
Why, why does this matter? Well DNA, for the purposes of this discussion, DNA is a long-lived information storage device. OK? What you were born with, you're going to die with, and pass on to your kids. DNA lasts for hundreds of thousands of years, and it can last for generations if you, and get pass it on to your kids. Right? So alterations to the DNA, they stick around.
RNA, by its nature, is temporary. It doesn't last. And that feature of RNA was part of the sales pitch for the vaccine. The pseudouradine was supposed to make the RNA last a little bit longer, but still, it's a transient phenomenon. We're talking hours to days. OK?
And then proteins. Once proteins are made, they also don't last forever. They, they last for hours to days.
But something that makes its way into DNA has the potential to last for a very long time, maybe a lifetime.
7:55
[SLIDE 3 - Pieces of DNA in two batches of Pfizer vaccine]*
So this is a picture of the sequencing read that the sequencing run that I did in the lab from a couple of batches of the Pfizer vaccine. And all those little bitty lines here are the little tiny pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine. They don't belong there. They are not part of the sales pitch or the marketing campaign. And they're there. There's a lot of them.
This little graph here in the middle is the size distribution. It peaks around 100 base pairs, 120 base pairs. So the the DNA pieces that are in the vaccine are short little pieces, 100, 120. There's some that are about 500 base pairs, a few that are even 5,000, but most of them are around 100 base pairs.
Why is this important? Because the probability of a DNA, piece of DNA, integrating into the human genome is unrelated to its size, so your genome risk is just a function of how many particles there are. So it's like, you know, if you shoot a shotgun at a washboard, if you shoot a slug you have some probability of hitting it, and if shoot buckshot you have a bigger probability of hitting it with some shot, right? This, all these little pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine are analogous to buckshot. You have many, many thousands of opportunities to modify a, a cell of a vaccinated person.
The pieces are very small because during the process they chopped them up to try to make them go away, but they actually increased the hazard of genome modification in the process. That's how this got here.
In my view, somebody should go about sequencing DNA samples from stem cells of people who are vaccinated, and find out if this theoretical risk has happened or not. I think this is a real serious oversight, regulatory oversight that happened at the federal level, and somebody should force this to happen somewhere.
9:58
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, if you, now, are you capable of doing that?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah, it's, we do that kind of thing. But in order for it to be trustworthy, it, by the public, this has to be done by lots of people, right?
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK, I'll talk to you more about that later.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah, this is our our deal, this is why I know this should have been done at the federal level. OK.
10:17
[SLIDE 4 - we used the sequences of all the little pieces of DNA in the vaccine to reconstruct the actual sequence of where it came from]*
So we took all these pieces of DNA and we used them to glue together what the source DNA must have been. This is kind of, again, this is our, what we do in the lab all the time. And, and all these little, little red and green lines here, these are all independent little pieces of DNA. This must have had 100,000 pieces of DNA in this, this sequencing run. And you can put them all back together and see what they came from is this circle over here. It's a plasmid that you can go shopping online to buy from Agilant.* And it's clear that Pfizer took this plasmid, and then they cloned spike into it, and they used it for, in a process called in vitro transcription translation, in vitro transcription, where you feed an RNA polymerase this plasmid and it makes a whole bunch of mRNA copies for you, OK? And then you take this mRNA, you mix it with the the lipid nanoparticle transfection reagent, and now you've got your mRNA vaccine. But they failed to get the DNA out before they did this. So these little pieces, they did, they did make some effort to chop it up, so all these little pieces of the plasmid got packaged in with the RNA.
That's clear as day what happened, just from the forensics of looking at the DNA sequencing, OK?
11:35
A little bit of a regulatory note here. The way you do RNA transcription, in vitro transcription reactions, you have to give it a DNA template, OK? And you can give it a DNA template that is just a synthetic piece of DNA that is only the instructions to make the RNA, and that's what was done for getting the Emergency Use Authorization and the clinical trial.* It's called Process 1 if you look up that kind of stuff. They made a PCR product of just the bits that they wanted, and then they did the in vitro transcription, made a bunch of RNA of that.
There was no plasmid DNA to contaminate the stuff that was used for the trial. But that, that making that PCR product, doesn't scale the way that was necessary to vaccinate the whole world. So a cheaper way to scale up the production of this template is to clone that PCR product into this plasmid vector, put the plasmid vector into bacteria, and then you grow up big vats of the bacteria, they make a lot of the plasmid DNA for you, then you use that plasmid DNA as the template to drive this transcription reaction to make your RNA. And that's where, how the contamination ended up in the production batches, even though it was not in the stuff that was used for the authorization trials.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So I know it's a little bit of nerdy science, but it has regulatory implications for you guys.
13:04
[SLIDE 5 - We have a pretty easy and cheap method to detect one of the pieces of plasmid DNA]*
We can, we can measure the quantity of this stuff pretty easy in the lab. This is, we're, we're good at doing this kind of stuff. This is the same, we made a little PC— a colleague of mine at at MIT made, you know, from who, who used to work for the the Broad Institute at MIT,* he, he made a little PCR test and we cloned it here. This is similar to the PCR test that you all took for the spit test, OK? Same, same idea and same expertise behind it.
And we can quantify exactly how much of this stuff is in a vaccine or any other tissue. And, you know, I estimate that there were about two billion copies of the one piece that we're looking for in every dose.
[SLIDE 6 - There are about 2 billion copies of the fragment containing the origin of replication]*
And if you looked back at that map I showed you where it's all these little, the, the little piece that we're looking for is just that little bit right there. OK?
[SLIDE 4, again]
But if you see 2 billion copies of this, there's about 200 billion of everything else.
[SLIDE 6, again]
So what this means is that there's probably about 200 billion pieces of this plasmid DNA in, in each dose of the vaccine, and it's encapsulated in this lipid nanoparticle, so it's ready to be delivered inside the cell. OK? This is a bad idea.
[SLIDE 7 - Conclusions]*
My conclusions from this, we should check a bunch of people. [in low voice, an aside on his difficulties using PowerPoint] Ah, my conclusions from this are I should learn how to run PowerPoint.
We should check a bunch of vaccinated people getting tissue samples, especially if we focus on harmed people. But that's not necessary. We could also just focus on regular unharmed people and see if this plasmid DNA is integrating into the genomes of any of their stem cells. It leaves a calling card that is there.
One of the reasons why I'm focusing on this is because it's kind of different from a lot of the other imagined harms where you can't really prove it. You can be suspicious because of the timing, but you can't really prove it. This one you can prove it because it leaves a calling card. OK? You find it in the stem cells of harmed people. It's equivalent to finding a certain type of lead in someone who is now dead. It's pretty reasonable to assume that that's what caused it.
The royal we, meaning you guys, should insist that the FDA force Pfizer to get the DNA out of the booster and all future versions of this vaccine.
I'm a real fan of this platform, OK? I think it has the potential to treat cancers. I really believe that this platform is revolutionary, and in your lifetime there will be mRNA vaccines against antigens in your unique cancer, OK? And, but they got to get this problem fixed. OK? And I, right now I think the financial incentives are too great to just keep on rolling with it, and it's going to take some encouragement to get it out.
