Experience with Scheduling a State Hearing on Covid-19, the Hearing, and the Aftermath. Part 104
Dr. Buckhaults' Testimony and Practical Suggestions to Use His Research to Establish Protocols That Would Greatly Improve Safety
Substack has carried a number of posts on Dr. Phil Buckhaults’ testimony on dsDNA in ΨmRNA vials presented at the South Carolina Pandemic Preparedness Listening Session (PPLS) held September 12, 2023. Some of these posts were:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
In addition, there were other interesting posts related to Dr. Buckhaults findings:
·
·
His presentation is included in
I would like to establish a couple of lists about what is the current science (not THE SCIENCE) around this topic.
First, statements I am pretty certain are scientifically reasonable:
1. The DNA fragments are of varying length, but are typically small, 50-100 bp,
2. The small DNA fragments can enter the cell because they will be in an LPN. (This is an unnatural biological situation.)
3. There are two defense mechanisms against the dsDNA fragments once they enter the cell. One is the lysosome, but that would probably be judged insignificant. The other is the cGAS-STING pathway.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952791509000077?via%3Dihub
This mechanism is specific to foreign DNA in the cytosol. We have not seen specific paper on the effectiveness of this pathway against the dsDNA. We can assume that inflammation would occur, since this is an innate immune system response. We have not had time to explore the AEs associated with this pathway, but we think that the paper by Li and Zhou might be relevant, though for a reason different than intended by the authors (H. Li, F. Zhou and L. Zhang, "STING, a critical contributor to SARS-CoV-2 immunopathology," Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 30 03 2022.)
However, practically speaking, these mechanisms do not provide complete protection. In the present context of Pfizer shots, with the massive number of DNA fragments getting dumped into a limited number of cells, many of the pieces will end up in cell nuclei. Do the large numbers overwhelm the innate cellular defenses? Are the fragments actively transported towards the nucleus and imported thru the nuclear pores, or does this happen by simple diffusion? The former may be more likely for large fragments of the kilobase range, while the latter may be more likely for those under 100bp. But regardless of the exact mechanisms, we already know from decades of research experience that a proportion of foreign DNA inserted into a cell will end up in the nucleus where it can directly interact with genomic DNA and this will result in insertion mutations at some frequency.
{Calypso comment}
4. There are many- billions- of fragments in a shot, so the number inserted into a cell can be large.
5. Some of the DNA fragments- naked DNA- will end up in the nucleus.
6. Along the way or at the nuclear membrane the DNA fragments can bind with DNA binding proteins and be trafficked through the nuclear membrane pores.
7. The small DNA fragments might freely diffuse through the nuclear pores. (Some will inevitably get there.) Others might enter through active transport. If the segment contains an active portion of the SV40 insert, then it will likely actively transport.
8. The continuously active DNA maintenance and repair machinery will spontaneously insert DNA fragments into the nuclear genome at a rate that is proportional to the amount of DNA fragments present.
9. The insertion point could be anywhere, but would probably be in an area of greater functionality with respect to that type of cell.
10. Disruption of cell functionality is possible.
11. The inserted DNA could be passed on to the cell’s descendants, the cell could die, or the cell could become cancerous as a consequence of the insertion.
12. If the insertion is in even one cell in the reproductive system, it could have disastrous results for the offspring.
13. In general, we can not assume that the inclusion of the plasmid DNA strands is going to be benign.
Regarding #1 and #2, Dr. Buckhaults had these data:
So, this is a combined histogram of two batches. The peak of the graph is in the 90-120 base pairs. That’s about 60 kDA. It is also in the range of 30.6-40.8 nm. The size of a pore has been estimated at 2.6 nm. If we assume that the width of a DNA molecule is about the same as the distance between two rungs of a DNA ladder (.34 nm), then there is “room” for the DNA segment to move passively through a nuclear pore if it lines up approximately perpendicular to the pore opening. The paper that developed the 2.6 nm width of the “passive” pore also mentioned that there was an indication that there are a few larger openings that would allow larger molecules in.
My conclusion is that we need to better understand the biophysical dynamics around the nuclear pore.
However, let’s get to Dr. Buckhaults’ slide on observations: (This is a slide, so I can’t number the observations/hypotheses.)
The first statement is definitive: “is”. That is the result of his research as well as an increasing number of other studies.
The second statement is speculative: “could be the cause”. The most likely cause, though, is the spike, whether natural, or more likely now, the modSpike from the shot.
The third statement is “can and likely will integrate.” This is the equivalent to my #5 at the beginning of this post. This has to be qualified by a better understanding of the pore biophysics. I understand that the science of practitioners of this field would say “can and likely” but I’m going to be looking into this further, based on the geometry of the issue, if nothing else.
The fourth statement include “a very real hazard,” which is a way of saying, I think, that there is a real probability. So I have to look into how the immune system would recognize the segment has been incorporated. I would assume some non-natural body protein would be produced. That is a statistical issue. Maybe, maybe not. What we do know is that the modSpike will always be a problem by construction, so that would be a priority.
