Pfizer switched templates that could cause permanent genome changes to those injected & their offspring…[Senate Hearing]

IN C19 Vials
  • Updated:7 months ago
  • Reading Time:27Minutes
  • Post Words:6890Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

No mention of the other garbage and unidentified material found by other labs all around the world, which makes me put my skeptical glasses on as to whether his testimony is meant to pivot the narrative away from people being detectable by Bluetooth; and the jailtime that should be up for grabs for those partaking in the insane & deadly pandemic policies that changed our world.

Maybe he’s just “sticking to his expertise” / staying in his lane, and only testifying that to which he personally has the credentials to back-up, or maybe he knows how nefarious it is and is trying to be diplomatic because accusing people of harm causes people to deflect at all costs? (Or maybe he knows who he is really up against…)

I’m also skeptical of anyone praising themselves for creating ‘covid-tests’ (especially “asymptomatic” covid tests). This pandemic wasn’t a pandemic without the fraudulent tests and asymptomatic narrative. (01)

(Along with the money paid to those with qualified “positive” results, or frankly, all the bonus money that went in the direction of anyone supporting the narrative…)

Anyway, enough of my pre-judgements, it’s still good to get more information that we didn’t know previously and any confession, even if down-played is a move in a positive direction. Let’s hear what he has to say:

SC Senate Hearing – USC Professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults

14 Sept 2023 YouTube | Rumble-Mirror | Download on Telegram

​​In a recent testimony before a South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee, cancer genomics expert and University of South Carolina professor Phillip Buckhaults revealed that Pfizer’s mRNA injections for COVID is contaminated with billions of tiny DNA fragments, that contain a very real hazard as they have the ability to insert themselves into a person’s genome and become a “permanent fixture of the cell.” (02)

He’s a true believer in the technology and seemingly the covid narrative as well, got 3 Pfizer jabs himself and said he recommended to his friends, elderly parents and daughters. It’s also his bread and butter.

There could be malice underneath… but I’m trying to see just incompetence to be gracious.” He believes that the panic and hysteria surrounding the “pandemic” resulted in “a lot of shortcuts taken” to get the injections into people’s arms at warp speed.

He explains that there are two different manufacturing processes that were used to make the Pfizer injection: one being polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify the DNA template used for mRNA production, and the other being an upscaled version of the first process to further amplify the mRNA and get the jabs produced as quickly as possible.

According to the Brownstone Institute, that second amplification process utilizes bacteria to generate large quantities of “DNA plasmid,” or circular DNA instructions. As a result, the end product gets contaminated with both plasmid DNA and mRNA. (03)

Pfizer tried to fix this problem by inserting DNAse enzymes to chop up the plasmid into millions of tiny fragments, which only made the problem worse.

Pfizer chopped them up to try to make them go away, but they actually increased the hazard of genome modification in the process

Once injected and the chemicals work their “magic,” a fully vaccinated person’s DNA will never again exist in natural form. “DNA is a long-lived information storage device. It’s what you were born with, you’re going to die with and pass on to your kids … So alterations to the DNA … well, they stick around.

Transcript and Screenshots

So, a little bit of what am I doing here. For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Dr. Phillip Buckhaults. I have a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology. 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 messed with during your lifetime and which of those things cause cancer and which ones don’t.

So technically, that means that I’m very, very skilled in the art of DNA sequencing. 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—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 detecting foreign pieces of DNA in places where they’re not supposed to be, even if they’re low levels.

And we used those skills during the pandemic to—we invented the COVID test that many of you did, a spit test, 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.

The early publications showed that it stopped infection, but that only lasted for like a month.

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 my philosophical bent here is, I’m sure many of you have heard of Occam’s razor, right? Choose the simplest of explanations. (04)

Well, there’s another one called Hanlon’s razor, which is “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”. (05)

And so I’m trying to be gracious here in many circumstances; there could be malice underneath, but I’m trying to see just incompetence to be gracious.