16:26
The regulation that allowed this DNA to be there in the first place. I don't think that this, the amounts there actually exceed the regulation limits. In some batches it may. In, in the two batches that I looked at one of them, it was just under the limit, and one it was just over the limit. My colleague in Boston has looked at a fair number of other batches and there's a handful that are super high, and there's a handful that are super low. But the fact that there is a regulatory threshold for amount of DNA allowed in a vaccine is a throwback to an era when we were talking about vaccines that were like a recombinant protein, that you, or a dead virus, you know, attenuated virus produced in CHO cells* or something like that, and the DNA that might be in it is naked DNA. And you might have a little bit in the vaccine. That's not a problem because naked DNA gets chewed up immediately upon vaccination and there's no real mechanism for it to get inside the cells. They inappropriately applied that regulatory limit to this new kind of vaccine where everything is encapsulated in this lipid nanoparticle. It's basically packaged in a synthetic virus able to dump its contents into a cell.
So I'm thinking Hanlon's Razor here, OK? I don't think there was anything nefarious here. I think it was just kind of a dumb oversight. And it's going to take, because the financial incentives are so great to just, you know, sweep it under the rug, and the career incentives of people that approved this are going to be, eh, there's nothing wrong here, you know? It's going to take some encouragement to make people prove that it's OK.
But I really believe this was an inappropriate application of an old school regulation to a new kind of vaccine.
And who knows, maybe we'll check a bunch of people and we'll find out for sure that this is indeed not a problem. And that will do the public good if we prove that.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH:* Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Senator Cash.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Doctor, we appreciate all that you're saying, although we don't understand most of what you're saying.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Sorry. [laughs] I have a limited amount of time, so—
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: [looking down to his right] Someone down there agreeing a lot, so you must have been a chemistry major or something. [returning to address Dr. Buckhaults] But what, what is going to help us is to know what what you can do, like checking a bunch of vaccinated people.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Of course, that's what I can do.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Right, but we are are not going to have any authority over the FDA to force Pfizer to do something. I mean, that's a federal issue. Unless you can explain to me how we could do something at a state level, you know, some of this is going to have to be taken up by our Congressmen, right? So just, whatever your remaining comments are, just keep in mind that—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I understand.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: —what, what we can do. And, and really, these technical things you're throwing at us, as as a senator from Greenville has already mentioned, we're going to throw right back at you, because there's no, you're the expert. So if someone's going to do this testing, I don't know who we would find to do it, well, other than someone like you.
19:41
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can do it, lots of other people can do it. I've had a lot of, of, so, coroners and pharmacists from different states contact me. I posted all this on Twitter, right? And so people will private message me and say, I'd like to send you some samples. And then they say, oops, state regulations will not allow our coroner to send any samples for this. So there are some policy issues that can allow this to happen or impede it. I don't know what they are, but I hear that there are mechanisms in place that will, you know, you can encourage people to do things or not do things. But that's your wheelhouse, not mine. All I can tell you is what I found in the lab and the scientific implications of it. The policy implications and what to do with it is out of my, it's above my pay grade.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Senator Garrett.
20:34
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Thank you for coming today. I think I followed most of what you said. President Biden said the other day that there was a new covid vaccine that, and this one really works.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: There's no evidence to that as far as I can tell.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: I, I understand that, and that's why I'm asking this question. Is there some way you could get a hold of one of those and—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would love to.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — do the do the same study that you did on these vials to make sure—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would like to do that.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — that we're not using that, that DNA protein, or whatever it is that the DNA that, that, that we don't need them to be injected into these, to our constituents.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would like to do that. And I will not get it unless I get a batch and, and find out that it's free of DNA, and then I'll take it myself. But I don't, I don't have any way of compelling that to happen.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: So it was just basically a way to save money by, by doing it in such volume that way, without then taking it back out later on?
21:30
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I think nobody thought about it. I think it was reasonable to use the E. coli to blow up the plasmid to make the stuff. And then the, the pieces of the DNA are of a very uniform and small size, that's evidence that they took efforts to try to chop it up. And—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Then they knew about it.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah. Yeah, they knew it. And they took efforts to chop it up. They just didn't get it all out.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: But, but having said that—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I guess that they just didn't didn't think about the, the hazard for genome modification. Because it's not all that expensive to add another process to get it out.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Well that's what I'm saying. It, it you know—
22:10
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can't get inside their mind. I don't—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can't get inside their mind. I don't—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: It was rushed too much and that's why I'm saying, these subsequent, you know, we've heard testimony, these subsequent, you know, variant subsequent boosters, etc, etc, are leading to maybe not scientific yet but at least collateral knowledge that it apparently these things are causing death and disability later on, and also the aging process which you heard about a few minutes ago.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: There's a lot of suspicious associations—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: But I—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: — but that's all I can say.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — But it seems to me that that before we can in South Carolina, you know, give this new vaccine a whirl around here, seems to me that, that our people ought to be able to look at that, Mr. Chairman, and see whether or not it's got this DNA in it. If it does, fine, tell everybody it's got the DNA and the problems associated therewith, then you got informed consent.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Correct.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: OK, but without that, we don't have informed consent-
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: — That's not informed consent.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: I'm not I'm not really happy about that, Mr Chairman, and do what I can to try to help [inaudible]—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Knowing what I know—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — otherwise.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Knowing what I know now about this, I would still have recommended it to my elderly parents.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: OK.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: But I probably would not have given it to my daughters. I, I feel like my consent was not as informed as it should have been.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Thank you.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Yeah. Representative Morgan.
23:27
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: I almost don't know where to start. I'm, I'm trying not to talk because we're, it's a hearing and we want to hear you, but you have made so many questions come to my mind. And one I should know but I don't remember. What percentage of vaccinated people had this kind of vaccination? Do you know off the top of your head? Like, the majority of people that took the vaccine had this type? Because weren't there multiple types of vaccinations you could take?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: The vast majority of people got either Pfizer or Moderna.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: And, and we're talking about the Pfizer.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I'm talking about Pfizer. My colleagues have looked at Moderna, and it's in Moderna too, in the few that we've looked at, it's just not quite as high.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: OK. Wow. With, so, you were here today, and you've come to present, and you notice this. Where could you have gone if we didn't have this kind of ad hoc hearing—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Nowhere.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: —for this to come—?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Twitter.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: So there's no DHEC? [Department of Health and Environmental Control]
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: There's no way for you, even at your level of expertise to say, hey, red flag, I—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I email, I emailed the FDA and I tweeted at them. That's about the extent of my resources.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: It's just fascinating to me that in a, in the state that we don't have some kind of, I guess it goes to kind of the entire thing that we're talking about, is that our state agency should have more focus on our citizens' health and, you know, it's great, CDC can send us stuff, but we'll make the decision.
And, and there should be a way for, especially at your level, to get input to DHEC when you notice something like this immediately, and say hey, DHEC, you should consider this, and then they can come and tell us immediately, hey, we need to get authorization, or you need to change this regulation to look into this.