The last statement includes “There is also a theoretical risk.” Again speculative, but a scientific hypothesis based on solid reasoning.
The last statement seems to have caught the attention of the world and politicians.
Dr. Buckhaults presented a slide that said “…each shot has about 200 billion pieces of plasmid DNA encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticle.” So this has to be incorporated into any theoretical statistics to establish the probability that a DNA piece will make it into the DNA, be a hazard, and/or cause cancer. That is a very big number. However, this is not the number that makes it into a cell. Estimates I’ve seen are that there are 30 trillion cells in a human body, more or less. That’s maybe 1 DNA piece for every 150 cells, assuming an even distribution throughout the body; not likely to be the case, but still something to keep in mind.
Dr. Buckhaults recommends the “we should sequence a few hundred people and find out if this DNA ever got into the human genome” You can see in the video that the politicians jumped on this. It is both “easy” and hard to do.
I recommend a different path, one that will be politically palatable at the legislative level and both scientifically and, from a pharmaceutical point of view, more effective. But before that, I want to include a comment made after Aussie17s article on a political pathway:
Sep 19·edited Sep 19Liked by Aussie17
thank you Aussie17,
please know we have instituted legal proceedings here in Australia directly at Pfizer and Moderna alleging the C19 products of both companies satisfy Australian legal definitions for being deemed and properly called GMOs, and as such, like AstraZeneca, both companies were first required to apply for a GMO license before seeking provisional approval from the TGA
those GMO licenses may never have issued from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator dealing with GMOs in Australia without a license is a serious criminal offence
note the GMOs are in two forms: the LNP-modRNA complexes, and the LNP-modDNA complexes, where the latter is also a serious contaminate, of course in December of 2022 we notified the TGA of these GMOs, but Brendan Murphy denied the allegation we again notified the TGA and OGTR of the DNA contamination in early July 2023 .. no response this time .. then we filed the proceedings against Pfizer and Moderna details of the case and the letters sent to the TGA, OGTR, Pfizer and Moderna, can be read here:
https://amps.redunion.com.au/australian-court-covid19-drugs-gmo-pfizer-moderna-law
further references and media here on the CHD AU website:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org.au/uncategorized/are-pfizer-and-modernas-c-19-shots-gmos/
thank you for further raising awareness on this subject which clearly has global ramifications and consequences
Julian Gillespie
That sounds like a reasonable approach for Australia. I don’t know if it would work in the US. There might be other approaches that can be used, depending on a country’s laws with respect to what in the US is a bioweapon countermeasure.
I want to suggest a more direct approach. It has 3 parts and has multiple simultaneous uses and benefits over and above tackling the DNA in a shot problem.
I am including at this point a document; just two pages. It is in the form of a resolution, something we use in the US to build a band-wagon of support.
Title: Establish a State-wide Reliable, Timely Disease Data Management and Control System
WHEREAS: No specifications for quality control were contained in the development and manufacturing contracts for the Covid-19 mRNA “vaccines” and, to date, there is no evidence of adequate quality control. Evidence is available and documented in research papers of contamination and various parts and pieces of the primary components of the vaccine. There is no data on how this impacted South Carolinians.
WHEREAS: Both the federal and state governments used the psyOps weapon of FEAR to
motivateforce citizens to accept the “vaccine” without full informed consent. The federal and state governments, as well as the media, falsified data, manipulated hospital records, used funding toforceencourage compliance, mismanaged and misapplied protocols, etc., emphasized cases rather than severe outcomes, used “fact checking” to provide misinformation, ALL to instill FEAR. We stipulate that this was morally reprehensible. DHEC “passed through”, apparently without critical review, the federal government’s faulty information. DHEC continues to report on their web page that the mRNA “vaccines” are “safe and effective.” Both are demonstrably untrue and legally open the state up to civil and perhaps criminal suits because those statements are misleading and negate “informed consent.” On the other hand, DHEC did not and does not have available accurate, dependable effectiveness and adverse effects data in order to provide accurate advice to the SC government and its citizens.WHEREAS: All available AE data show the severe AEs are running somewhere between 7% and 15% of the population, but we do not have accurate data on SC. Through FOIAs, DHEC has admitted there is no system for tracking effectiveness and adverse effects of pharmaceuticals. For the Covid-19 era, the only real attempt at accurate data was to track shots in the arm. This is a faulty metric for pharmaceuticals and the responsibility for such metrics goes up to Governor McMaster. No doubt he was misinformed on the correct metrics for managing infectious disease, which then goes back to DHEC. The state does not have an effective and responsive methodology for tracking the effectiveness and adverse effects of a pharmaceuticals or, for that matter, treatment procedures. Neither does it have an effective earlier warning system and early treatment procedure methodology for future disease management.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Governor McMaster shall order an independent (of DHEC) forensic analysis conducted to determine all biological and non-biological components and their proportions of countermeasure vials used in the state. The toxicity of all the ingredients should be established, where the definition of toxicity shall be adhered to regardless of the advertised effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: An independent organization be established that manages a new statewide database for anonymously tracking and analyzing patient data to faithfully and accurately measure effectiveness and safety. This organization, management methodology, and database system is an industry standard and is called a RHIO, or Regional Health Information Organization.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: An autopsy protocol be established that (1) defines criteria for conducting an autopsy based on patient records at the time of death when there is an indication that the “vaccine” contributed to the cause of death, and (2) that defines the required autopsy procedures to accurately determine if the “vaccine” contributed adverse effects present at the time of death. Governor McMaster and the Legislature shall immediately request that the county coroners and their medical examiners establish such a system, activate it, and provide any budget requirements for the next legislative session.