So the Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma 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 Columbia, 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 Columbia. 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. So there are a lot of cases now of people having suspicious deaths after the vaccine. It’s hard to prove what caused it; it’s just, you know, temporarily associated. And this DNA is a plausible mechanism.

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 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 thing. It is in that cell, and all of its progeny from now on, forever more, amen.

So that’s why I’m kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine. 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 theoretically 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 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.

A little nerdy science here: the central dogma of molecular biology is that DNA gets transcribed into RNA. And then RNA gets translated into protein. This is just how life runs.

Why does this matter? Well, DNA, for the purposes of this discussion, DNA is a long-lived information storage device. What you were born with, you’re going to die with, and passed on to your kids. DNA lasts for hundreds of thousands of years, and it can endure for generations if you pass it on to your kids. 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 pseudo-uridine was supposed to make the RNA last a little bit longer, but still, it’s a transient phenomenon. We’re talking hours to days.

And then proteins, once they are made, also don’t last forever. 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.

So this is a picture of the sequencing run that I did in the lab from a couple of batches of the Pfizer vaccine.

  • LHS: All those little bitty lines here are the little tiny pieces of DNA that are in the vaccine. They don’t belong there. They’re not part of the sales pitch for the marketing campaign. And they’re there. There’s a lot of them.
  • RHS: This little graph here in the middle is the size distribution that peaks around 100 base pairs, 120 base pairs. So the DNA pieces that are in the vaccine are short little pieces, about 120 base pairs. There are 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 piece of DNA integrating into the human genome is unrelated to its size. 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 you shoot buckshot, you have a bigger probability of hitting it with some shot, right? 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 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.

Senator Tom Corbin (Chairman): Dr. Buckhaults, are you capable of doing that?

Yeah, we do that kind of thing, but in order for it to be trustworthy by the public, this has to be done by lots of people.

Senator Tom Corbin: I’ll talk to you more about that later.

Yeah, this is our deal. This is why I know this should have been done at the federal level.

So we took all these pieces of DNA and we used them to glue together what the source DNA must have been. This is what we do in the lab all the time.

  • LHS: And all these little red and green lines here, these all end up as little pieces of DNA. This must have had 100,000 pieces of DNA in this sequencing run.
  • RHS: 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 Agilent, and it’s clear that Pfizer took this plasmid, and then they cloned spike into it, and they used it 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. (06)
  • LowerLHS: And then you take this mRNA and you mix it with 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 make some effort to chop it up, so all these little pieces of the plasmid got packaged in with the RNA. It’s clear as day what happened just from the forensics of looking at the DNA sequencing.

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. 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 one 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 from that. There was no plasmid DNA to contaminate the stuff that was used for the trial. But 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 grow up big vats of bacteria. They make a lot of the plasmid DNA for you and use that plasmid DNA as the template to drive this transcription reaction to make your RNA. And that’s how the contamination ended up in the production batches, even though it was not in the stuff that was used for the authorization trials.

So I know it’s a little bit of nerdy science, but it has regulatory implications for you guys.

We can measure the quantity of this stuff pretty easily in the lab. We’re good at doing this kind of stuff. A colleague of mine at MIT 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. 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 I estimate that there were about 2 billion copies of the one piece that we’re looking for in every dose.

And if you look back at that map, I showed you where the little piece that we’re looking for is just that little bit right there.

But if you see 2 billion copies of this, there’s about 200 billion of everything else.

So what this means is that there’s probably about 200 billion pieces of this plasmid DNA encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticle—in each dose of the vaccine. So it’s ready to be delivered inside the cell. This is a bad idea.


My conclusions from this: we should check a bunch of 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 plasma 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. 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.

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. 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. But they’ve got to get this problem fixed. 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.