And it just seems like we've totally dropped the ball in every direction with the state prioritizing, you know, our decision-making on this kind of stuff and, and investigating into it, just letting the, you know, the federal government take it and do a terrible job.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So I had a lot of experience with DHEC rolling out the saliva test, OK? So we invented the saliva test, and then we had to deal with DHEC to try to get it rolled out for the state. And it appeared to me that they were just overrun. They weren't prepared for what this pandemic was. Through— and it's no fault of theirs. I thought, I, I told people at the time that I felt like these were Hobbits in the Shire that were, you know, accustomed to take care of small problems, and now of a sudden we're in the War of the Ring, and there are Orcs at the gate, and we're expecting them to deal with this tremendous challenge, and that's not who we put there. And that's not their fault. I mean, it's just we were not prepared to handle something of this magnitude. So some amount of grace I think is appropriate, even though we could do better next time by beefing up who's guarding the gates.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: If you, if you had a, tomorrow, fixes to the system—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: [laughs]
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — what would they be? That we could—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: That's your job. I don't know.
26:15
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — I mean since you lived it and saw based on the research, should we have somebody actually checking up, especially on something that is being pushed statewide, I mean, state resources are being used—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: You have to to hire—
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — saying to take this vaccine.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: You have to hire people that are qualified to tell the feds, no. And that's not what we do here, usually. In South Carolina, we hire people, sometimes we say to no to the feds just to be ornery, because that's our culture in South Carolina, but many times we say, well, I don't know, what do other people do? And we hire people all over that they ask, well what does Clemson do? What does USC? Well what do they do over in this other state? Instead of putting people in place that we would have confidence in saying no to the, to whatever the recommendations were, we put people in that we often encourage them to not make too many waves, and just go ask the feds what they're doing.
And that's not their fault, that's the culture that we cultivated.
So I know that South Carolina culture is no, no, no, we're going to do our own thing, but in reality, in terms of actually doing stuff, almost always we, people will say, well, what do they do else in another state? Or what are they doing at the fed level? And I'll just go along with it.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: Would it be, and I'm not a medical professional by any stretch, would it be realistic for anything that is being promoted, especially on a large scale, a vaccination that's you know coming from who knows where, to have it be investigated by people in our state, such as yourself, or is that, would that be too—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: It, it was reasonable to trust the FDA. Even though I have my doubts about their independence now, everybody just trusted the feds to do this. And at the time, that was kind of reasonable.
28:05
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: But going forward, I get, that's my question, going forward, is it possible, is it reasonable for us to be able to have a system where we could, especially if it's being, if the taxpayer money is going to be used to push it and tell people to get it, that we have it set up that it's automatically tested, basically, or looked into by scientists and medical professionals in our state, to determine— maybe it's in DHEC, maybe DHEC has that where they are required to look into it, and have their own, you know, summary or decision on whether or not it's safe and effective. Since we know that CDC and FDA and all these are not doing a good job with it.
And I, and I guess I'm asking you as a professional, are, do you hear that and think, wow, that's going to cost an insane amount of money and good luck or like no that's reasonable?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No, no the the actual like, scientific experiments are I don't think an insane amount of money. It's having the, the regulatory and, and financial independence to, like, say no, we're not going to do it the way we're told until we find out that it's OK, when in reality much of our support comes from federal sources.
It's like, if you have a better idea for how to build the interstate, you kind of have to do what the the federal people tell you, regardless, right? We, because that's where the money comes from for a lot of the in interstate infrastructure. And I think, I'm not a policy expert, but I, I think that a lot of financial support through the health care system and, and elsewhere was tied to compliance to the federal narratives.
And so I don't know that you can create true independence. You, you could maybe create some kind of oversight that would enhance the public trust in whether it was a good idea or not. But that's a different matter from us being able to go our own way all the time. But that's your, that's your leader—, that's your area of expertise, not mine.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: Yeah. But it is, but it is possible to have somebody look into vaccinations and do similarly—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — to what you did on [inaudible]
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I did this on my own money with free student, I mean, yeah, we, this is not terribly expensive to do these kinds of tests. But, you know, that has to be in a system that, that professors are not going to be penalized for producing results that are counter to what the party line is supposed to be.
And that you can create bubbles of where the protection for people whose job it is to check things, and if they come up with answers that nobody likes, they can still say them. And, and you have to create these kind of protection bubbles.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Mr. Chairman?
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Yes.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: I want to ask just a few more questions.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Doctor, you, are you planning to publish these findings? Have you tried to publish these findings in a journal?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No and no. They're not, as of now, they are interesting and concerning, but not, they don't rise to the level of a peer-reviewed publication. The most likely, the best possible outcome would be that I would check a bunch of people, find out it never integrated, and this is not a problem, and then it will never be published because papers don't publish negative results. Kind of the worst outcome is, I can check a bunch of people and I find, oh, it integrated and it's causing these horrible things, and yeah, then I'll get a paper and be famous. But I'm hoping that that's not the way it goes.
So you see how there are, in academia for publication, there are all these perverse incentives in place where the kind of thing you need to be done is, is the kind of thing that does not generate a publication. You need a regulatory body to check, find no problem, and tell the public there's no problem, we checked and there ain't nothing there. That will never get published, you know? Or very seldom. It's hard to publish negative results like that. And that's why academic science is not the best place to do it.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: How long would it take to do what it is you're talking about here, about check a bunch of vaccinated people? I mean, I, it's, it's hard for me listening to all this for the first time to, to calculate how alarmed you are and whether in your personal opinion you would hit the pause button on allowing this new vaccine, so to speak, without knowing more. How long's it take, and, and how serious is it to, to find out this information before people keep taking these vaccines?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: It, it takes about 3 hours to check a vial of vaccine to see if it's got this in it. About a hundred bucks of reagents. And I'm not going to get it unless I find a, a vial that I can check ahead of time and make sure it's not there. And if it is there, I'll take a pass on it.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Thank you.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, thank you so much for being here. And I would like to say that I would sort of, in the world of covid that we've been dealing with, with all the lies and coverups and misinformation out there, I would almost call you a whistleblower. And Dr. Lead,* I think we may have found our state's surgeon general here.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No [laughs]. That's not my thing. Thank you for your confidence in me but that's beyond my—
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: But what I would like to say is as we wrap it up is, I do appreciate you. I understand where you are employed. And you and I have had a little conversation about how wonderful tenure is and things like that. But if you experience any retribution or any harassment for coming forward at this hearing and testifying, would you please let us know? Because I can assure you, you will have an army behind you to help with whatever may come your way.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Thank you very much.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Rep. Morgan has one more question and we've got to move along, Dr. Janci is, I think, under a time constraint.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: I should have asked this. So you didn't have, you haven't interacted with DHEC about this specific—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No, no.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: OK, I was just wondering if you had any—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I interacted with some, a couple of people at the FDA. I just sent them emails and said, hey, you want to, you should look in this.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: OK.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Thank you so much. Next is Dr. Janci Lindsay.*
TEXT: The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is contaminated with the plasmid DNA vector that was used as the template for in vitro transcription reaction.
this DNA could be the cause of some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest.
The DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomes of transfected cells.
There is a very real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells, which could cause sustained autoimmune attack toward that tissue.
There is also a theoretical risk of future cancer, depending on the piece of DNA and site of integration.
