Genetic Vaccines in Animals and Food Supply - Part 2

Answering questions from readers

This is Part 2 of this series, and I am planning to write Part 3 in a couple of weeks. Part 1 can be found here:

Addressing questions from readers:

I received a lot of good feedback from Part 1 of this article. The most commonly asked question was about the risk of ingesting RNA or DNA given that these materials are part of nature and strong acid environment in the stomach will break them down. I am not totally discarding the risk of some DNA or RNA getting through the stomach given that these materials are encapsulated in chemical protectants/transfectants, and also let’s not forget that these are NOT naturally occurring DNA and RNA molecules, these are synthetic substances, often modified in order to make them stable. Even when “unmodified” they are not natural, not yours, and not compatible with living processes (they can only interfere with them).

However, I am in general much more concerned about the effects of these shots on animal health and animal microbiome, which in turn has implications for human microbiome and health. The data on safety of animal vaccines is very hard to find, but from what I found so far, it is extremely bad. Today we sadly have a much larger experiment that has been performed on humans with this technology and we know it causes literally hundreds of different severe conditions, involves every major organ system, and cancer in particular is a very common outcome. We know from both Pfizer and Moderna preclinical studies (in mice, rats and monkeys) that the RNA (and DNA plasmids) distribute all over the body and accumulate in all organs. When animals get transfected with these technologies, they likewise will develop all these types of diseases. They will get slaughtered and processed into food, and that will make our food potentially dangerous as unhealthy animals do not make healthy, nutritious food.

I am specifically concerned about the destruction of bifidobacteria and persistent damage to microbiome in humans after vaccination with mRNA. The same effect will occur in animals. This has not been measured or assessed and there is no current regulatory requirement in animal genetic vaccines to study the effects on gut biome:

Why is this concerning? I previously cited this book that discusses synthetic biology (biology is a misnomer here, it’s methods to synthesize non-natural RNA and DNA). The book’s focus is how these technologies can be weaponized. One of the main vectors of attack is gut biome of both animals and humans. Microbiome is discussed in nearly every chapter of this book. Here is information from Chapter 6:

Human health is highly dependent upon the human microbiome—the microorganisms that live on and within us, especially those associated with the gut, oral cavity, nasopharyngeal space, and skin. These populations of microbes are likely far easier to manipulate than the human host itself, making the microbiome a potentially accessible vector for attack. The human microbiome is the focus of a great deal of academic and commercial research, and microbiome manipulation is an area that is rapidly developing, as also discussed in Chapter 5.

Delivery of harmful cargo via the microbiome. As discussed in Chapter 5, the engineering of microorganisms to produce hazardous chemicals or biochemicals (including toxins) poses a medium to high level of concern and the potential for making chemicals or biochemicals in situ via the microbiome warrants a high level of concern. The microbiome could be used as a vector for other types of harmful cargoes, as well. For example, microbes could be modified to produce functional small RNAs (e.g., microRNAs [miRNAs]) that could be transferred to the host via the gut or skin microbiome¹ to cause a variety of health impacts.²

We know that covid vaccines are full of microRNAs, in fact up to 50% of the vial can be microRNA. It is so central to this concept, that Pfizer’s product is called co-miRNA-ty! The same mechanism is built into Merck’s Sequivity vaccine for pigs, which is mRNA in nanoparticle (and thus has miRNA too).

Microbes also could potentially be engineered to horizontally transfer a genetic cargo to the native microbiome to, for example, cause a host's own well-established microbes to produce a harmful biochemical. In such a scenario the harmful agent would be manufactured by organisms in the established microbiome, so the engineered microbe would need to infiltrate and persist within the microbiome only long enough to transfer its cargo to a sufficient number of native microbes. Thus, this approach would circumvent the challenges associated with establishing engineered microbes in otherwise occupied niches. There are many known instances of natural horizontal transfer events that result in the production of toxins (Kaper et al., 2004; Strauch et al., 2008; Khalil et al., 2016). It may be possible to harm a population by enhancing the spread of vectors or phage (viruses targeting bacteria [Krishnamurthy et al., 2016]) carrying such genetic cargoes.