The first recommendation is that all boxes that reach the final reception point, whether they be a hospital, clinic, drug store, whatever and wherever a shot is given, be set aside until a vial or two, depending on the size of the batch (a batch can be millions of doses). These vials would be tested for ALL contaminants, including the DNA. Any vial that has ANY contamination would mean that the entire box would be sent to a certified independent lab within the local jurisdiction for further evaluation. The evaluation would follow statistical quality principles of random samples, but elimination of the entire box would be in the workflow when a statistical limit is reached. The box would be sent back to the manufacturing location it was sent from or to a national lab. None of the vials would be used for humans: ever. Additionally, if the statistical limit is reached, then all boxes from the same batch would be withdrawn from circulation, never to be used in humans. Testing would be required. The manufacturing plant would be shut down until it could be recertified as GMP. The logistics process would also need to be recertified. If the defective boxes were found to be along one logistics path, that path would be shut down. Any final treatment center would be shut down in that path. All until the process could be recertified GMP. I’ll leave it to your imagination how long the shot could be distributed anywhere.
This recommendation would replace part of Dr. Buckhaults’ recommendation. This should be implemented as a matter of safety (“Safe and Effective”) by the state or local health department without the need for legislation. All the data on contamination they need has been published. The process can be started now. Sure, the health department will scream that it has no money, but you would think that the governor or head of the government at whatever level this is at, would consider it a primary duty to insure the heath and safety of the citizens and, for the current fiscal year, move emergency money around to implement this process. The legislature, which would want to insure the health and safety of its citizens, would have to include necessary funds in the next budget… wouldn’t they?
The second part, and the third part of the attached resolution, involves a systematic approach for autopsies. This systematic approach has two parts:
1. Defining the criteria for a mRNA-related autopsy: This would be based on ICD codes as well as any additional optional choice by the doctor certifying the death certificate or the coroner. I don’t doubt that this will be a learning process… something AI is really good at. (See the third part of the resolution). For example, all sudden deaths of otherwise healthy people would be a “duh.” Turbo cancers, myocarditis, etc. Go down the list. Using the 3rd part of the resolution, the patients could be flagged immediately upon death, at the point of death. New ICD codes could be entered into the EMR and the proper paperwork prepared.
2. Define the procedures for a mRNA-related autopsy: I would imagine many of the procedures would be non-invasive. Some would be statistically driven, based on the current number of deaths related to a specific ICD code pattern. Most would involve drawing and storing blood and lymph samples that would be stored regardless of any other procedure. A fraction would involve an invasive procedure, some for research purposes, others to determine actual cause of death.
These two steps would replace Dr. Bulkhaults’ recommendation. It would cover both vial sampling, to prevent contaminated shots, and it would cover evaluating humans for the types of outcomes he hypothesizes as a result of his research.
What do you think? I will cover the actual 2nd recommendation in the Resolution, the RHIO, in a subsequent post.
To insure SAFETY of ANY pharmaceutical product, all that's needed is for everyone who stands to make a cent off if that product (including all pols & bureaucrats hyping its sale/use), together with their entire family, be required to have that product tested ON THEM for as long as it takes to prove that it's not harmful. The fact that none of these ppl EVER volunteers to be a lab rat (except in phony photo-ops) says everything we need to know about that product's safety.
“3. There is no significant defense against the DNA fragments once they enter the cell. The one defense mechanism one could reference is the lysosome, but that would be judged insignificant.”
Technically speaking, there are defenses against foreign DNA inside the cell:
"Regulation of the cytosolic DNA-sensing system in innate immunity: a current view"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952791509000077?via%3Dihub
However, practically speaking, these mechanisms do not provide complete protection. In the present context of Pfizer shots, with the massive number of DNA fragments getting dumped into a limited number of cells, many of the pieces will end up in cell nuclei. Do the large numbers overwhelm the innate cellular defenses? Are the fragments actively transported towards the nucleus and imported thru the nuclear pores, or does this happen by simple diffusion? The former may be more likely for large fragments of the kilobase range, while the latter may be more likely for those under 100bp. But regardless of the exact mechanisms, we already know from decades of research experience that a proportion of foreign DNA inserted into a cell will end up in the nucleus were it can directly interact with genomic DNA and this will result in insertion mutations at some frequency.
With large numbers, low probability events become inevitable.