Phillip Buckhaults, Ph.D. Professor of Cancer Molecular Genetics, University of South Carolina
* SLIDE 2: CENTRAL DOGMA
[Flow chart illustration with DNA, RNA and Protein]
* SLIDE 3:
[Bar chart]
TEXT: Pieces of DNA in two batches of Pfizer vaccine. These are the batches that were given out here in Columbia.
the pieces of DNA are small and are likely to damage the human genome by integrating and becoming permanent mutations (like shotgun pellets hitting a washboard). Its important to look at DNA taken from different body tissues of vaccinated people to see if this is happening and if it can be causing any adverse events now or if there is a future cancer risk down the road, we should sequence a few hundred people and find out if this DNA ever got into the human genome.
* SLIDE 4:
TEXT: we used the sequences of all the little pieces of DNA in the vaccine to reconstruct the actual sequence of where it came from.
It is the plasmid used in production of the mRNA (pBK-CMV modified to contain SPIKE gene). The DNA in the vaccine is a contaminate leftover from the process used in large scale production. This DNA was not present in the material used in the trials because the process of making the stuff was different (it did not use plasmid DNA).
TEXT: We have a pretty easy and cheap method to detect one of the pieces of plasmid DNA. It's a PCR test similar to what we used to detect SARS-COV2 during the pandemic (the saliva test).
TEXT: There are about 2 billion copies of the fragment containing the origin of replication, and from nanopore sequence analysis, there is probably 50-100 times that many pieces of plasmid DNA derived from the entire vector.
This means each shot has about 200 billion pieces of plasmid DNA encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticle.
This is a bad idea.
* SLIDE 7: Conclusions
TEXT: We should check a bunch of vaccinated people to see if plasmid DNA has integrated into their genomic DNA.
We (you) should insist that the USFDA force Pfizer to get the DNA out of the booster and all future mRNA based vaccines.
The regulation that allowed the DNA to be there should be changed. It's a leftover from previous vaccines that contained inly naked DNA. The mRNA vaccines have this DNA encapsulated in a lipid nanoparticle delivers system (trojan horse) and so the DNA is a far more serious issue.
20 Greek soldiers wandering around outside the walls of Troy are not a big deal.
20 Green soldiers packed inside a large wooden horse are a different matter.**
**I believe this was a regulatory and scientific oversight, not a nefarious intent to transfect people and alter their DNA. But it needs to be fixed nonetheless.
* CHO cells are Chinese hamster ovary cells.
See: "Cell engineering and cultivation of chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells"
The “magnitude of potential complications” is exactly why they’re globally nonchalant & unperturbed. But i bet they’re quaking in their boots too, as well they should. We’re at the tip of the damage & death iceberg here, IMO, w/ worse to be revealed in the next few years. To start investigations & give explanations would open the floodgates of not just blame & culpability, but prove the “conspiracy theorists” 1000% correct, & start a deserved witch hunt
The witch hunt should have started a year or two ago....
It sure should have. I despair there will ever be comeuppance for these demons
Clearly not enough shockwaves. They could find dinosaur DNA in it and nothing would be done. Safe and effective shut up
If people have not taken the gene modifying (=GM) therapy after nearly 3 years, it's not because they are "vax hesitant", it's because they investigated or learned of the useless but deadly effects of this depopulation scam!
Whenever you read "vax hesitant" it means in reality - "Injection aware" or pre-planned cull of humanity! Us 'USELESS EATERS' as we are referred to by the super-wealthy Elite (WEF's NWO).
Always remember the biggest clue the injection is dangerous because the makers refuse all LIABILITY and ZERO responsibility of the frequent deadly after effects!
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer!
Mick, I always despised “hesitant” as denoting fear, indecision & timidity. Research coupled w/ skepticism & common sense made me vax DEFIANT
The perpetrators fear no consequences because they know there won't be any. The sheeple will bleat ever more furiously, but they won't bite. Until that changes, they will continue to do their dirty deeds while laughing at their victims. Submission and subservience only serve to embolden abusers.
It was known about BEFORE the EUAs were issued - just read the European Medicines Agency's Public Assessment Report about the Pfizer jibbyjabby from December 2020:
https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/200-billion-pieces-of-dna-contaminating
Wonder what this will do for the vaunted “Nobel Prize”!
Agreed Cindi!
The terminology used to describe all but the 'submissive capitulating wimps' is supposed to undermine and denigrate all those with an active brain capable of thinking beyond their controlling BULLSHIT!
The reality is that we, the increasing number of PROUD and THINKING 'Conspiracy Theorists', are WINNING - at long last!
Regards! Mick (UK).
It was McKernan's discovery, you hardly give him credit. Son, I am dissapoin
t.
SC Senate Hearing - USC Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults
SC 4 FREEDOM, posted September 13, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEWHhrHiiTY&t=44s
DESCRIPTION: "University of South Carolina Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults testifies before South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee on DHEC." [Department of Health and Environmental Control]
Hat tip: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/south-carolina-senate-hearing-usc
For complete video of the session visit https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php
Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:00 am
Senate Medical Affairs Committee
Pandemic Preparedness Listening Session
TRANSCRIPT
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So a little bit of what am I doing here, for those of you don't, don't know me, my name is Phillip Buckhaults, I'm a, I have a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology. I'm a, I'm a cancer gene jock, basically. I do cancer genomics research at the University of South Carolina. And what that means is that I'm kind of an expert on all the ways that the human genome can get futzed with during your lifetime, and which of those things cause cancer and which ones don't. OK?
So technically, that means that I'm very, very skilled in, in the art of DNA sequencing, OK? I can figure out the sequence of things that I didn't know what I was looking for. And I'm also pretty good— when I say I, I mean the people in my laboratory that you're not going to hear their names, but there's a group of people that do this excellent work, we're really good at, at detecting foreign pieces of DNA in places where they're not supposed to be, even if they're real low levels.
[SLIDE 1]*
And we used those skills during the pandemic to, we invented the covid test that many of you did a spit test, OK? That came out of my lab because we were really good at that kind of stuff. And so I've earned a fair amount of respect in the state of South Carolina and in this body because we did a ton of covid testing in the middle of the night when people were afraid, and we told them, no, you don't have covid in your home, or, yes, you do. So my qualifications to comment on this are both technical and kind of relational in the state of South Carolina.
I'll cut to a very narrow theme here, but it does touch on lots of these regulatory issues, and I'll leave it to you to expand on those if you want to. I'll try to stay in this narrow lane of some problems in the Pfizer vaccine as a case study for places in which regulatory oversight could be improved. Alright?
So, first of all, let me say that my interpretation of the literature is that the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping people from dying, but it did a terrible job of stopping the pandemic. The early publications showed that it stopped infection, but that only lasted for like a month.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, could you pull the mic a little closer to you? Staff's telling me they're having trouble getting you on the recording.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: OK.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK, thank you.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: In,in my professional evaluation of the literature, the Pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping people out of the cemetery, but it sucked at stopping the pandemic. And it was the best of sucky options that we had. And I still believe that it was deployed mostly in good faith, but there were a lot of shortcuts taken because the house was on fire, and we could do a better job next time from the lessons that we're going to learn here. That's my own personal view of this.