The regulation that allowed this DNA to be there in the first place, I don’t think that the amounts there actually exceed the regulation limits. In some batches it may; 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 the 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 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 a 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. 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, “there’s nothing wrong here”, you know, it’s going to take some encouragement to make people prove that it’s okay. 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

Senator Richard Cash: Doctor, we appreciate all that you’re saying, although we don’t understand most of what you’re saying. But what is going to help us is to know what you can do, like checking a bunch of vaccinated people.

Of course, that’s what I can do.

Senator Richard Cash: Right. But we 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 can do something at a state level. Some of this is going to have to be taken up by our congressman. So just whatever your remaining comments are, just keep in mind what we can do and really these technical things you’re throwing out at us, as Senator Greenville’s already mentioned, we’re going to throw right back at you because you’re the expert. So if someone’s going to do this testing, I don’t know who we’d find to do it, other than someone like you.

I can do it. Lots of other people can do it. I’ve had a lot of 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-led 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 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 now is above my pay grade.

Senator Billy Garrett

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.

There’s no evidence to that as far as I can tell.

Senator Billy Garrett: Well, I understand that. That’s why I’m asking this question. Is there some way you could get a hold of one of those and do the same study that you did on these vials to make sure that we’re not using that DNA protein or whatever it is, that the DNA that we don’t need to be injected into our constituents.

I would like to do that, and I will not get it unless I get a batch and find out that it’s free of DNA, and then I’ll take it myself. I mean, 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 doing it in such volume that way without then taking it back out later on?

I think nobody thought about it. I think it was reasonable to use the E. coli to blow up the plasma to make the stuff, and then 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.

Senator Billy Garrett: Then they knew about it?

Yeah, they knew it. And they took efforts to chop it up. They just didn’t get it all out. I guess that they just didn’t think about the hazard for genome modification. Because it’s not all that expensive to add another process to get it out.

Senator Billy Garrett: That’s what I’m saying. This was rushed too much.

I can’t get inside of my mind. I don’t know.

Senator Billy Garrett: We’ve heard testimony of these subsequent variant, subsequent boosters, etc., etc., are leading to maybe not scientific yet, but at least collateral knowledge that apparently these things are causing death and disability later on. And also the aging process, which you heard about.

There’s a lot of suspicious associations.

Senator Billy Garrett: But it seems to me before we can in South Carolina give this new vaccine a whirl around here. Seems to me that our people ought to be able to look at that, Mr. Chairman. Let’s see whether or not it’s got this DNA. And if it does, fine, tell everybody it’s got the DNA and the problems associated there with. Then you got informed consent.


Senator Billy Garrett: But without that, we don’t have informed consent. I’m not really happy about that, Mr. Chairman, and do what I can to try to help.

Knowing what I know now about this, I would still have recommended it to my elderly parents. But I probably would not have given it to my daughters. I feel like my consent was not as informed as it should have been.

Rep. Adam Morgan

Rep. Adam Morgan: I almost don’t know where to start. I’m trying not to talk because 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 have this type? Because weren’t there multiple types of vaccinations you could take?

The vast majority of people got either Pfizer or Moderna.

Rep. Adam Morgan: And we’re talking about the Pfizer.

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.

Rep. Adam Morgan: So you were here today and you’ve come to present and you noticed this. Where could you have gone if we didn’t have this kind of ad hoc hearing?

Nowhere. Twitter.

Rep. Adam Morgan: So there’s no way for you—even at your level of expertise to say, “Hey, red flag”?

I emailed the FDA and I tweeted at them. That’s about the extent of my resources.

Rep. Adam Morgan: Fascinating to me that 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 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. 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 our decision making on this kind of stuff and investigating into just letting the federal government take it and do a terrible job.

So I had a lot of experience with DHEC rolling out the saliva test. 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. There’s no fault of theirs. I told people at the time that I felt like these were hobbits in the Shire that were accustomed to take care of small problems and now all of a sudden were 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. (Red Flag for me ~ Penny… “we need more money & resources for future fake-pandemics!”..did we not learn that money is the thing driving this whole charade?)

