DNA Contamination in Pfizer COVID Shot 500 Times Permissible Level: New Study

Genetic impurities in the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine could be as high as 500 times the permissible limit, according to a new study.

In the study, published in Methods and Protocols, two German researchers raise worrying questions about the reliability of the quantitative PCR technique used by Pfizer-BioNTech to measure DNA contamination in the vaccine.

Using their own tests on the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles, they discovered levels that were between 360 and 534 times higher than the 10 nanogram per dose limit set by regulators.

The researchers argued that the methods used by Pfizer-BioNTech test for only 1% of the original DNA template used to make the vaccine, meaning that 99% of the genetical material from the template therefore goes untested and potentially undetected.

DNA contamination could have a wide range of harmful effects. DNA fragments could be taken up into the genome and disrupt normal gene sequences, leading to mutations and cancer, otherwise known as “insertional mutagenesis.”

The possibility of insertional mutagenesis is acknowledged in the patent for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The patent states DNA contamination could cause cancer: “The DNA template used in the mRNA manufacturing process must be removed to ensure the efficacy of therapeutics and safety, because residual DNA in drug products may induce activation of the innate response and has the potential to be oncogenic in patient populations.”

It had already been discovered that DNA in the mRNA COVID vaccines includes a variety of leftover genetic material, including the simian virus 40 cancer-promoting gene and plasmid DNA sequences from E.coli.

Before my wife and I really understood anything about the mRNA vax, we agreed we would not get it. Why? Because it is our policy to take no drugs/medications that haven’t been thoroughly tested AND in wide use for at least 10 years. A real track record is required.

On top of that, it was obvious the hyper speed with which this fake vax came about made it highly suspicious for a couple of old folks who clearly remember the swine flu fiasco.

Add to that the slight of hand in changing the long used definition of a vax to fit this experimental gene therapy and our BS meters were off the charts.

One wonders how many people would have taken it had there been no mandates and fascist coercion and threats.

Oh, yay, another analysis published by the highly respected scientific journal Inforwars. /s

My first comments are on the study itself. First of all, the article is not indexed in Pubmed, which raises doubts as to its credibility. As for the author Brigitte König, her PhD is in Medical Microbiology and Infectious Immunology; from her publications indexed in Pubmed, it appears that she works using cell biology techniques and that she has little to no experience in molecular biology. The other author only has a comment indexed in Pubmed; this is the scientific version of a letter to the editor.

The lack of expertise in molecular biology is significant. There are things a molecular biology would consider, look for, and control for that someone who is not trained in molecular biology would not even think of. For example, the statement that "DNA target sequence is less than just 1% of the originally added DNA template" is irrelevant. If a template is 20,000 nucleotides long and the PCR target is 1% of that, 200, the target is still specific to that target and no other. Each template molecule contains that target; the quantity of PCR product is, therefore, directly proportional to the quantity of template.

In addition, the article Methodological Considerations Regarding the Quantification of DNA Impurities in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Comirnaty® contains no "Materials and Methods" section. This is crucial for any scientific research publication, as this is the section which states exactly what the researchers did and which manufacturers supplied their reagents and equipment. This information allows other researchers to duplicate their results. All they did was present some graphs which they claim show the quantity of DNA and RNA measured in each sample, but we really don't know since we don't know their methodology.

Next, the patent does not contain any "admissions" as claimed in the Infowars blog.

Removal of DNA fragments in mRNA production process.

The term "insertional mutagenesis" appears nowhere in the patent. It appears that Infowars used that term to imply that the vaccine is capable of causing mutations in the recipients and that the patent holder is aware of this, but this is not the case. Assuming that some intact plasmid is in the vaccine, the worst that could happen would be that the cell could make a bit more mRNA before destroying the plasmid DNA. The patent does describe various types of mutations, but that's a far cry from describing something that is capable of getting into human cells and altering DNA. (You don't need DNA to alter DNA anyway. Smokers get dosed with DNA-altering chemicals every day. And the UV in sunlight is notorious for altering DNA.)

Finally, as for Infowar's claim that "It had already been discovered that DNA in the mRNA COVID vaccines includes a variety of leftover genetic material, including the simian virus 40 cancer-promoting gene and plasmid DNA sequences from E.coli," this is based entirely on misrepresentation of the science involved.

A plasmid is a small piece of DNA which researchers use to cause cells to produce RNA and proteins they don't normally make. We use E. coli to grow the plasmids. In order for the plasmid to grow in E. coli, it has an antibiotic resistance gene and an "origin" which directs the E. coli to make more copies of the plasmid. We can put a gene into the plasmid; in the case of vaccine, it is a spike protein gene. In order for a gene to function, it must have instructions. One of these instructions is the promoter element, which tells the RNA polymerases (enzymes) to attach and start making RNA. For the vaccine, the SV40 promoter element was used, since it functions in cells with nucleuses (like mammalian cells). The fact that this small instruction came from the SV40 virus does not mean that an oncogene is present. The Infowars blog took a huge and unjustified liberty with language when it called the SV40 promoter a "simian virus 40 cancer-promoting gene." A promoter isn't a gene.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.