Use of the microbiome to increase the impact of an attack. The microbiome can also potentially be exploited to design a more effective bioweapon or increase the impact of an attack. Knowledge of the human microbiome could be used to modify pathogens or their delivery mechanisms to allow more efficient propagation within or between populations, for example, by taking advantage of the frequent exchange of bacteria between humans and animals. In particular, domestic animals could be used as carriers for engineered agents transmitted via the microbiome. For example, engineered dog or cat microbiomes could be established via adulterated feedstocks or via purposeful contamination of populations in animal shelters or pet stores and then subsequently transmitted to humans. Natural transfers resulting from animal-human contact, such as the transfer of the parasite Toxoplasma gondii from cats to humans and the transfer of Campylobacter from dogs to humans, illustrate the feasibility of this approach (Jochem, 2017). Similarly, research into the role of the microbiome in pathogenesis could provide a roadmap as to how to generate improved pathogens that are better supported by their microbial peers. Studies involving wide-ranging transposon- or CRISPR-based deletion libraries of pathogens (Barquist et al., 2013) have provided many insights into pathogenesis that might have dual-use implications, and such libraries could prove useful in identifying which genes productively or specifically interact with endogenous flora to better establish a pathogen.

This is likely how wide use of genetic vaccines in farm animals can lead to a dysbiosis in humans (who are also being vaccinated):

Engineered dysbiosis. Our ever-increasing understanding of the human microbiome may lead to opportunities for engineered dysbiosis—that is, the purposeful perturbation of the normally healthy microbiome. This could be accomplished either by causing a known dysbiosis or engineering a new one, and in either case would likely involve introducing otherwise nonpathogenic microorganisms that then lead to diminutions in human health and performance. Since the microbiome likely plays a key role in human immunity (Kau et al., 2011), dysbioses could also potentially be used to cause longer-term debilitation of a population's ability to defend against disease. Gut, oral, nasal, and skin microbiomes could be targets for such an approach.

Given all of the above, it is important to note the significance of plasmid DNA “contamination” of Pfizer and Moderna vials, which includes the SV40 promoter sequence (identified only in Pfizer so far). Based on the work of David Dean at the University of Rochester (NY), plasmids can integrate into cell nucleus with or without SV40, as long as they are transported inside the cell wall by the LNPs. The plasmids can enter the cell nucleus during cell division (when nucleus disassembles), while SV40 enables entry into the nucleus of the cell even in those cells that divide slowly or do not divide.

The DNA plasmid “contaminant” can easily be included in practically all vaccines currently on the marker, animal and human, and it is likely already present in most of the vaccines mentioned in the first graphic above (see Part 1). As you may note - all of those vaccines have DNA plasmids as the 1st step of manufacture. All of them are subject to weaponization with this method, they do not have to be technically “new 3rd gen genetic vaccines”. One simply needs to relax the purification standards a bit, and look the other way (which is what FDA and USDA are currently very busy doing).

In addition to human and animal microbiome, I am very concerned about the environmental impact of these substances, and byproducts (toxins, phages, plasmids, other matter) that will contaminate the environment and water and affect other species of animals and especially soil bacteria. The effects of this at large exposure are unknown. Yet, USDA already gave a go-ahead for a new RNA based pesticide for Colorado beetle! It seems that this insanity is being pushed onto the environment from all possible angles.

It is important that we stop all injections, speak up, talk to farmers and food producers and advocate in state legislation for stopping this dangerous and completely not needed technology from being pushed on us without our consent.

I still have a lot of material to process on animal genetic vaccines, and hope to finish writing it in the next couple of weeks.

If you like this content, consider becoming a paid subscriber, or consider a one-time donation on ko-fi:

Art for today: Sheep trail, oil on linen, 12x18 in.