But I'm also, my philosophical bent here is, I'm sure many of you have heard of a Occam's Razor, right? Choose the simplest of explanations. Well there's another one called Hanlon's Razor, which is, never attribute malice to that which can be better explained by incompetence. And so I'm trying to be gracious here, in many, in circumstances there could be malice underneath, but I'm trying to see just incompetence to be gracious. So.
The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasmid DNA. It's not just mRNA. It's got bits of DNA in it. This DNA is the DNA vector that was used as the template for the in vitro transcription reaction when they made the mRNA.
I know this is true because I sequenced it in my own lab.
The vials of Pfizer vaccine that were given out here in Colombia, one of my colleagues was in charge of that vaccination program in the College of Pharmacy, and for reasons that I still don't understand, he kept every single vial. So he had a whole freezer full of the empty vials. Well the empty vials have a little tiny bit in the bottom of them, he gave them all to me, and I looked at them. We had two batches that were given out here in Colombia, and I checked these two batches, and I checked them by sequencing. And I sequenced all the DNA that was in the vaccine. And I can see what's in there. And it's surprising that there's any DNA in there. And you can kind of work out what it is, and how it got there.
And I'm kind of alarmed about the possible consequences of this, both in terms of human health and biology, but you should be alarmed about the regulatory process that allowed it to get there.
So this DNA, in my view, it could be causing some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest. There's a lot of cases now, of people having suspicious death after vaccine. It's hard to prove what caused it, it's just, you know, temporally associated, and this DNA is a plausible mechanism. OK?
This DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that got transfected with the vaccine mix. This is just the way it works. We do this in the lab all the time. We take pieces of DNA, we mix them up with a lipid complex like the Pfizer vaccine is in, we pour it onto cells, and, and a lot of it gets into the cells, and a lot of it gets into the DNA of those cells, and it becomes a permanent fixture of the cell. It's not just a temporary, a temporary thing, it is in that cell and all of its progeny from now on, forever more, amen.
...continued...
...continued...
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So that's why I'm kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine. It's, it's, it's different from RNA because it can be permanent.
This is a real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells like stem cells, and it could cause, theoretically, this is all a theoretical concern, but it's pretty reasonable based on solid molecular biology, that it could cause a sustained autoimmune attack toward that tissue.
It's also a very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people. Depending on where in the genome this foreign piece of DNA lands, it can interrupt a tumor suppressor or activate an oncogene. I think it'll be rare, but I think the risk is not zero, and it may be high enough that we ought to figure out if this is happening or not.
And then again, the, the, the autoimmunity thing is not my wheelhouse, I'm not an immunologist, but the cancer risk is, that's my bag. I know this is a thing, and it is a possibility.
6:41
[SLIDE 2 - CENTRAL DOGMA]*
OK, a little nerdy science here. The central dogma of molecular biology is that DNA gets transcribed into RNA, OK? And then RNA gets translated into protein. This is just how life runs.
Why, why does this matter? Well DNA, for the purposes of this discussion, DNA is a long-lived information storage device. OK? What you were born with, you're going to die with, and pass on to your kids. DNA lasts for hundreds of thousands of years, and it can last for generations if you, and get pass it on to your kids. Right? So alterations to the DNA, they stick around.
RNA, by its nature, is temporary. It doesn't last. And that feature of RNA was part of the sales pitch for the vaccine. The pseudouradine was supposed to make the RNA last a little bit longer, but still, it's a transient phenomenon. We're talking hours to days. OK?
And then proteins. Once proteins are made, they also don't last forever. They, they last for hours to days.
But something that makes its way into DNA has the potential to last for a very long time, maybe a lifetime.
7:55
[SLIDE 3 - Pieces of DNA in two batches of Pfizer vaccine]*
So this is a picture of the sequencing read that the sequencing run that I did in the lab from a couple of batches of the Pfizer vaccine. And all those little bitty lines here are the little tiny pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine. They don't belong there. They are not part of the sales pitch or the marketing campaign. And they're there. There's a lot of them.
This little graph here in the middle is the size distribution. It peaks around 100 base pairs, 120 base pairs. So the the DNA pieces that are in the vaccine are short little pieces, 100, 120. There's some that are about 500 base pairs, a few that are even 5,000, but most of them are around 100 base pairs.
Why is this important? Because the probability of a DNA, piece of DNA, integrating into the human genome is unrelated to its size, so your genome risk is just a function of how many particles there are. So it's like, you know, if you shoot a shotgun at a washboard, if you shoot a slug you have some probability of hitting it, and if shoot buckshot you have a bigger probability of hitting it with some shot, right? This, all these little pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine are analogous to buckshot. You have many, many thousands of opportunities to modify a, a cell of a vaccinated person.
The pieces are very small because during the process they chopped them up to try to make them go away, but they actually increased the hazard of genome modification in the process. That's how this got here.
In my view, somebody should go about sequencing DNA samples from stem cells of people who are vaccinated, and find out if this theoretical risk has happened or not. I think this is a real serious oversight, regulatory oversight that happened at the federal level, and somebody should force this to happen somewhere.
9:58
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, if you, now, are you capable of doing that?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah, it's, we do that kind of thing. But in order for it to be trustworthy, it, by the public, this has to be done by lots of people, right?
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK, I'll talk to you more about that later.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah, this is our our deal, this is why I know this should have been done at the federal level. OK.
10:17
[SLIDE 4 - we used the sequences of all the little pieces of DNA in the vaccine to reconstruct the actual sequence of where it came from]*
So we took all these pieces of DNA and we used them to glue together what the source DNA must have been. This is kind of, again, this is our, what we do in the lab all the time. And, and all these little, little red and green lines here, these are all independent little pieces of DNA. This must have had 100,000 pieces of DNA in this, this sequencing run. And you can put them all back together and see what they came from is this circle over here. It's a plasmid that you can go shopping online to buy from Agilant.* And it's clear that Pfizer took this plasmid, and then they cloned spike into it, and they used it for, in a process called in vitro transcription translation, in vitro transcription, where you feed an RNA polymerase this plasmid and it makes a whole bunch of mRNA copies for you, OK? And then you take this mRNA, you mix it with the the lipid nanoparticle transfection reagent, and now you've got your mRNA vaccine. But they failed to get the DNA out before they did this. So these little pieces, they did, they did make some effort to chop it up, so all these little pieces of the plasmid got packaged in with the RNA.
That's clear as day what happened, just from the forensics of looking at the DNA sequencing, OK?
11:35
A little bit of a regulatory note here. The way you do RNA transcription, in vitro transcription reactions, you have to give it a DNA template, OK? And you can give it a DNA template that is just a synthetic piece of DNA that is only the instructions to make the RNA, and that's what was done for getting the Emergency Use Authorization and the clinical trial.* It's called Process 1 if you look up that kind of stuff. They made a PCR product of just the bits that they wanted, and then they did the in vitro transcription, made a bunch of RNA of that.
There was no plasmid DNA to contaminate the stuff that was used for the trial. But that, that making that PCR product, doesn't scale the way that was necessary to vaccinate the whole world. So a cheaper way to scale up the production of this template is to clone that PCR product into this plasmid vector, put the plasmid vector into bacteria, and then you grow up big vats of the bacteria, they make a lot of the plasmid DNA for you, then you use that plasmid DNA as the template to drive this transcription reaction to make your RNA. And that's where, how the contamination ended up in the production batches, even though it was not in the stuff that was used for the authorization trials.