So 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 the 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. What does Clemson do? What does USC do? 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 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.

Rep. Adam Morgan: 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 of vaccinations that’s coming from who knows where to have, it be investigated by people in our state, such as yourself, or is that…

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.

Rep. 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… 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 at DHEC. Maybe DHEC has that where they are required to look into it and have their own 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 guess I’m asking you as a professional, do you hear that and think, wow, that’s going to cost an insane amount of money and good luck?

No, I don’t think it… No, the actual, like, scientific experiments are… I don’t think will cost an insane amount of money. It’s having the regulatory 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 okay 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 federal people tell you regardless, right? Because that’s where the money comes from for a lot of the interstate infrastructure. And I think—I’m not a policy expert—but I think that a lot of financial support through the healthcare system and elsewhere was tied to compliance to the federal narratives. And so I don’t know that you can create true independence. You could maybe create some kind of oversight that would enhance the public trust in whether it was a good idea or not. And that’s a different matter from us being able to go our own way all the time. But that’s your area of expertise, not mine.

Rep. Adam Morgan: But it is possible to have somebody look into vaccinations and do similarly to what you did?

Yes, I did this on my own money with free students. I mean, yeah, this is not terribly expensive to do these kinds of tests. But, you know, there has to be in a system 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 you have to create these kind of protection bubbles.

Senator Richard Cash

Senator Richard Cash: Doctor. are you planning to publish these findings? Have you tried to publish these findings in a journal?

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 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 they’re in academia for publication, they’re all these perverse incentives in place where the kind of thing you need to be done 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, it’s hard for me listening to all this for the first time 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 does it take and how serious is it to find out this information before people keep taking these vaccines?

It takes about three hours to check a vial of vaccine to see if it’s got this in it, about 100 bucks of reagents. And I’m not going to get it unless I find 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 Tom Corbin

Senator Tom Corbin: Thank you so much for being here and I would like to say that I was sort of in the world of COVID that we’ve been dealing with, with all the lies and cover-ups and misinformation out there. I would almost call you a whistleblower. But what I would like to say 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.

Thank you very much.

From Robert Jackson, MD’s testimony re: DNA in vaccines

(Haven’t uploaded Robert’s clips yet – it’s 5am, I’ll do it tomorrow, but I like his common-sense answer)


“The testimony that we heard earlier today about there being DNA in these vaccines. Is that directly related to these incidences of long COVID?”

“Yes, ma’am. I’m convinced that it is. Now, the spike protein, I think, is the main inflammatory agent. I don’t know what the DNA contaminant is doing to my patients and that needs to be researched. My advice to my patients is don’t take the vaccine because I don’t know what it’s doing to my patients, and I’m alarmed by that.

In fact, I’ll be honest in the very beginning, all of my medical career, I’ve always told my patients do not take a new medication or vaccine until it’s been on the market for a year because I’ve seen too many things pulled off the market within the first year.

And so when this vaccine came out, my patients asked me, should I take it? I said, absolutely not. Do not take it until it’s been on the market for a year, and within the first six months, we started seeing the reports of serious adverse events, and I felt vindicated in telling my patients don’t take it, and so they kept coming back to me and saying, should I take it? And I kept saying no, no, don’t. And you see now the wisdom in that.”

From Dr Janci Lindsay, testimony re: DNA in vaccines


Dr Janci Lindsay, Ph.D. (Molecular Biologist & Toxicologist) disagrees with Phillip Buckhaults and says he’s at the stage we were at 3 years ago.

She says this is the most dangerous and nefarious platform that has ever been released on mankind and explains her reasons why she believes it was intentional.

Her testimony is a response to his is on the following post:

MRNA – Most Dangerous Platform Released On Mankind

What’s in the Vials?


Penny... on Health
Penny... on Health

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. I do not have any medical training aside from my own research and interest in this area. The information I publish is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. I just report my own results, understanding & research.