...continued...
...continued...
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So I know it's a little bit of nerdy science, but it has regulatory implications for you guys.
13:04
[SLIDE 5 - We have a pretty easy and cheap method to detect one of the pieces of plasmid DNA]*
We can, we can measure the quantity of this stuff pretty easy in the lab. This is, we're, we're good at doing this kind of stuff. This is the same, we made a little PC— a colleague of mine at at MIT made, you know, from who, who used to work for the the Broad Institute at MIT,* he, he made a little PCR test and we cloned it here. This is similar to the PCR test that you all took for the spit test, OK? Same, same idea and same expertise behind it.
And we can quantify exactly how much of this stuff is in a vaccine or any other tissue. And, you know, I estimate that there were about two billion copies of the one piece that we're looking for in every dose.
[SLIDE 6 - There are about 2 billion copies of the fragment containing the origin of replication]*
And if you looked back at that map I showed you where it's all these little, the, the little piece that we're looking for is just that little bit right there. OK?
[SLIDE 4, again]
But if you see 2 billion copies of this, there's about 200 billion of everything else.
[SLIDE 6, again]
So what this means is that there's probably about 200 billion pieces of this plasmid DNA in, in each dose of the vaccine, and it's encapsulated in this lipid nanoparticle, so it's ready to be delivered inside the cell. OK? This is a bad idea.
[SLIDE 7 - Conclusions]*
My conclusions from this, we should check a bunch of people. [in low voice, an aside on his difficulties using PowerPoint] Ah, my conclusions from this are I should learn how to run PowerPoint.
We should check a bunch of vaccinated people getting tissue samples, especially if we focus on harmed people. But that's not necessary. We could also just focus on regular unharmed people and see if this plasmid DNA is integrating into the genomes of any of their stem cells. It leaves a calling card that is there.
One of the reasons why I'm focusing on this is because it's kind of different from a lot of the other imagined harms where you can't really prove it. You can be suspicious because of the timing, but you can't really prove it. This one you can prove it because it leaves a calling card. OK? You find it in the stem cells of harmed people. It's equivalent to finding a certain type of lead in someone who is now dead. It's pretty reasonable to assume that that's what caused it.
The royal we, meaning you guys, should insist that the FDA force Pfizer to get the DNA out of the booster and all future versions of this vaccine.
I'm a real fan of this platform, OK? I think it has the potential to treat cancers. I really believe that this platform is revolutionary, and in your lifetime there will be mRNA vaccines against antigens in your unique cancer, OK? And, but they got to get this problem fixed. OK? And I, right now I think the financial incentives are too great to just keep on rolling with it, and it's going to take some encouragement to get it out.
16:26
The regulation that allowed this DNA to be there in the first place. I don't think that this, the amounts there actually exceed the regulation limits. In some batches it may. In, in the two batches that I looked at one of them, it was just under the limit, and one it was just over the limit. My colleague in Boston has looked at a fair number of other batches and there's a handful that are super high, and there's a handful that are super low. But the fact that there is a regulatory threshold for amount of DNA allowed in a vaccine is a throwback to an era when we were talking about vaccines that were like a recombinant protein, that you, or a dead virus, you know, attenuated virus produced in CHO cells* or something like that, and the DNA that might be in it is naked DNA. And you might have a little bit in the vaccine. That's not a problem because naked DNA gets chewed up immediately upon vaccination and there's no real mechanism for it to get inside the cells. They inappropriately applied that regulatory limit to this new kind of vaccine where everything is encapsulated in this lipid nanoparticle. It's basically packaged in a synthetic virus able to dump its contents into a cell.
So I'm thinking Hanlon's Razor here, OK? I don't think there was anything nefarious here. I think it was just kind of a dumb oversight. And it's going to take, because the financial incentives are so great to just, you know, sweep it under the rug, and the career incentives of people that approved this are going to be, eh, there's nothing wrong here, you know? It's going to take some encouragement to make people prove that it's OK.
But I really believe this was an inappropriate application of an old school regulation to a new kind of vaccine.
And who knows, maybe we'll check a bunch of people and we'll find out for sure that this is indeed not a problem. And that will do the public good if we prove that.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH:* Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Senator Cash.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Doctor, we appreciate all that you're saying, although we don't understand most of what you're saying.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Sorry. [laughs] I have a limited amount of time, so—
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: [looking down to his right] Someone down there agreeing a lot, so you must have been a chemistry major or something. [returning to address Dr. Buckhaults] But what, what is going to help us is to know what what you can do, like checking a bunch of vaccinated people.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Of course, that's what I can do.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Right, but we are are not going to have any authority over the FDA to force Pfizer to do something. I mean, that's a federal issue. Unless you can explain to me how we could do something at a state level, you know, some of this is going to have to be taken up by our Congressmen, right? So just, whatever your remaining comments are, just keep in mind that—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I understand.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: —what, what we can do. And, and really, these technical things you're throwing at us, as as a senator from Greenville has already mentioned, we're going to throw right back at you, because there's no, you're the expert. So if someone's going to do this testing, I don't know who we would find to do it, well, other than someone like you.
19:41
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can do it, lots of other people can do it. I've had a lot of, of, so, coroners and pharmacists from different states contact me. I posted all this on Twitter, right? And so people will private message me and say, I'd like to send you some samples. And then they say, oops, state regulations will not allow our coroner to send any samples for this. So there are some policy issues that can allow this to happen or impede it. I don't know what they are, but I hear that there are mechanisms in place that will, you know, you can encourage people to do things or not do things. But that's your wheelhouse, not mine. All I can tell you is what I found in the lab and the scientific implications of it. The policy implications and what to do with it is out of my, it's above my pay grade.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Senator Garrett.
20:34
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Thank you for coming today. I think I followed most of what you said. President Biden said the other day that there was a new covid vaccine that, and this one really works.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: There's no evidence to that as far as I can tell.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: I, I understand that, and that's why I'm asking this question. Is there some way you could get a hold of one of those and—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would love to.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — do the do the same study that you did on these vials to make sure—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would like to do that.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — that we're not using that, that DNA protein, or whatever it is that the DNA that, that, that we don't need them to be injected into these, to our constituents.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I would like to do that. And I will not get it unless I get a batch and, and find out that it's free of DNA, and then I'll take it myself. But I don't, I don't have any way of compelling that to happen.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: So it was just basically a way to save money by, by doing it in such volume that way, without then taking it back out later on?
21:30
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I think nobody thought about it. I think it was reasonable to use the E. coli to blow up the plasmid to make the stuff. And then the, the pieces of the DNA are of a very uniform and small size, that's evidence that they took efforts to try to chop it up. And—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Then they knew about it.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yeah. Yeah, they knew it. And they took efforts to chop it up. They just didn't get it all out.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: But, but having said that—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I guess that they just didn't didn't think about the, the hazard for genome modification. Because it's not all that expensive to add another process to get it out.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Well that's what I'm saying. It, it you know—
22:10
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can't get inside their mind. I don't—
...continued...
...continued...
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I can't get inside their mind. I don't—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: It was rushed too much and that's why I'm saying, these subsequent, you know, we've heard testimony, these subsequent, you know, variant subsequent boosters, etc, etc, are leading to maybe not scientific yet but at least collateral knowledge that it apparently these things are causing death and disability later on, and also the aging process which you heard about a few minutes ago.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: There's a lot of suspicious associations—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: But I—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: — but that's all I can say.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — But it seems to me that that before we can in South Carolina, you know, give this new vaccine a whirl around here, seems to me that, that our people ought to be able to look at that, Mr. Chairman, and see whether or not it's got this DNA in it. If it does, fine, tell everybody it's got the DNA and the problems associated therewith, then you got informed consent.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Correct.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: OK, but without that, we don't have informed consent-
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: — That's not informed consent.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: I'm not I'm not really happy about that, Mr Chairman, and do what I can to try to help [inaudible]—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Knowing what I know—
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: — otherwise.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Knowing what I know now about this, I would still have recommended it to my elderly parents.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: OK.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: But I probably would not have given it to my daughters. I, I feel like my consent was not as informed as it should have been.
SENATOR BILLY GARRETT: Thank you.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Yeah. Representative Morgan.
23:27
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: I almost don't know where to start. I'm, I'm trying not to talk because we're, it's a hearing and we want to hear you, but you have made so many questions come to my mind. And one I should know but I don't remember. What percentage of vaccinated people had this kind of vaccination? Do you know off the top of your head? Like, the majority of people that took the vaccine had this type? Because weren't there multiple types of vaccinations you could take?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: The vast majority of people got either Pfizer or Moderna.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: And, and we're talking about the Pfizer.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I'm talking about Pfizer. My colleagues have looked at Moderna, and it's in Moderna too, in the few that we've looked at, it's just not quite as high.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: OK. Wow. With, so, you were here today, and you've come to present, and you notice this. Where could you have gone if we didn't have this kind of ad hoc hearing—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Nowhere.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: —for this to come—?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Twitter.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: So there's no DHEC? [Department of Health and Environmental Control]
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: There's no way for you, even at your level of expertise to say, hey, red flag, I—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I email, I emailed the FDA and I tweeted at them. That's about the extent of my resources.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: It's just fascinating to me that in a, in the state that we don't have some kind of, I guess it goes to kind of the entire thing that we're talking about, is that our state agency should have more focus on our citizens' health and, you know, it's great, CDC can send us stuff, but we'll make the decision.
And, and there should be a way for, especially at your level, to get input to DHEC when you notice something like this immediately, and say hey, DHEC, you should consider this, and then they can come and tell us immediately, hey, we need to get authorization, or you need to change this regulation to look into this.
And it just seems like we've totally dropped the ball in every direction with the state prioritizing, you know, our decision-making on this kind of stuff and, and investigating into it, just letting the, you know, the federal government take it and do a terrible job.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: So I had a lot of experience with DHEC rolling out the saliva test, OK? So we invented the saliva test, and then we had to deal with DHEC to try to get it rolled out for the state. And it appeared to me that they were just overrun. They weren't prepared for what this pandemic was. Through— and it's no fault of theirs. I thought, I, I told people at the time that I felt like these were Hobbits in the Shire that were, you know, accustomed to take care of small problems, and now of a sudden we're in the War of the Ring, and there are Orcs at the gate, and we're expecting them to deal with this tremendous challenge, and that's not who we put there. And that's not their fault. I mean, it's just we were not prepared to handle something of this magnitude. So some amount of grace I think is appropriate, even though we could do better next time by beefing up who's guarding the gates.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: If you, if you had a, tomorrow, fixes to the system—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: [laughs]
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — what would they be? That we could—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: That's your job. I don't know.
26:15
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — I mean since you lived it and saw based on the research, should we have somebody actually checking up, especially on something that is being pushed statewide, I mean, state resources are being used—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: You have to to hire—
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — saying to take this vaccine.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: You have to hire people that are qualified to tell the feds, no. And that's not what we do here, usually. In South Carolina, we hire people, sometimes we say to no to the feds just to be ornery, because that's our culture in South Carolina, but many times we say, well, I don't know, what do other people do? And we hire people all over that they ask, well what does Clemson do? What does USC? Well what do they do over in this other state? Instead of putting people in place that we would have confidence in saying no to the, to whatever the recommendations were, we put people in that we often encourage them to not make too many waves, and just go ask the feds what they're doing.
And that's not their fault, that's the culture that we cultivated.
So I know that South Carolina culture is no, no, no, we're going to do our own thing, but in reality, in terms of actually doing stuff, almost always we, people will say, well, what do they do else in another state? Or what are they doing at the fed level? And I'll just go along with it.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: Would it be, and I'm not a medical professional by any stretch, would it be realistic for anything that is being promoted, especially on a large scale, a vaccination that's you know coming from who knows where, to have it be investigated by people in our state, such as yourself, or is that, would that be too—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: It, it was reasonable to trust the FDA. Even though I have my doubts about their independence now, everybody just trusted the feds to do this. And at the time, that was kind of reasonable.
28:05
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: But going forward, I get, that's my question, going forward, is it possible, is it reasonable for us to be able to have a system where we could, especially if it's being, if the taxpayer money is going to be used to push it and tell people to get it, that we have it set up that it's automatically tested, basically, or looked into by scientists and medical professionals in our state, to determine— maybe it's in DHEC, maybe DHEC has that where they are required to look into it, and have their own, you know, summary or decision on whether or not it's safe and effective. Since we know that CDC and FDA and all these are not doing a good job with it.
And I, and I guess I'm asking you as a professional, are, do you hear that and think, wow, that's going to cost an insane amount of money and good luck or like no that's reasonable?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No, no the the actual like, scientific experiments are I don't think an insane amount of money. It's having the, the regulatory and, and financial independence to, like, say no, we're not going to do it the way we're told until we find out that it's OK, when in reality much of our support comes from federal sources.
It's like, if you have a better idea for how to build the interstate, you kind of have to do what the the federal people tell you, regardless, right? We, because that's where the money comes from for a lot of the in interstate infrastructure. And I think, I'm not a policy expert, but I, I think that a lot of financial support through the health care system and, and elsewhere was tied to compliance to the federal narratives.
And so I don't know that you can create true independence. You, you could maybe create some kind of oversight that would enhance the public trust in whether it was a good idea or not. But that's a different matter from us being able to go our own way all the time. But that's your, that's your leader—, that's your area of expertise, not mine.
...continued...
...continued...
29:57
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: Yeah. But it is, but it is possible to have somebody look into vaccinations and do similarly—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: — to what you did on [inaudible]
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I did this on my own money with free student, I mean, yeah, we, this is not terribly expensive to do these kinds of tests. But, you know, that has to be in a system that, that professors are not going to be penalized for producing results that are counter to what the party line is supposed to be.
And that you can create bubbles of where the protection for people whose job it is to check things, and if they come up with answers that nobody likes, they can still say them. And, and you have to create these kind of protection bubbles.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Mr. Chairman?
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Yes.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: I want to ask just a few more questions.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: OK.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Doctor, you, are you planning to publish these findings? Have you tried to publish these findings in a journal?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No and no. They're not, as of now, they are interesting and concerning, but not, they don't rise to the level of a peer-reviewed publication. The most likely, the best possible outcome would be that I would check a bunch of people, find out it never integrated, and this is not a problem, and then it will never be published because papers don't publish negative results. Kind of the worst outcome is, I can check a bunch of people and I find, oh, it integrated and it's causing these horrible things, and yeah, then I'll get a paper and be famous. But I'm hoping that that's not the way it goes.
So you see how there are, in academia for publication, there are all these perverse incentives in place where the kind of thing you need to be done is, is the kind of thing that does not generate a publication. You need a regulatory body to check, find no problem, and tell the public there's no problem, we checked and there ain't nothing there. That will never get published, you know? Or very seldom. It's hard to publish negative results like that. And that's why academic science is not the best place to do it.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: How long would it take to do what it is you're talking about here, about check a bunch of vaccinated people? I mean, I, it's, it's hard for me listening to all this for the first time to, to calculate how alarmed you are and whether in your personal opinion you would hit the pause button on allowing this new vaccine, so to speak, without knowing more. How long's it take, and, and how serious is it to, to find out this information before people keep taking these vaccines?
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: It, it takes about 3 hours to check a vial of vaccine to see if it's got this in it. About a hundred bucks of reagents. And I'm not going to get it unless I find a, a vial that I can check ahead of time and make sure it's not there. And if it is there, I'll take a pass on it.
SENATOR RICHARD CASH: Thank you.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Dr. Buckhaults, thank you so much for being here. And I would like to say that I would sort of, in the world of covid that we've been dealing with, with all the lies and coverups and misinformation out there, I would almost call you a whistleblower. And Dr. Lead,* I think we may have found our state's surgeon general here.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No [laughs]. That's not my thing. Thank you for your confidence in me but that's beyond my—
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: But what I would like to say is as we wrap it up is, I do appreciate you. I understand where you are employed. And you and I have had a little conversation about how wonderful tenure is and things like that. But if you experience any retribution or any harassment for coming forward at this hearing and testifying, would you please let us know? Because I can assure you, you will have an army behind you to help with whatever may come your way.
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: Thank you very much.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Rep. Morgan has one more question and we've got to move along, Dr. Janci is, I think, under a time constraint.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: I should have asked this. So you didn't have, you haven't interacted with DHEC about this specific—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: No, no.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: OK, I was just wondering if you had any—
DR. PHILLIP BUCKHAULTS: I interacted with some, a couple of people at the FDA. I just sent them emails and said, hey, you want to, you should look in this.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM MORGAN: OK.
SENATOR TOM CORBIN: Thank you so much. Next is Dr. Janci Lindsay.*
34:32
[END]
# # #
...continued...
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES
(Footnotes are below the biographical notes and links, please scroll down)
Dr. Phillip Buckhaults
University of South Carolina, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics
https://www.sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/pharmacy/faculty-staff/buckhaults_phillip.php
His Twitter is https://twitter.com/P_J_Buckhaults
Senator Tom Corbin (Republican, Greenville, District 5)
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0402272679
Senator Richard Cash (Republican, Anderson, District 3)
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0328409052
Senator Billy Garrett (Republican, McCormick, District 10)
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0638636287
Representative Adam Morgan (Republican, Greenville, District 20)
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=1370454381
FOOTNOTES
* SLIDE 1 [untitled]
TEXT: The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is contaminated with the plasmid DNA vector that was used as the template for in vitro transcription reaction.
this DNA could be the cause of some of the rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest.
The DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomes of transfected cells.
There is a very real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells, which could cause sustained autoimmune attack toward that tissue.
There is also a theoretical risk of future cancer, depending on the piece of DNA and site of integration.
Phillip Buckhaults, Ph.D. Professor of Cancer Molecular Genetics, University of South Carolina
* SLIDE 2: CENTRAL DOGMA
[Flow chart illustration with DNA, RNA and Protein]
* SLIDE 3:
[Bar chart]
TEXT: Pieces of DNA in two batches of Pfizer vaccine. These are the batches that were given out here in Columbia.
the pieces of DNA are small and are likely to damage the human genome by integrating and becoming permanent mutations (like shotgun pellets hitting a washboard). Its important to look at DNA taken from different body tissues of vaccinated people to see if this is happening and if it can be causing any adverse events now or if there is a future cancer risk down the road, we should sequence a few hundred people and find out if this DNA ever got into the human genome.
* SLIDE 4:
TEXT: we used the sequences of all the little pieces of DNA in the vaccine to reconstruct the actual sequence of where it came from.
It is the plasmid used in production of the mRNA (pBK-CMV modified to contain SPIKE gene). The DNA in the vaccine is a contaminate leftover from the process used in large scale production. This DNA was not present in the material used in the trials because the process of making the stuff was different (it did not use plasmid DNA).
[Illustrations]
* Agilant
https://www.agilent.com
* Summary of Process of EUA Issuance, see:
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/summary-process-eua-issuance
and related links given on that page.
* SLIDE 5:
TEXT: We have a pretty easy and cheap method to detect one of the pieces of plasmid DNA. It's a PCR test similar to what we used to detect SARS-COV2 during the pandemic (the saliva test).
[charts and tables]
* https://www.broadinstitute.org/about-us
* SLIDE 6:
[Table]
TEXT: There are about 2 billion copies of the fragment containing the origin of replication, and from nanopore sequence analysis, there is probably 50-100 times that many pieces of plasmid DNA derived from the entire vector.
This means each shot has about 200 billion pieces of plasmid DNA encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticle.
This is a bad idea.
* SLIDE 7: Conclusions
TEXT: We should check a bunch of vaccinated people to see if plasmid DNA has integrated into their genomic DNA.
We (you) should insist that the USFDA force Pfizer to get the DNA out of the booster and all future mRNA based vaccines.
The regulation that allowed the DNA to be there should be changed. It's a leftover from previous vaccines that contained inly naked DNA. The mRNA vaccines have this DNA encapsulated in a lipid nanoparticle delivers system (trojan horse) and so the DNA is a far more serious issue.
20 Greek soldiers wandering around outside the walls of Troy are not a big deal.
20 Green soldiers packed inside a large wooden horse are a different matter.**
**I believe this was a regulatory and scientific oversight, not a nefarious intent to transfect people and alter their DNA. But it needs to be fixed nonetheless.
* CHO cells are Chinese hamster ovary cells.
See: "Cell engineering and cultivation of chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells"
Omasa et al, Curr harm Biotechnol. April 2010
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20210750/
*DHEC is the Department of Health and Environmental Control.
https://scdhec.gov/
* I believe that Senator Corbin refers to Dr. Jamie Lead, who is a professor at University of South Carolina, and also founding director of USC's Center for Environmental Nanoscience and Risk (CENR). https://www.sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/public_health/research/research_centers/center_for_environmental_nanoscience_and_risk/
Dr. Lead's website is https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/public_health/faculty-staff/lead_jamie.php
* See also commentary on this speech by Dr. Janci Lindsay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjQQ7kkj3Bs
and by microbiologist Kevin McKernan, who was the first to discover contamination in the vials
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/south-carolina-senate-hearing
A transcript of McKernan's presentation to the FDA is at this link:
https://transcriberb.dreamwidth.org/104315.html